nicholas_lindan Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Rating originality is a sticking point for me. The present ratings values of Very Bad -> Excellent seem to work well for aesthetics; but just what Very Bad originality is I have yet to figure out, and from my readings here I don't thing the forum hosts have quite figured it out either. I would propose relabeling the Originality 1-7 as: 1 - Banal - Severe overload of this image 2 - Very Common - See it everywhere 3 - Common - See a lot of it 4 - Average - Another in a long series, but I'll look 5 - Striking - Causes pause 6 - Rare - Only seen a few like it, worth a study 7 - Original - Never seen anything like it I am not stuck on the points in the scale or their descriptions (no more so than any other author), but I hope I have conveyed the gist of the idea. Nick Lindan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim schwaiger Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 There is a consensus here that there is no consensus about what "Originality" means for the rating system. The tutorial defines it totally different from your concept (and most members probably think of it like you do). Even the management of the site agreed long ago that they need to simply remove the Originality/Aesthetics system of ratings. Aesthetics doesn't mean how "attractive" the image is either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Good idea, Nick. That's why it'll never be accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Nick, you are perhaps correct that "Very Bad" to "Excellent" is not the way to describe the numbers in the Originality scale. However, your words and the descriptions imply strongly that "originality" is related to the number of times a viewer has seen an image "like" the one being rated. This makes originality based on what the viewer has already seen rather than an attempt to appraise the degree of creativity, cleverness, humor, vision, sympathy and understanding of the subject, technical mastery, luck, etc involved in creating the photograph. If the rater looks at thousands of photos every day, by your scale, probably few of them would be original. No portrait could ever be original because hundreds of millions have already been taken, and most people have seen thousands of them. YOur scale misses other important issues. For example, a bootprint in the sand. Ho hum. But what if you're told that it is Neil Armstrong's boot and the sand is moon dust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Are some genres exempt from the 'originality' rating? Many raters on photo.net seem to think so. One of my highest rated images is one of my rare attempts to find the generally recognized tripod holes at the Glade Creek Grist Mill. My lowest scoring image is a light painted stone ruin at Whiskey Creek. Very few people are doing this kind of work, here or elsewhere. One of the highest rated images on photo.net is a flower macro. It's a beautiful image. Should it be exempt? Should the 'originality' rating be higher if it's been manipulated in PS and this sort of thing is new to you? The current default setting on the high rated photos page makes this whole debate less important because what is now being rewarded is a response to an image that compels you to rate it - high or low and for whatever reason you think is important. As an alternative, let a group of rotating experts who are familiar with their respective genres pick a POD for each of several genres. The POW - not picking on anyone - gets old after only a day or two and more often than not is heavily contaminated with comments that reflect genre preference. Too many people are neither qualified (by virtue of experience) or inclined to rate 'originality' as I think photo.net intends. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Nicholas, read what Brian and Carl just wrote. You are, and many more people are mistaken about what the originality rating means at all... Read the tutorial again as well...<p>This leads me to think that the rating tutorial should really be read carefully by all. Maybe it would also need to be explained more in-depth, with examples... I remember post a thread long ago asking for "rating guidelines". That's exactly what I meant.<p>Or the originality rating could fly to the trash - I honestly wouldn't mind... The idea of having a single rating instead of O & A has been in the air for very long... Or categories would help viewers to appreciate originality within each genre instead of comparing genres...<p>Finally, let me tease Brian a bit...:-)<p>I haven't heard from you in the rating inflation thread or on Jim's rating proposal, and I see you posting here to explain to an individual what the tutorial ignored by so many already explains... Aren't general problems more important than specific ones... Mmmm ? :-) I'm jealous. Nicholas got an answer and we didn't, Carl... Damn ! :-))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 I am aware that you have had very little time for photo.net threads last month, so please don't mind the above too much... I was just somehow trying to get your attention on a few threads which were imo very important - that's about all... I just added a bit of pepper to the salad, but basically, it was just a little advertising for those dying threads... Best regards - and sorry for the pun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudley Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Seems to me the problem is the definition of average. Below average originality seems oxymoronic without some considered thought - even with Brian's definition - less clever than the average? Maybe when I leave the lens cap on, or forget the film... So is it average for the site, average for the genre, average of all photos ever taken? I dont think it really matters - an uncontrololed rating system will never work properly (professional judges in the olympics agreeing!?!) but it makes for interestin feedback, and a way to find the better presented photos on the site. How about disregarding the highest and lowest scores? As an aside, why do photos now hang at four ratings? before christmas it was usually five.. did something change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Dudley, the rating universe is all the images on photo.net . . . . a well kept secret. :- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudley Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Bugger... I'd better look at a few more photo.net photos before i do any rating.... what is a reasonable random sample from 472,000 photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now