Rating System Proposal & Vote

[Norman 202]

That's like the overindulgent quotationist (probably not a word)

 

how about quotographer

[Julie H]

For those reading this thread who are wondering why the heck Supriyo's good natured tangent into quotes??? It's because I use them all the time in my postings — and will continue to do so. As you can see, what I do is of *massive* importance to some photonetters.

[Norman 202]

stop being so *melodramatic*

[michaellinder]

I voted Like. OK no system will be perfect and no system will please everyone but if it kick-starts the "Seeking critique" into action and revives the comments given with more spice and interest then please Glenn lets go for it. I say this knowing my images will never be highly rated, but if the opportunity is there to encourage improvement then the site will help provide me with that. Let the members try your proposal, the basic nuts and bolts looks good and any system can be modified or tweaked at a later date. Best regards Ken.

 

I voted Like. OK no system will be perfect and no system will please everyone but if it kick-starts the "Seeking critique" into action and revives the comments given with more spice and interest then please Glenn lets go for it. I say this knowing my images will never be highly rated, but if the opportunity is there to encourage improvement then the site will help provide me with that. Let the members try your proposal, the basic nuts and bolts looks good and any system can be modified or tweaked at a later date. Best regards Ken.

[michaellinder]

Although I appreciate Glenn's efforts to analyze feedback on ratings and to propose this four-pronged rating system, I just can't seem to wrap my head around this proposal. Why even consider it given the fact that the two-pronged system in effect when I originally signed up for PN was discarded in favor of a single numerical rating? I also have the concern that, if implemented, the use of four ratings categories might have a chilling effect on those who want to expend the least amount of effort in evaluating a photograph. Stick with the principle of minimum mutilation and retain "like" and "admire."

[michaellinder]

And, please note my use of quotation marks.

[Ian Taylor]

Conception/Execution

[G-P]

While I don't really post for ratings, when I do, numbers mean nothing to me. I highly value even a few words that someone takes the time to write. The one thing none of us have an infinite supply of is time, so when someone takes actual time to express their feelings about an image I have shared, I feel honored. Last year, my beloved golden retriever Fenris died, and my grief was shared here, in photos and remembrances. Several kind words from the community helped me through the process of heal. Not healing, because you never get over losing a friend like Fenris, but heal as in making me realize even more that time is precious.

 

I voted "don't care" obviously. I will always get more from a word of praise or advice, plainly written, than all the radio buttons in the world.

Sorry so for your loss of Fenris - they are members of your family and in some cases loved even more than family.

Although I appreciate Glenn's efforts to analyze feedback on ratings and to propose this four-pronged rating system, I just can't seem to wrap my head around this proposal. Why even consider it given the fact that the two-pronged system in effect when I originally signed up for PN was discarded in favor of a single numerical rating? I also have the concern that, if implemented, the use of four ratings categories might have a chilling effect on those who want to expend the least amount of effort in evaluating a photograph. Stick with the principle of minimum mutilation and retain "like" and "admire."

 

Just to be clear: Admire would remain as a "quick rate" on all photos. For those that want more: they would opt in for A.) ratings only, B.) critique only OR C.) ratings and critiques.

Edited March 29, 2017 by G-P

[MarieH]

I have learned more from commentary than numerical rating. I would like it to be more honest if its implemented. I don't care about all the possible categories as technical merit etc, but a generalized system where the rater must comment in more than 25 words might work.As well leave it open but disallow new accounts to rate, or paying accounts only may rate, to discourage multiple account holders.o_O

[Dieter Schaefer]

It was a good thing when "originality" was dropped; so why bring it back again?

 

Some 10+ years, I participated in the ratings game but together with a few others got so fed up with it that we altogether left PN. Obviously, I returned but have not submitted for rating nor participated in rating and have no intention of picking it up again. So, obviously, I am in the "don't care" category. Whatever numerical rating scheme with however many aspects will eventually be established, it will have its flaws and there will be endless debates on how to improve upon it. The only critique/rating scheme that I've ever seen that at least halfway worked was the one on the long defunct photoSIG site (and it involved a means for a user to mark a critique as helpful or not).

[michaellinder]

I have learned more from commentary than numerical rating. I would like it to be more honest if its implemented. I don't care about all the possible categories as technical merit etc, but a generalized system where the rater must comment in more than 25 words might work.As well leave it open but disallow new accounts to rate, or paying accounts only may rate, to discourage multiple account holders.o_O

I couldn't agree more, Marie. Ratings have no educational value whatsoever.

[Supriyo]

For those reading this thread who are wondering why the heck Supriyo's good natured tangent into quotes??? It's because I use them all the time in my postings — and will continue to do so. As you can see, what I do is of *massive* importance to some photonetters.

 

I thought that was our little secret. You spilled it! :D

 

I know you will continue to do what you think is appropriate, and my post was not intended to hurt/criticize you. Just when I saw your comment, couldn't resist starting a little banter. Here is a quotation for you:

 

"I make fun of you because I feel you exist." - Supriyo Bhattacharya

Edited March 31, 2017 by Supriyo

[Julie H]

"I make fun of you because I feel you exist." - Supriyo Bhattacharya

 

 

But where? There is a reason why the toreador-ess uses a cape.

 

(and so does Supriyo Bhattacharya — with flair.)

[Supriyo]

But where? There is a reason why the toreador-ess uses a cape.

 

(and so does Supriyo Bhattacharya — with flair.)

 

For me, you exist in your opinions, your reactions (or lack of), your strengths and weaknesses (at times) ... part of you that gets transmitted in cyberspace. Sometimes you exist because you make me think.

 

Toreador kills it's prey at the end. I see your cape. Where's your sword?

[Zbigniew Tyburczy - ZT]

Now,(sorry for that) It's not just about ratings. I think all members of PN II should be more active and comment some photos whether they like them or not.

Comments are always far more valuable than the best rating system...

Edited April 1, 2017 by ZT

[Julie H]

For me, you exist in your opinions

 

 

Now we're back on topic. This points nicely to the problem with ratings. You believe that opinions reveal. I believe that, as long as you or whomever receives my opinion doesn't know, or respect or listen to what it is an opinion *of* then that opinion reveals nothing at all.

 

Ratings as expression of opinions: I think it is a very common belief that we are rating the same picture. We're not. There's a common belief that a critique is not really necessary because we both know what we're looking at: DUH! the picture! It's right there! DUH!

 

When, in fact, what I see is *never* the same as what you see when you look at that picture (see, for example any of the PoW discussions). My descriptions of what I see and am made to feel when looking at a picture are not opinions. They are what I see. My opinions are then drawn from what I see; my opinions are dependent upon, are a result of what I see. Since what I see and what you see are different, without a description of what each of us is seeing, the opinion or the rating is utterly meaningless.

 

My opinion is *of* some thing; it's meaningless unless you are able and willing to hear my description, to hear MY "of," and not assume that it's a mistake or a delusion or a fantasy or just baloney as opposed to YOUR "of" which is, of course, right there, how can I disagree? it's that picture DUH !. Even when done without rancor, that assumption of the invalidity of seeing that does not jibe with your own because DUH! we're looking at the same thing, leads to a lot of useless, worthless miscommunication. IMO, ratings are one such. I don't mind the existence of ratings, I just think they're meaningless.

 

[The "you" and "your" in the above is directed at the general audience, not at Supriyo in particular.]

[Norman 202]

I don't mind the existence of ratings, I just think they're meaningless

 

they're not meaningless. a like, admire or rate is highly suggestive of something. it's not necessary to spell out what that something is or even if it is even the same thing that caused me to react.

[Norma Desmond]

When, in fact, what I see is *never* the same as what you see when you look at that picture (see, for example any of the PoW discussions). My descriptions of what I see and am made to feel when looking at a picture are not opinions. They are what I see.

They are descriptions of what you see. When you and Supriyo look at the same picture, unless you're each living alone inside your own heads (which you're not) you're seeing the same thing and thinking about it and describing it differently. I've read some descriptions of photos and I know as well as I know anything that the description is simply a bizarre pretense and has very little to do with what the viewer is actually seeing. Sometimes the description is a flight of the viewer's imagination based on, but not descriptive of, what the person is seeing. People can also interpret the same thing differently, slightly different from describing it differently. These are all a step beyond seeing.

 

We share a reality, helped along by our communities and culture, our shared language, values and symbolism. We are not as isolated as it may seem. A photo is not whatever you make it out to be, want it to be, or force it to be. It's what the photographer made.

 

Go to an exhibit of Roman Vishniac's photos sometime. Not in a book or in your head. Go to a real live exhibit that exists in the real live world. Look at people's facial expressions and body gestures. You'll see that people are very much seeing the same thing. Their reactions will vary in nuance but rarely in overall tone and demeanor. Social interaction reveals a lot. One thing it reveals is that we're not all walking around cocooned and consumed by some sort of exclusive inner life.

[Julie H]

I have good, intelligent friends for whom I have every respect who voted for Donald Trump. I did not vote for Donald Trump. When they describe what they see around them, it bears almost no resemblance to what I see around myself. It would be lovely if we all saw the same things as the same things: the evidence does not support that claim.

[Norma Desmond]

Let's stick to photography.

[Julie H]

One thing it reveals is that we're not all walking around cocooned and consumed by some sort of exclusive inner life.

 

 

Exactly.

 

It is necessary *not* to be cocooned in order to realize that other people see things differently than you do. It is necessary to have asked for their description of what they see in order to realize that it is different, rather than assuming that it is or must be the same. And it is necessary to honor and respect that person's description just as the other person will, in a best of all possible worlds, honor and respect your description of what you see. From mutual respect may come understanding.

[Norma Desmond]

Just because I mentioned some cases where descriptions are a matter of pretension doesn't mean I think all or most are. I mentioned imaginative descriptions which I highly respect and love to hear. But I understand that they are descriptions and not what the person is seeing. Relate this to photography. A photo is not the same as the thing photographed. A description is not the same as the thing described. A description of what you see is not what you see.

 

While I don't much care for ratings, there's something basic and more simple in a rate than a description. A rate, being an abstract numerical shout-out, may just be closer to what one sees than a critique, which is more descriptive and therefore more about what one is adding to what one sees.

[Supriyo]

Just because I mentioned some cases where descriptions are a matter of pretension doesn't mean I think all or most are. I mentioned imaginative descriptions which I highly respect and love to hear. But I understand that they are descriptions and not what the person is seeing. Relate this to photography. A photo is not the same as the thing photographed. A description is not the same as the thing described. A description of what you see is not what you see.

 

While I don't much care for ratings, there's something basic and more simple in a rate than a description. A rate, being an abstract numerical shout-out, may just be closer to what one sees than a critique, which is more descriptive and therefore more about what one is adding to what one sees.

 

Fred, I agree with you that individual ratings carry a meaning and it can connect to a person's thinking and way of seeing. However when multiple ratings are averaged into a single statistical quantity like PN does, thats where I have a problem. The statistics is flawed and the sampling is prone to bias. It may be helpful to see who is giving what rating, but that is not allowed for valid reasons. However, without that, for most of my photos except a few predictable ones, I simply have to ignore the average ratings or be left scratching my head.

[John Peri]

Ratings are unreliable if you want them to mean something, for all the reasons labored over in these columns. Nevertheless, irrespective of the numbers given, they are effective when used to float images to the top of a collection, like in the old PN where visibility was increased by inclusion in a list of "most rated". In my experience, they more or less doubled the number of views in the short term of approx. one week.

[Julie H]

Nevertheless

 

 

I agree, very much. There's all kinds of useful social interaction that has no clear meaning, yet is valuable (or even lovable ... ). Ambient sound has flavor and worth; all the little things that say "we're here."