Rating System Proposal & Vote

[MarieH]

I got much support when I posted an old photo of a friend who passed away in January. Yes, this meant more than any numerical rating.

[Supriyo]

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.

 

John,

That helps those whose photos get consistently high ratings and unfairly suppresses those that don't. Picking on your first sentence, that ratings don't mean much, then a meaningless quantity is being used to highlight images to receive more visibility, while many potentially good photos (some with lateral thinking involved that may not seem attractive at first glance) are sent backstage. I think that's harmful for new learners who gain a lot of insight by seeing quality work.

 

Ratings usually highlight photos with aesthetics that cater to prettiness and familiarity and leave out the whimsical, the eccentric, or the ones involving some sort of acquired taste.

 

I am not saying ratings should be abolished, but it needs serious overhauling from it's current model if we are to expect any meaningful use out of it. Even in the modern world, if one pits Duchamp against Ansel Adams in a popularity contest, it's not difficult to predict who will win by a large margin. That doesn't mean much because the statistics is flawed.

[Norma Desmond]

I agree with Supriyo. Ratings, Likes, and Admires should have little, if anything, to do with visibility.

 

I haven't thought the next part of this through completely, so there may be a flaw I'm not thinking about. What about tying visibility into participation? The more one contributes to the community, the more one's photos get an increase in visibility. That would seem to encourage participation and lessen the notion that ratings, likes, and admires have any substantive meaning beyond the social interaction they may provide.

[Supriyo]

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.]

 

Good that you brought us back to topic. Thanks for that. I don't think rating is an opinion at all. It may seem so, but in reality it is just a readout of someone's feeling of a photo at a particular instant. That may have its own merit. Opinion deserves some thought or lingering over a photo that most people don't while they are in a state of flux, rating multiple photos.

[Supriyo]

I agree with Supriyo. Ratings, Likes, and Admires should have little, if anything, to do with visibility.

 

I haven't thought the next part of this through completely, so there may be a flaw I'm not thinking about. What about tying visibility into participation? The more one contributes to the community, the more one's photos get an increase in visibility. That would seem to encourage participation and lessen the notion that ratings, likes, and admires have any substantive meaning beyond the social interaction they may provide.

 

I like it, at the same time I think participation can also mean, someone uploading his whole sd card full of family photos on PN daily and thereby gaining visibility. We wouldn't want to see such photos or people highlighted. May be the visibility that the computer decides from the participation statistics can be filtered through the site moderators before actually using on the site.

[Norma Desmond]

Good point. Yes, I was thinking not in terms of number of photos uploaded but in terms of number of critiques given and number of forum posts. There may be other means of contributions that could be considered as well, if the administration wants to go this route.

[John Peri]

I wrote above on the effect of ratings on visibility. It was not a judgment value, whether one considers it a good thing, fair or not, is for each one to decide.

 

Personally, I do not approve of ratings on PN. They are not of a sufficient number or variance to be plotted in any meaningful manner and are therefore of no statistical interest. When the subject was first discussed, I voiced my opinion against ratings as I did again through my vote in this column.

[Julie H]

We had visibility with participation in the old site where those photos popped up at the bottom of every thread according to who posted. I got thoroughly sick of seeing the same photos by the same people over and over again.

[Norma Desmond]

Not quite, Julie. Visibility at the bottom of threads was only granted if a photo had been submitted for ratings, which severely limited the pool from which those photos were chosen. I am trying to untie visibility and ratings, which is precisely the opposite of the way old bottom-of-the-thread system worked.

 

Besides, I think we're talking here about a specific area where photos would be given visibility, similar to the old top-rated photos area, only without the tie to ratings. So if anyone were to become nauseated by what they were seeing, they could easily avoid that area of the site and protect their sensitive tummies. ;-)

[Supriyo]

I wrote above on the effect of ratings on visibility. It was not a judgment value, whether one considers it a good thing, fair or not, is for each one to decide.

 

Personally, I do not approve of ratings on PN. They are not of a sufficient number or variance to be plotted in any meaningful manner and are therefore of no statistical interest. When the subject was first discussed, I voiced my opinion against ratings as I did again through my vote in this column.

 

Thanks for making it clear.

[Supriyo]

Frankly I didn't know, the photos that were shown at the bottom of threads were the ones submitted for rating. I did benefit from looking at them though. Sometimes I am reading a person's comments and thinking, this guy is a complete nutjob. Then I see one of his photos that makes me view his/her entire portfolio. Then I come to think, he/she may be a nutjob, but a good photographer :D.

[Wayne Melia]

If you ignore a user, what happens? I don't know because I don't have any ignores, but is this a work around?

BTW, I can see where Julie's issue could be common. Since the change from the old format, I have become much more active in the No Words forum, but do notice a predominance of a few of us. Don't mean to be off-putting to other users, but....?

[Supriyo]

Good point. Yes, I was thinking not in terms of number of photos uploaded but in terms of number of critiques given and number of forum posts. There may be other means of contributions that could be considered as well, if the administration wants to go this route.

 

Yes, that may work better. In the old site, we used to get an icon (film roll) beside our names depending on how much we participate.

[Bill C]

I personally don't care too much about the ratings, but from what I've read in the past, many people were infuriated by what looked like intentional lowball ratings, apparently as either revenge or to knock them down as a competitor in the top-rated photos listings.

 

My solution to this sort of gaming is, rather than try to control it, to only allow raters to give a photo slight nudges up or down. But at the same time, I realize that there may not be enough raters to move things around much. I don't know what the ultimate answer will be, but I think that photo.net needs to somehow turn it into an addictive game in order to keep enough subscribers.

 

On a slightly different note, I come here mainly to answer questions, not to look at photos (I've spent my adult worklife in professional photography, including photofinishing, so I've seen plenty). The thing that currently irritates the tarnation out of me is that I can't limit my views to just forum questions - it seems that 2/3 of the forum listings are the "no words" sort. The hassle of wading through them tends to sap my ambition, and it seems a good way to help drive off technical experts, and even technical questions. I hope this doesn't happen.

[Norman 202]

I agree with Supriyo. Ratings, Likes, and Admires should have little, if anything, to do with visibility

I don't see that as a problem. Imagine someone new to photography just starting out and seeking inspiration. Looking at, and learning from, the most LIKED photographers would be a good place to start. And for all the grief about likes, the top LIKED photographs are pretty decent photographers with a wide range of interests.

[Norman 202]

[Norma Desmond]

I've been submitting photos to the No Words forum for a couple of weeks now and here's my observation. Likes seem reciprocal. I'm not giving out Likes. The first 3 photos I submitted got quite a few Likes. I've received fewer as the days go by. I see a lot of Likes being given back and forth. I suspect (suspect, am not sure) that Likes are being gamed in very much the same way as ratings were in the past. You scratch my back and I scratch yours. Several members have come through and simply liked every photo in a thread. Like is a modern day means of immediate gratification and about as hollow a gesture as I can conceive of, short of some chauvinist male patting a woman on the butt as she walks by. Likes are the Miss Popularity contest of the Internet and show me nothing of substance. It would be interesting to correlate number of likes given with number received. I don't see where we can find out how many likes a user has given. But I bet there would be an interesting relationship between giving and receiving. You may do so, Norman, but I won't be finding good photographers based on number of likes. I will continue to look through the various queues of photos and let the photos, not the likes, draw my attention. TEHO.

[Norman 202]

Fred, there is so much petty hatred in your post, I suggest you go and look up the meaning of Like

[Norma Desmond]

Norman, consider the difference between there being petty hatred (hatred, seriously? perhaps you're lucky enough never to have experienced hatred because you seem not to know what it is) in my post and there being petty hatred read into my post. I'm sorry that my distaste for Likes puts you off so. Perhaps a thicker skin would suit you.

[gordonjb]

Whether the yardstick employed is 'likes' or ratings, what rises to the top is seldom what I personally am most interested in. Under the old system at PN I assumed that I would have to look around and dig deep to find images to my liking. I don't gravitate towards the bestsellers shelf at the bookstore nor do I decide which movie to watch based on box-office sales. I'm content to chart my own course and let others like, or rate, or not, as they may choose.

[Norman 202]

Gordon, finding the list of the most LIKED photographers is not immediately obvious. If you want to hunt around hundreds of mediocre images to find images you like you can still do that.

[Supriyo]

Showing a list of photographers with most likes tells me, these are the photographers whose works many people like. It doesn't help me to find works or photographers that I like.

[Norman 202]

my post was about helping new photographers not seasoned bores

[Julie H]

What you need to do is pre-like your pictures.

 

[Supriyo]

my post was about helping new photographers not seasoned bores

 

I thought about that too. New photographers can see which photographers are popular and get an idea of what the world of photography looks like and get inspired. The problem is, their idea or inspiration would be kind of one-sided and somewhat misguided. Its not what they see in the top liked works (I am sure there are lot of good works there), its what they miss. When I first joined photography, I was also inspired by the top liked or rated works and for a while thats what I aimed for as kind of a gold standard. This is where my mistake seeped in. There are so many schools of thought and quality works, which will never make it to the top, yet are goldmines. I think, new users should be exposed to all schools of thought in photography, not just the popular ones. Thats how one learns to think and see independently and develop a path of his/her own.

 

I see this whole like thing as an analogy to high school. There are always a few girls or boys who are the most popular kids. When a new kid joins the school, they are the ones who they make friends with. However, there are shy kids who may not readily socialize with a lot of other kids, just because they aren't interested to be popular, or their taste for relationship is very specific. Meeting and interacting up close, those kids actually can be really good friends to newcomers, but they are usually obscured by the popular kids who other kids seek to copy and emulate.