Make rates not critiques?

[root]

Jud, a lot of netters have figured out the point you've made about

voting, but a lot haven't. More than once, I've received comments

that indicate they really like the image . . . and then they don't

rate it. I disagree that constructive criticism without a rate is

insulting because it suggests that we should feel obligated to promote

an image that we feel needs work and is perhaps already overrated.

Bottom line is that no contest that I've ever seen allows unlimited

entries, and - more importantly - unlimited votes. . . .

[niranjn]

Jud, only the DEFAULT view is analogous to voting. Don't confuse it with the rating system that's at work here. And this view can be gamed as easily or even more easily than the other views.

 

The analogy with popular music is flawed. Spears and Eminem don't decide to buy all of each other's CDs and thus show increased sales. Real popularity vs photo.net's manufactured popularity.

 

Damn, this went off topic. Weren't we supposed to be roasting Andrew VonBank in this thread and making him an example for all that is ill here? And maybe some others as well? Have a flame war (ah, I miss Usenet!)? At the very least, we will get to see how articulate the mate raters are, since we don't get that assessment from their one word comments. I am, of course, half kidding.

 

(Obligatory Rating System Improvement: reduce the reward. make the top page out of a random set of photographs culled out of the top X images)

[jud]

Apologies in advance if I continue interrupting a good flame session :)

 

Note: Of the options available in the ranking criteria on the "top rated page", seven of the 14 are determined by either counting or summing various fields. Also, since the "Top rated" link on every page header (as well as the photo.net homepage) goes to the "Default view", it is by far the most often viewed of the "Top rated" pages.

 

Niranjan and Carl both raise an interesting point about the idea of unlimited votes, although as I stated, the point of my analogy was that popularity did not always follow artistic merit.

 

How and why we "vote" is central to the discussion of ratings vs. critiques, IMO. If you have read much of the Phillip Greenspun's technical (non-photography) work, you will know that he is interested in building online communities, and photo.net is one successful incarnation of his ideas. The basic challenge is how to get a large collection of people with widely varying interests, backgrounds and skillsets to be active in a community. As part of that, how can a system be devised which highlights significant contributions of community members, in essence rewarding them for contributing, and encouraging others to do the same. IMHO, that's what the top-rated pages are for: to encourage community members to produce meaningful content, spend time reviewing others work, and conduct meaningful discourse (as well as eventually shelling out some cash-ola for these same pleasures ;) They have other purposes to, like advertising the site.

 

The current default rating system is additive� a person can only enhance the popularity of a picture by rating it. By leaving a critical comment (in either sense of the word), one can provide additional feedback. A "!!!! 7/7" is not the most useful comment, but it does tell the recipient two important things: "I like your work" and often: "Please check out mine". (Someone had an amusing new ID along those lines� Doug Burgess?)

 

Would I, as a relative amateur, be able to give useful technical suggestions to a professional who has been doing this for 10+ years? Probably not� At best I can accurately describe my reaction to his or her work, and perhaps summarize with a number, (typically between 4-7, which seems to be shrinking ever closer to 6/7 or the binary "like it/don't like it", which still conveys useful information ). On the other hand, in the reverse situation, when the more experienced photographer points out everything that, in his/her opinion I did incorrectly, I might get a little huffy. (Of course, I also might be very grateful for meaningful feedback, too. Hint, hint ;-)

 

Marc wrote that he could find something wrong with almost any image� That is probably true! I can, too, but can you also find something to praise in every image? For those of us starting out, it is often as helpful to be told what we're doing correctly as to be told what we're doing wrong. As someone who has taught and coached for nearly 10 years, I know that people respond to a variety of techniques, but novices tend to respond best to positive feedback, or specific (and limited) negative feedback. Very few people at any level respond well to being criticized for more than a couple things in a session�there's some psychology behind this, but I won't go into it here :) Reinforce some of the successful techniques, stick to pointing out the most glaring error or two, and then move on �

 

Carl made some very important points about how to approach ratings (and I just echoed them.) He also wrote that having to consider the impact his critiques would have would be ultimately "discouraging"� Perhaps, but that's why it is more difficult to be a teacher than a critic ;)

 

So what does this have to do with the original thread: well, it gets back to WHY one would leave either a critique or a rating in the first place. If one is trying to teach, then consider how best to do it. Anyone who has attended a university should be able to attest that mere mastery of a subject does not enable one to convey it in a clear, meaningful and entertaining manner :) If one is merely being critical because one no longer has the capability to significantly downrate an image, then don't be surprised if it is not well received. If one wants only to express interest in an image, leave a rating (and hopefully a comment :) If one is merely looking to improve one's own vision, give careful and honest consideration as to whether or not someone else's photograph is the place to do it publicly :) Look at the community as a whole, and consider why the rating/critique system is there AT THE MACRO LEVEL: to enhance interaction among community members and help the community to grow by adding value.

 

[seven]

Ratings are shorthand. A critique registers in the member's workplace, and frequently generates an email alert; this informs the member that his/her image has received attention : so they click on a hyperlink to gather the information (feedback.) Ratings alone don't do that.<p>Leaving a verbal and numerical critique is duplication; yet is often done for the sake of visibility (and to register those 7s)<p>

Ratings on their own mean nothing because each of us holds a different average. A 5/5 from me genuinely indicates "pretty Good." It does not do so in the case of someone running a 6/6 (awarded) average.<p>

Visibility is in fact more important than many think. Insofar as photo.net is concerned, it is the face we present to the visual arts world, I'm not alone in having sold work through PN visibility. <p>

I almost always find the good and mention that in my preamble. In this instance it wasn't crucial (so I believed) for two reasons : 1. I have previously critiqued the member's work, he knows I appreciate his output; 2. I <i> thought</i> he was a fellow professional, and would never have taken him for a mate-rater (I don't use PN's rating-based search engine so am out of touch) - I haven't read his bio recently and must have mistaken him for someone else. Had I realised his level of experience and maturity beforehand, I might have chosen a more subtle approach or (probably) avoided the critique altogether.

[jud]

<i>Insofar as photo.net is concerned, it is the face we present to the visual arts world, I'm not alone in having sold work through PN visibility.</i>

<p>

Now that adds a very different dimension to the whole thing... I was not aware that some of the pros generate business from their postings (in fact I was a little shocked to see one pro prominently advertising his images for sale...) But then again, positive exposure can NEVER hurt, and even negative is sometimes better than none: "Say what you want, just spell my name right!" :)

<p>

That adds one more layer to the whole ratings "game"... Just to clarify: FWIW, I agree that your critique seemed well meaning, even handed and quite helpful... My comments are mainly about the system as a whole and not (except where noted) at specific incidents and/or individuals.

[mg]

... and me too, on that subject matter... so we are in trouble...:-))

<p>

Here you go...

<p>

"If you don't like the top image, or think that seeing the same shot reposted for the third time in six months is enough, ignore it (DON'T VOTE for it)..."

<p>

No, sorry. If that's the case, then fine, but we need to change the rating system to a simple I like it checkbox. It just doesn't make sense to write this in a system that works based on an average. Example: a picture "A" has an average of 5 after 10 ratings. You see it and you don't like, so you don't vote for it, so it remains as visible as just any other image with an average of 5 after 10 ratings. Then another fellow drops by after you, and he has a different rating philosophy. He sees the shot next to "A" - picture "B".

He hates it and says why and rates it a 1/1. What happens ? Picture be will only gain very little visibility with one more rating but will disappear on all the "quality" search system based on averages of ratings. "A" will still be there, simply because you were kind enough to avoid it - which is fine per se -, but due to the rater after you, "B" has lost visibility simply because the rater of image B wasn't as kind as you were with A. Again, the default page is NOT the only search system. And if you want to have fun, look at the top 300 average ratings on photo.net - "All" > "Average rating"... For example, one of the top 10 pictures (imo) by Emil Schildt has gone down recently by half a page simply due to 1 vote which, to me, doesn't make any sense. The present system simply encourages those who like a picture to rate it, yes, and some individuals also do the best they can to PREVENT raters who rate low to rate their work - many methods available to achieve that by the way... By having "mates" and by preventing those who dislike your work from rating it, you are sure to win on all accounts, and that's what's wrong.

<p>

"If you see an image that is rated lower than it should be, do your part and help to raise its visibility with your vote."

<p>

Yes, that's agreed. That's actually my specialty on photo.net...:-) And I might havea few ideas to "save" sleeping beauties from disappearing.

<p>

"IMHO, that's what the top-rated pages are for: to encourage community members to produce meaningful content, spend time reviewing others work, and conduct meaningful discourse"

<p>

Yes, I agree... But then, how to produce meaningful content without critiquing images that you like less than others ? That's the most meaningful kind of content imho.

<p>

"The current default rating system is additive� a person can only enhance the popularity of a picture by rating it."

<p>

Please note that the default system lasts only a while. For a picture to remain MORE visible in the long run - i.e after the 1st month -, it needs mostly high averages. And imo, that's what's wrong. If a system would purely additive, why not. Purely based on averages ? No, that's not good, because rating people down is enough to kill a picture - as you said. A mix of additive and average is therefore as right as it gets, but that's provided people all play fair: then all somehow good images will be visible somewhere in a search or another - hopefully... But practically, it doesn't really work either. Example: this portrait from Emil Schildt:

 

It has been there for a week now and bearely reached 11 ratings. I rated it 7/7, and if you go now to rate it a 3/3, it will be gone for ever - invisible to anyone outside of Emil's page. Since Emil's page is very visible, no major problem anyway, but I have seen portraits of the same caliber with 0 ratings, or with a very low average. Why ? Because the photographer did not "make friends". Basically, PR is now what determines whether you win or lose - at least for a very large part...:-)

<p>

"Would I, as a relative amateur, be able to give useful technical suggestions to a professional who has been doing this for 10+ years? Probably not�"

<p>

Why "technical" ? Technical, it's not likely, but still could happen. But mostly, a pro is looking for ARTISTIC feedback. That's something everyone can give. Out of the few most helpful critiques of my work on the site, the most detailed of them is an amateur, and not even a really high caliber amateur, but he calls a fly a fly, and a fly on a cake, a fly on a cake. He has an absolutely great artistic sense and he speaks his mind. I can say I have learned really a lot discussing with him, because it's a real exchange of views, a real solid analysis - each time we talk about any picture on the site.

<p>

At best I can accurately describe my reaction to his or her work, and perhaps summarize with a number

<p>

Nope. You are wrong here. You just wrote a critique on one of my pages these days, and what you wrote was seriously very interesting. That's imo what a critique should look like in order to be really useful. It actually was very useful to me.

<p>

"Marc wrote that he could find something wrong with almost any image� That is probably true! I can, too, but can you also find something to praise in every image?"

<p>

:-) Oh, yes... I can... For example I can say to a top-rated photographer that his picture is well exposed - though it is composed like a child's drawing with no artistic sense at all... Should I ? :-)

<p>

When I critique a beginner, I do tell what's right - SOME at least -, and I'd say that I still do tell something positive in about 80 or 85% of my critiques...

<p>

"For those of us starting out, it is often as helpful to be told what we're doing correctly as to be told what we're doing wrong."

<p>

Maybe so. But it is not "MORE" helpful. Equally helpful, yes, and that's why one should try to do both...

<p>

"As someone who has taught and coached for nearly 10 years, I know that people respond to a variety of techniques, but novices tend to respond best to positive feedback, or specific (and limited) negative feedback."

<p>

Yeah, I know that theory. I've been training people for chess competitions and have taught photography part-time for 3 years, but my view on this is not the same as yours. I agree that good and bad points should be served at the same time, but not necessarily in the same quantity. I've always been considered "harsh", no matter what I taught and where, but I've alays had "thank yous" at the end, and I get plenty on PN as well - if not I would have given up long ago... It's just that some people can take the criticism, and those are the ones who improve fast because their priority is to learn, whereas others have their little ego to protect by priority, and their little race to win - eventhough what it takes would be to cheat...

<p>

To me, when I look at anyone's work, ANYONE, I respect what he's trying to do, whether he succeeds or not, AS LONG as his concern is to take good pictures. So, I won't treat him like some sort of ego-fragile baby. I won't pamper him, and I'll tell him what I'll assume he wants to know most: what works AND what doesn't. If you or anyone wants a one-sided encouragement from me, rule 1 should be to stay away from my pages, because I'm never going to serve you the good without the bad. Life just ain't like that: they both always come together, in every work, and therefore also in every critique of every work - that I write at least.

[jud]

Ok, at the risk of making this the marc and jud show (and completely off topic), I'll reply, but more concisely! I'll only address a couple points, the larger discussion of alternate rating systems can (and will be, I'm sure) addressed in another thread ;) Besides, I�ve got some photos I want to work on!

 

"Would I, as a relative amateur, be able to give useful technical suggestions to a professional. At best I can accurately describe my reaction to his or her work" �

 

Well, that's why I specifically said "technical". I DO agree that a detailed analysis of my reaction to a photo could be useful, particularly to someone who has a firm grasp of the technical aspects, which is why I provided it ;) But no matter how detailed, it�s still only one opinion and is determined by my own experiences and education. Sounds like we agree here�

 

Although is sounds like we have differing approaches to teaching, we both do what experience has shown works for us :) Nearly every teacher and teaching style will attract a certain number of supporters, but this thread was begun by Seven asking about a (not uncommon, apparently) response to criticism, and I weighed in with my (verbose) opinions about the underlying thought processes and some suggestions as to how to avoid this in the future (all based, of course, on my experiences). Actually, I suspect that he was mostly just venting :) Nonetheless, I did take that as an opportunity to share some of my related thoughts that I have not seen articulated�

[lex_jenkins]

There's only one notion expressed in this thread that bothers me a bit, and that's the idea that only an experienced photographer is qualified to critique the work of a peer, or more qualified photographer.

 

That's simply nonsense. Art criticism is a skill unto itself and has more to do with a well rounded education and good eye than ones ability to make good art.

 

I usually cringe upon learning that a show I'm considering entering will be judged solely by another photographer. I'd much rather the judge or judges will have a more thorough grounding in the arts.

 

It's not that I don't respect the opinions of photographers. But I'm skeptical of their abilities to evaluate others' work when their experience is limited to photography. I've said before and will reiterate, I believe a poet is better equipped to critique photography than are most photographers.

 

So I don't think photo.net members should be reluctant to comment upon others' work simply because there's an inevitable disparity in experience. Naturally, there will be the occasional errors in judgement. But this is as good a place as any to sharpen one's critical eye and linguistic skills.

 

What is important, tho', is to read the comments of others and learn to see what they see in the images they critique. There are a few who do little more than jump into the pool, splash everyone else, then hop out yelling "I'm all wet!" Yeah, we know.

[mg]

This is all agreed, Lex...

[root]

I am one who has questioned the usefulness of critiques from

less experienced photographers and I have taken a lot of grief for

this position. Your comment about the practice of using artisits

rather than photographers as judges helps to clarify this point.

Camera Clubs, complete with competitions judged almost

exclusively by professional photographers, have been my

primary source of photographic growth, but it has it's limits in that

most participants have a narrow range of artisitic interests

relating mostly to pleasing subjects and compositions.

Challenging content is rarely presented or enthusiastically

embraced.

 

Recently, I had seven images in a show which was reviewed by

an art critic. The article mentioned two of my images that had

recevieved little attention by other photographers and

photographer judges. The associations that she assigned to

the two images were never intended by me and were not related

to technique. She was clearly unimpressed by many of the

images that seemed to her to be focused mostly on such things

as dramitic lighting and vibrant colors. When she did attempt to

discuss a few technical aspects of printing, she showed her lack

of experience and would have been better off leaving it out of the

review.

 

Comments in this critique forum often refer to technique which

I'm saying are best left to photographers with some experience.

The aritistic merits of the image, by comparison, do not require

any technical background. That doens't mean anyone can offer

insight. The number of comments that refer only to the attraction

of the subject matter are ample evidence.

 

The POW discussions or good examples of what amount to the

two approaches to commenting on an image. A few members

offer a lot of insight on both. It's fair to say that there are also a

lot of comments that show the lack of technical or artistic

experience or insight. I see a very strong correlation between

interesting insightful comments - technically and aesthetically -

and a strong portfolio. That doesn't mean there is no room for

growth. I disagree with the occassional comment that suggests

that if you don't see it now, you never will.

[seven]

Carl said <i> I disagree with the occassional comment that suggests

that if you don't see it now, you never will.</i> <p>

Yes, that sounds like the response one might get from the vacuous.<p>

I was "venting" to an extent, because just a few days earlier another member had to duck for cover following his response to a "request for critique." I went in to plead reason, the image was pulled - we were both sent an email headed "Satisfied Now?" And then half the site was emailed by the offended - to inform us that he/she was quitting (for the 3rd or 4th time.) <p>

 

The individual has since proved that reincarnation in cyberspace is a reality. <p>

 

The future of the critique side of this site? The formation of neighbourhoods. I live in one now; we don't rate - just critique, and our critique skills are evolving apace. The air is free of histrionics, prima donnas stay away, and the streets are safe to walk 24/7. Highly recommended.

[bacsa]

I would gladly change *all* of the ratings my photos received(not too many, though...)to critique comments; the length of the comment should be inverse proportional to the rate value. ;o)

[bacsa]

i can't understand the <clickers>; i would die for a comment from somebody who knows what to say about my stuff posted here. And I hate the bored people in a coffee break who are lazy to use words, and never even read the details or the title, just make a quick click to express their "artistical impression" about the thing on their screen.

My little Thing, My Precious. :o)

 

So ppl, all of you who were so many times disappointed by the negative feedback to your "negative" feedback, please, just stop wasting your energy and time writing novels here and follow the blue link below to "My workspace-Your portfolio". Give me some of those loooong "negative" ones.

 

I will appreciate them, by *not* posting you any wowwwings to your (wow-quality, mostly) portfolio.

 

Grtz.

[bacsa]

as for a silly but more constructive feedback on the photo.net site itself,

 

1. what does "YOUR portfolio" do in "MY workspace"??? :)

 

2. why do i have to look through an other visitor's eye to see my own older forum postings? (I refer to the text " If you want to check what other users of this service are shown, visit http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=574418 ".)

 

It's not really a crucial problem, though.

 

With respect,

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

Ok, I skipped the last 10 or so comments...

 

Ok, Seven THAT was verbose? Wow, Marc you must hate me Cause I know every comment I've made on your pictures was twice as long!

 

I think people tend to forget that critiques are just opinions. And Opinions are what make the world go round. And opinions are personal preferences. It is up to us wether or not we accept them, or blow them off. But it's not right to attack someone because they have an opinion you don't agree with. Es[ecially when we asked for an opinion in the first place. Heres the scenario. Someone tells me they think of my pictures would look better in B&W. I bring up PhotoShop and switch to B*W (Which BTW if anyone knows HOW to do that I'd love to know). The pictre looks GREAT. I fall in love with B*W and shoot everything in it and one day become as wonderful a photographer as Ansel. Or, I think.."No, this picture wouldn't look better in B*W and leave it asis." Either way, I thank the critiquer for his opinin and go on my merry way. It's rarely personal, and We can learn SO much from ther peoples opinions.

 

As far as people not appreciating a critique or having a hissy fit on account of it...Well, personally I just don't rate there photos anymore. I rated a picture a 6 for Aesthetics and a 1 in originality. I explained in my comments that I did not see/understand the subject, and while the picture LOOKED great, I didn;t se any real point etc, and asked the photographer to explain it to me. Nope. He posted a reply that was basically a very sarcastic "Thanks for the 1, Erin..Haven't had one of those before" and proceeded to exchange replys with another guy about it..basically saying how stupid I am. I did adjust my rating after seeing a "Technical details" that explained the picture, but that was with no help from the photographer. I don't rate his pictures anymore. Simple as that.

 

Ratings are great. Comments are great. Together they're wonderful. We all just need to break out the commen sense a bit more. If I give someone a "deserved" low rating and they come back and give me an "undeserved" low rating, well obviously it's a revenge rating, let it go. We need to remember that most of us are adults here. And we need to act like it. As much as I resent the guy saying I'm stupid...I'm not going to call him a "big fat turd".

 

 

Lets all try and remember that we come to this site to get better. If Marc Gouguenheim tells me to try my picture in B*W well, hell, he's been doing it a lot longer than I have and hes *very* good. If Joe Blow with 1 picture and 5 1/2 ratings tells me it should be this or that..Well, guess what. I'm going to try that too. And the AWESOME thing about PS is..you can do so much. I don't have to physically retake the picture.

 

As far As "verbose" goes..LMAO.. You boys don't even know the meaning.. Who CARES, Anyway? This isn't an english class. And hey, the more you tell me about how good or bad my picture is, the better. Personally, my rule of thumb is this; If I've exchanged 2 comments with the photographer on the actuall picture page, I switch to email if possible.

 

So, heres MY bottom line

 

Ratings: Great. Comments: Great. Tigether: Wonderful

 

Negative, immature, meaningless crap: Sucks and does no good. So, cut it out, let it go, stop doing it, etc. We'll all be happier!

 

So. HA! There's "Verbose" for you.

 

Thank You and good Night!

[boudewijn_rombouts]

First of all, if anyone is affraid to receive negative comments, he/she shouldn't bother asking for them... just ignore the ones you think are irrelevant.

 

Secondly, I would just like to add that I think ratings are way over-rated ;-). Personally I stopped rating pictures. It's become a revenge-and-favor thing. You give someone high ratings and they'll do the same for you, you give someone a bad rating... yes, they'll give you one too. Not everyone of course, but most people, yes. I would love to be able to disable the ratings system for my pictures without disabling the critique system. I can learn from critiques and filter out the ones that look irrelevant or trivial. I can't do that with ratings. Ratings come from people browsing through the site's latest additions and who, most of the time, probably don't even look at the technical details or notes from the photographer.

 

Give me constructive criticism over ratings any day of the week.

[mg]

I couldn't agree more with what you both said.

<p>

Erin, your critiques are great, very interesting, and certainly not verbose. I hope you understood that I used the word verbose as a joke myself, since I am probably the most long-winded idiot on this site...:-)

<p>

Boudewijn, please do this site a favor... Just launch a thread based on this post of yours. Photo.net NEEDS to know that people like you stopped rating for the reasons you stated. Trust me, I know quite a few more people who have changed their rating habits for the same reasons - and I'm one of them by the way, so you'll have my full support on this.

<p>

One of the photo.net heroes was telling me recently that photo.net does not have any significant information showing that people are dis-satisfied with the rating system or the practices linked to this system. More info will help. Voice your opinion. Post a thread. If you don't, then I'll take your post and make it a thread myself, but I have already voiced this opinion so many times, that it would be good someone else does for once. Best regards.

[boudewijn_rombouts]

Dear Marc,

 

I've only just read your reply, because I haven't been online in a while. I will follow up on your advice and start a thread about this. Thank you for your encouragement.

 

Boudewijn