Abuses on photo.net, part 1

[dougityb]

You're doing better than me, Scott. I've been doing this for 25 years and take the occasional *good* photograph.

[louis1]

Scott I totally agree with you but the point was that ratings should

only be good and if a photo is one that currently you would give a

1 2 or 3 then YES you should point this out to the photographer

as a comment giving your point of view not just hitting them with

a 1 2 or 3 and no reason given. This gets rid of the low ballers

and the abuse to a certain extent and would be a more positive

way of encouraging posters. Do you still think people should give

low ratings and no comment . Surely if they can't be bothered to

comment then they should have the good manners not to low

rate a photo after all is this not a "community". In a class it is one

thing to say well done and not expand on why but a totally

different thing to say that something is bad or very bad and give

no reason for saying so. Louis

[louis1]

I get what you are saying but if photos are anonymous then as a

newbie I wouldn't be able to surf to the folder of the photographer

I thought was good to see his/her other work.

 

The point about the ratings would be to keep aesthetics still as 1

to 7 as at present but not allow you to select 1 2 or 3 but you

could still leave a comment "This is a 1 (or 2 or 3)

because............." I suggested this because the award of a

number is abit suspect anyway but it allows you to crudely

indicate to others this is a "average/good/v.good etc. photo using

4 to 7. I am not interested in rating below average photos but on

occasion I do make a suggestion. Do you rate every photo you

view ? If not there is no point in having a range from awful to

excellent.

[louis1]

When I joined I posted the following which Sven very kindly

replied to, here it is:

"Surfing the pick of the crop

 

I'm a new member and I am very impressed with the high

standard of photos posted. However I do see that some photos

are rated which amaze me to the point that I wonder if some

people are having a private joke? It got me thinking that as I

stumble upon various excellent portfolios it would be nice to be

able to have a list of my selection of top photos (limited to 10

perhaps) the way one can have a list in Amazon. This would of

course be a list which would include photos from the original

inception of the site and introduce newbies to photos no longer

appearing on the top list for 1 month etc. More interesting would

be being able to see the choices of those photographers whom I

consider to have excellent portfolios and maybe even see their

comments on their choices. This would be another way for me

(anyone) to quickly surf their way through the site and also learn

from the critiques of those who inspire me the most. This facility

could be restricted to subscribers only and with other limits eg

"X" number of rated photos or some other method of selecting

those photographers WE ALL RATE. PS I know there may not be

the resource to do this but if its possible, GREAT.

-- louis mccullagh , January 27, 2003; 06:46 P.M. Eastern

 

 

Louis, don't know that this will satisfy, but I have a favourite's

presentation called Hot Links as does Peter Daalder. No harm

in checking it out.

-- Seven Stuartson , January 27, 2003; 07:40 P.M. Eastern

[scott bulger]

...I think we are on the same page. I typically won't leave a low (lower than 4) rating without commenting as too why. I can't say I never have, there are some that just defy critique.

[scott bulger]

...this site is NOT a democracy. Whatever freedoms we have here are only because we are allowed to have them.

[root]

I've come to the conclusion that we do not all have the same vision

for this site, so until we can come to an understanding about what

exactly we are trying to achieve, all these proposals serve no

purpose. At the heart of the problem is a disagreement regarding

whether this is a critique forum or a competition. In either case, I

think that allowing unlimited uploads, unlimited high ratings per time

period, and unlimited high ratings on any given person per time period

is unfair.

 

If it is not possible or practical to establish and enforce limits,

then we should concede that and move on to other solutions, but I

still think that giving everyone the same amount of modest input is

the best starting point.

 

I have to assume that setting up 26 different accounts is a strange

perversion that is now and would would continue to be highly unusual.

. . .

[mottershead]

From my point of view, the photo.net Gallery has three main purposes:

(1) To provide people with the opportunity to exhibit their best photographs to a very large audience, consisting mainly of other photographers, using a ratings-based collaborative process whereby the audience determines which photos receive the most prominence, rather than arbitrary gatekeepers.

 

(2) to provide people with the opportunity to obtain feedback on the photos, through critique and ratings, with the aim of improving their skills.

 

(3) to provide people with the opportunity to view, critique, and rate other photographer's work, for pleasure and friendship, and to improve their own skills.

 

It is not intended to be a competition, but since there is a kind of prize for posting a "Top Photos" -- visibility and satisfying positive feedback -- it does turn into a kind of competition, with all the unfortunate consequence that this has.

[bob_pictaker]

I am in total agreement with making all ratings publicly viewable.

Abusive practices will never be eliminated entirely but this is one

step that may help. People tend to behave in public, so lets keep

everything out in the open. Transparency has its advantages.

 

Fake ID's are a tougher problem. Making everyone pay before

they can rate would greatly reduce the problem but traffic on the

site would drop off considerably. At that point would the good

folks at B&H, Ritz, Adorama and the rest still be willing to pay to

advertise here? I wonder, is it possible to limit the number of

accounts per IP address? I'm sure there are households who

have more than one person who is a member so it shouldn't be

limited to only one. Maybe two or three? It would certainly cut

down on the number of fake ID's, especially the people with 26 of

them. If it becomes more difficult to abuse the system, and more

visible if you try, it could only help in the end.

[louis1]

The question I posed above does not appear to have been

answered by anyone yet.

 

"How can the better photos (including those by new unfamiliar

contributors) be seen/drawn to the attention of others? Some

sort of rating/approval system MUST be in operation!

 

My answer is simply that:

 

 

(1) Only 4 Photos, per member per week, should be rated for

aesthetics and this is done by them entering for critique. (2)

Ratings should only be positive and no rating given for originality.

(3) Rating is done using the critique process where one can

comment and rate at the same time. ............"

 

I agree with you that ratings should stay but my suggestions

were to take the aggravation out.

[root]

I agree wholeheartedly with the stated purposes of this forum and have

tried to contribute with these goals in mind. However, I think we can

all agree that a lot of people have different ideas about why this

forum exists, so clarifying these stated purposes should be an

important part of any refinements that are being considered.

 

"(1) To provide people with the opportunity to exhibit their best

photographs to a very large audience, consisting mainly of other

photographers, using a ratings-based collaborative process whereby the

audience determines which photos receive the most prominence, rather

than arbitrary gatekeepers."

 

I would say that the limit of four per week is consistent with

'exhibiting your BEST work.' The dramitic increase in upload volume

has meant that realistically only the better photographers have the

opportunity to show their images to a wide audience. Novices who are

really serious about critique - which I suspect are only a fairly

small number of the snapshot uploads - would really benefit from

critique circles, and I beleive it is the only way many will get the

feedback they want, so despite the maintainance issues, I would like

to see the subject discussed to see if there is any realistic

possiblity of reviving them.

 

(2) to provide people with the opportunity to obtain feedback on the

photos, through critique and ratings, with the aim of improving their

skills.

 

I don't see how a rate will help you improve your skills, which is why

it should be used only as a means of doing a presort. Perhaps it's

ironic that the images that are 'almost there' are the ones that don't

quite get enough rates - and therefore views - to get the exposure

that will result in comments to explain why. :-)

 

(3) to provide people with the opportunity to view, critique, and rate

other photographer's work, for pleasure and friendship, and to improve

their own skills.

 

Taking the time to look at an image critically does help improve your

own work. Pleasure and friendship is important, but I think a major

problem on this forum is that some raters interact with people rather

than images. Images become meeting places and the image itself is not

dealt with in any critical way. It's a minority, but it's hard to

overlook what many consider to be an inappropriate use of the forum

and therefore . . . . . abusive.

 

It is not intended to be a competition, but since there is a kind of

prize for posting a "Top Photos" -- visibility and satisfying positive

feedback -- it does turn into a kind of competition, with all the

unfortunate consequence that this has.

 

For me, changing the prize to reward number of rates rather than

average was a big step. People who emphasize friendship - or enemies

- rather than analysis still game the system, but not with the same

negative affects. I see no way of eliminating the game entirely

without compromising the purpose of the forum, but reducing the

exposure of those who think absolute numbers are important is the key.

 

Sorry Marc, but I see no way to promote the 'best' photographers and

the best images other than by hand picking them using Curators, PODs

in addition to POWs, etc. This system determines popularity. If the

unwashed masses want Elvis on velvet, there are no refinements that

will change that.

 

So level the playing field by putting a limit on uploads and votes,

and take a good hard look at Curators and ciritique cirlces. . . .

[mg]

While I agree with all you wrote above, I'm still looking for your opinion on Q1 and Q2, stated in the initial post of this thread. Cheers.

[root]

1) "If somebody can define "clique behaviour" in some kind of

objective way so that we can announce a rule against it and define an

objective ratings pattern that would constitute evidence of its

violation, then we will consider making a change." - Brian

Mottershead.

 

Putting a cap on uploads and rates solves that problem, don't you

think?

 

2) "We continue to try to remove opportunities for dishonesty and

stupidity so that the most deserving and interesting photographs are

exhibited the most prominently. We aren't going to abandon a popular

system, and we aren't going to throw in the towel on trying to improve

it." - Brian Mottershead

 

This forum can not accomplish what you want because it's meant to be

equally accessible to everyone. PODs / Curators are the answer.

 

Parallel systems. . .

[root]

To be more precise . . . . you can't distinguish between 'I like /

don't like your images' and 'I like / don't like you. . .

[mg]

I wasn't talking about "1)" and "2)", Carl, but about "Q1" & "Q2" in the original post. Though your latest posts are welcome as well.

<p>

As for this: "you can't distinguish between 'I like / don't like your images' and 'I like / don't like you..."

<p>

... I can't agree. Of course it is difficult, but sometimes you can distinguish. Brian has actually demonstrated it above in this thread, when he told us about these 26 fake IDs harassing Anna P. Obviously enough this person didn't like Anna very much - or maybe he didn't like her pictures. No matter what, he's gone.

<p>

All the abuse departement needs, as was explained, is a pattern.

[christian deichert]

So people abuse the ratings system. Surprise, surprise. I don't suppose that ignoring the ratings entirely would be an option?<p>

 

I don't rate photos, haven't in months. Even when I did, my comment to rating ratio was probably around 4:1. It is useless for me to try and quantify someone else's photo -- so I don't. I either comment on photos or I don't, depending on whether or not I have something to say.<p>

 

For the reasons above, I don't put much credence in the ratings my photos receive. Not all of us have a cult of personality like some of the regulars in the "high rated photos" gallery, but then not all of us need one. By this I don't mean to imply that all ratings are favoritist, but I'd say enough of them are that I just don't pay attention to them anymore.<p>

 

Overall, I'm just glad when someone takes the time to put their thoughts about my work into words, whether it's "Wow!" or "I hate it!" or "The composition needs work." I don't mind getting ratings, I just wish that everyone who took the time to rate would also take the time to comment.<p>

 

By the way, want a perfect example of the inherent faults in having a ratings system? I've got the perfect one for you: Clifford on the Road -- <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1100067">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1100067</a> -- one of the better inside jokes on photo.net, and a perfect example of the value of ratings (or, more accurately, the lack thereof). It currently has 65 ratings at 5.8/5.95.

[don_harper_the_edge]

I really hate it when I see ratings or comments from people who have no work displayed. Usually they are the low raters and raise suspicions. But, I just say what the hey it doesn't matter, why do they bother.

Anyway, I think that only members should rate or comment.

If you increased your membership this site could receive some desperatly needed upgrades. ( I've about given up rating or commenting because the site is so slow). If members are paying the bogus account problem disappears. With a larger membership you could either enjoy some financial comfort and or lower the membership fees to draw more paying supporters.

[colin_mcsweeney]

a1 yes I have experienced an abusive rating it was definately a retaliatory and very low rating on an image that was rated in the 5-6 range by everyone else.I did report this but was told there was no pattern, an answer that honestly did not make sense as if the first occurance of abuse is not considered at least the beginning of a pattern.

I do believe that only paid members should have the priveledge of rating and being rated.

also someone mentioned you should have images posted in order to rate someone elses work and that makes a lot of sense to me.