A Ratings Reform

[louis1]

Ratings would be increased if it didn't take so many clicks to rate a photo.

 

Why not change the the rating method to the same one that is used in

critiques. this allows comments and rates in one go.

 

Even better would be an option to go through the same process used for

critiques(auto presentation one by one of each photo for rates and

comments) for one or two of the top photo selections. I would suggest top

photos by no. of ratings or no. of comments in the last week.

 

Perhaps this faster rating process could only be used by paying members!

[sandy.]

How about a very simple answer to a complex issue :<p>1. Non-paying members are not allowed to rate on the first six months.<br>2. Non-paying members cannot rate any 1,2 or 7 after the first six months.<br>3. After six months, the non-paying members cannot rate anything higher or lower than their own best or worst rating received.<br>4. Only paying members are allowed to give out 1,2 or 7 after six months if they have posted five or more photos in their portfolio.<p>Worst case scenario to this suggestion? It will bring more revenue to photo.net! <p>I think self-rating while subpressing other photos that are posted at the same time, plus rating under pseudonym is a bigger problem than we thought. In other words, cheating for ego and vanity. Make them pay, literally!

[alex_hawley]

Brian,

 

One problem with your logic as a couple others have alluded to. The bell curve theory falls apart when dealing with events that are driven by human emotion, things such as rating photos. It makes no difference whether the scale is 1-10, 1-7, or 1-100. After all, no one ever tells a mother that her baby is ugly; they are all 7s, 10s, or 100s.

 

It might be interesting to see how the curve shifts when the population that has received no ratings is thrown in. Then see what the percentage of 7s is and so forth.

 

Personally, I like things pretty much the way they are. Policing is the only action I see as being viable to reduce abuse. Police the multiple accounts, self-raters, revenge raters, back-slappers, and so forth. But please don't punish me for not rating photos I don't like nor for not rating ones that already have 20+ ratings.

 

If you want a good example of similar reforms that have flopped, and flopped with a big F, take a look at photosig. No one is ever going to contrive the perfect rating system nor the perfect critique site. Why not just continue making small improvements like you have been doing?

[mg]

"

Speeding up the ratings/comments process should be considered.

Ratings would be increased if it didn't take so many clicks to rate a photo.

 

Why not change the the rating method to the same one that is used in critiques. this allows comments and rates in one go. " - Louis M.

 

<p>

 

I agree. The ideal presentation is imo: have checkbox on the top-rated pages next to each image. Once I check a picture's check box, it means I'd like to rate and comment this picture. Then I browse and click checkboxes on my way, and then I click "Go to My critique folder" and these images (and no other) appear in the same format so far used in the critique section. OR, every 10 check marks I automatically see these 10 pictures appearing in the folder of pictures to be critiqued that I have just set up. The 1st checked picture always appears first, and I can't skip, so, once I've checked a box, I've got no choice but to rate the shot (can't change my mind). And possibly, you may want (or not) to put 20 words as a minimum comment with each rating. No way to rate pictures from the top-rated ourside of this system. How does that sound ? Technically complicated ? Or possible ? Perhaps reserve indeed this facility to paying members after a 3 months trial period...? It will save us hell of a time and encourage critiquing - which is a must imo.

<p>

This is just a side-suggestion, whereas all you propose seems sound to me. Perhaps, after reading your explanation about the "1)" of your original post, if the goal is just to avoid "love-fests", I'd just control the number of 7s and 6s given by each individual as you first suggested, and no longer require a comment for a 7. But I would certainly want the comments to remain compulsory about 1s and 2s... They are the only way for people to gat a chance to understand what's wrong with their picture... Why deprive them of that...?

<p>

Anonymity ? That'sa complex issue. I like the idea, but I can almost tell for sure that many people's picture will not be really anonymous. What if I upload 5 different pictures of the same model with same background for example...? Anonymity for a wek is imo desirable - NOT anonymity for ever because it encourages retaliations. But my point is that anonymity of images is imo impossible in number of cases. And anonymity of raters is not necessary and difficult too. Regards.

[mmmee]

Double blind system sounds very good to me. Would every photo submitted be subject to this for a certain period of time, and then go into the photog's portfolio where the ratings and critics become known? This seems to be what you have proposed. I like the rewards for the anonymous, play by the rules ratings. As J.V. Knowles (hope I have spelled it right) has said, anyone cheating by rating each other constantly with high ratings would be discernable and have ratings priviledges retracted.

 

I would like to see the critiques to be necessary on every rating and for the critique to be of a reasonable length. Any nonsense, 50 character WOW critiques would also be discernable and the purveyor of such "comments" have rating and critiquing priveledges retracted. Maybe this would slow down the number of ratings and comments. But I think, if we can learn how to shoot photos we can learn how to put a few words together in a meaningfull manner. Wows and other short comments add nothing to the value of the site. For people who cannot critique in English so easily, perhaps a translator should be available on site for them to run the comment through and then post it.

 

There are people who cannot bear to hurt other people's feelings. It is just not within their mental make up to give a low rating or a hurtfull critique. The system of limiting the number of 7s and 6s would be difficult for these people. But, when everyone had to do this, it may become obvious to them that by giving honest ratings and critiques they are doing far more for others than by giving only good ratings and critiques to those photos that they like. I can include myself in this scenario, as far as giving 1s and 2s are concerned. I have not counted up my 1s and 2s but I think I could probably count them on the fingers of my hands. But, this is when I know the name of the photographer. So, what I can see happening, is that some of us may just go to our friends' portfolios and just rate the known, older photos. But, if these older photos have no chance of being on the top pages, it may just encourage us to actually seek out the best anonymously. What to do about all the ones no one wants to give the required 1s and 2s to? Will the requirement of giving a certain number of 3s before we are allowed 7s work? And, finally, will all the rules make more people just stop critiquing and rating? Or will we learn how to treat the rating system properly? I can see the latter being true because, after all, everyone who has been participating in the rating and critiquing will want to continue to do so. Anyone who has been cheating the system will be seen to be doing so and suffer the consequences. The cheaters are the ones who are drying up the real interest in participation by the best and most able people. This all may sound like a lot of rules and regulations and I suppose it is to some degree. As stated above, by Scott, I think, all of society has rules and we all must put up with it, even if we are not all hi-jackers.

 

I do not recall if you proposed any benefits for paid up subscribers, but there should be something available. There are more photos per portfolio allowed now. Giving people some incentive for paying up should help increase the income.

 

There are so many people on here who's portfolios go unseen or just fall through the cracks because they don't go about commenting or rating. No one knows they are there. I wonder if a FAQ page explaining how to critique and rate would help bring some of these people out to participate. I could use all the help in that regard, that I can get. I have been trying to critique and rate for over a year now, but I still don't know if I am doing it right.

 

I like the option of "comments only" for those who chose to do so. Many people have stated on this thread that they don't rate and are not interested in ratings. But, if the ratings system can be improved the ratings are still only subjective. My 5/5 rating may be someone else's 3/3 or 6/6. I wonder if there is some way to provide rewards for the people who opt for the "critiques only"? I guess the good critiques would be their own reward. Like the critique circles were meant to be. Most of these circles did not work. Now, if everyone who wanted to opt for this way of doing things was quite free to go about and critique everyone else (with or without ratings) it may work better than the enforced, stick to your circle and be there to do your allotted amount of comments, seemed to work. Maybe there should be someone able to choose the best critique of the week? Anonymously, of course.

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

For the most part, the Ratings and possible controversy they generate are much ado about nothing. It is difficult to know how you can devise a system by which a community of photographers as inclusive as this one can provide meaningful 'ratings' of one another's work, whether it's on a scale of 1 to ten, or 3 to 7, or 0 to 1000 it is completely capricious unless you have some way of prequalifying the judgements offered -- which you don't (and really can't). Then you wind up chasing your tail as you try to fine-tune an impossibility.

 

The sole redeeming aspect of this implementation is the possiblity of making comments, that may then be evaluated on their own merits as to the seriousness and intelligence of the particular rating which has been applied to the particular picture. As has been pointed out this puts non-native English speakers at a severe disadvantage. And there are artists (including photographers) who simply cannot articulate sophisticated thought processes, either through lack of ever attempting to develop such an ability, or a prediliction to expres themselves visually. This is exceedingly rare, but it does happen.

 

Reading this thread caused me to go and take a look at the photo critique section which I had ignored until now. Here is how I responded to the opportunity to rate: I simply can't be bothered to rate the vast majority of images, but instead focus in on the very few excellent ones, and in each case I try to make an intelligent explanation of why I think it is excellent (singling out specific aspects), as well as possible weaknesses, and finally I might pose a question for the photographer on some technical or aesthetic point. My feeling is that most people posting pictures here are not doing enough looking at the acknowledged masters of photography (and for that matter, other visual arts), but they are aping calendar and magazine photography (national geographic anyone?), posting pictures of their wives/girlfriends, sunsets, and a bit of soft porn too, which I suppose some feel is 'daring'. Most of it is technically good to excellent, but aesthetically meretricious.

 

I read a good comment on one of the interviews featured on the site to the effect that if you've seen it before when looking through the viewfinder, don't snap the shutter! Be nice if the same dictum applied to uploads...

[bob_pictaker]

I like Brian's suggestion of the double blind system, and the restrictions and benefits that go along with it. Responsible raters are given more input and mate raters less.

 

Having to rate 100 different photographers is a fine idea but maybe we should even consider increasing that number. To date I've only rated 260 images, but those rates are spread out over 196 different photographers. I don't have the statistics available to me that Brian has, but 100 may be too easy a goal to reach. And since some of the "mate raters" have been able to rate thousands of images within a few months after joining (don't you people have jobs?) I'm sure they've already sent feelers out to at least 100 photographers looking to see who'd respond.

 

Just a thought.

[misterken]

Just a few thoughts on ratings:

1) Bell shaped Curves - there is no requirement for a

measurment metric to provide a bell shaped curve for it to

provide useful and valid data.

2) A measurement process cannot produce a bell shaped curve

if the parameters in the underlying system being measured are

neither normally distributed nor constants.

3) I sorted my posted dijemry with more than 10 ratings and got

an order that was in agreement with the ratings for aesthetics

(within expected statistical error at the 95% level of confidence).

4) There are some out there who would rate photos by criteria

that may be different from everyone else, but they provide a

systematic bias to the measurement process that can be

accounted for.

5) I suggest that before the ratings system as currently exists is

dramatically modified, that a random selection of photos be

sorted by a group of experts, elves, or even random selection of

members of photo.net. The group should consist of 20-30

individuals. Compare the groups sorted photos to the sorting in

accordance with the aesthetics metric and the originality metric.

I predict the sorting by either method will be in agreement (within

the range of error expected at the 95% level of confidence of

course).

[jhenry]

Pt 1: Concerning requirement of comment for 1 or 7, I do think it's ABSOLUTELY NEEDLESS. If u hate or adore a picture no improvement can be reasonnably suggested.

 

Requirement for comments should be a MUST if sum of A+O is comprize between 3 and 8. In that range improvements can be made

 

Pt 2 : why not.

 

Pt 3: DEFINITELY YES

[briany]

Scott, I had a similar idea regarding forcing a distribution. I was thinking give a "ratings chunk" of a 1, 2 2s, 4 3s, 7 4s, 4 5s, 2 6s, and a 7. Require that they all be distributed before the person gets a new block.

 

I don't want to see requirements for comments eliminated, but I think it could be improved. If the rating you gives Deviates by 2 points from the avg, Then you have to give a comment. If you're rating an image like everyone else, your opinion is less important than if you see something good/bad that others don't see. Anyone agree?? And yes, longer required comments sounds like a good idea.

[briany]

Oh, and I really like the idea of double blind ratings and self-imposed anonymity, but agree with Bob above that 100 photographers may be too low. What are the stats on this?

[nikos]

Please think twice about the comment size restriction. Sometimes, something really clever and valuable can be said in very few words.

 

One of the best, most to-the-point and cherished comments I have received was 3 words: "Veermeer would appreciate" For someone who knows the Flemish painter, a comment comparing Veermeer's painting aesthetics to a photograph can mean a lot more than a 25-word variation of "I like it".

 

Let's just keep the text out of our numerology and appreciation metrics game. There's the ratings for that purpose, we don't need to start counting beans (or bytes) on comments. Even the simplest comments like "I like it" or "It's awful" mean a lot more than a 6/6 or 3/3 and they rarely really hurt. Let people do their own stuff when commenting, and keep the adjustment measures for the numerical game only.

[Wayne Melia]

1. Agree that normal distribution is an unrealistic "goal" for the reasons you mentioned.<br>

2. Agree that anonymous photo system (from your second post - May 9)is worth pursuing, as I mentioned in <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004haU">this</A> thread. (BTW, I see members ratings being public info for scrutiny part has already been implemented)<br>

3. Rules on comment length and permissions for numerical ratings seem a little cumbersome?<br>

[bacsa]

If i look over the general critique comments given by *serious*, *proffessional* photographers, i can see lots of "beautiful", "excellent", "bravo" etc short appreciating comments (between the useful long critiques, of course:)) ). So i wouldn't call it a specialty of the beginners or non-connaisseurs who can't explain themselves, don't know how to look, or don't know the correct terms for saying their oppinion.

 

Of course,i do realize difference between giving *sometimes* this short appreciation, and *never* saying anything useful.

 

It's "Vermeer", by the way. 3 e's in total. ;)

[miles_hecker]

To solve a problem you first have to understand its roots. The inflation in critique ratings over the past 2 years is IMO the result of mate raters pushing the standard of excellence ever lower. They do this of course to elevate their position and 'status' as great photographers. :-) To eliminate the problem you need to limit unabashed mate rating as well as unlimited 7's.

 

1. I think making it easier to rate extremely is bad. Just the reverse is needed. Ratings of 3,4,5 shouldn't require a comment. Ratings os 1,6,7 should. Why is it very good? Why is it bad?

 

2. A step in the right direction. I teach photography at the college level and write many critiques. They are at least 15 words long on average and sometimes, for great shots, much longer.

 

3. Limit the # of 7's by as suggested. (5% seems okay). Also the number of photos of any photographer rated in the last 30 days to a small number say 2 or 3. This will limit mate rating. It will also force people to give feedback to the huddled masses that are ignored by most people rating photos at Photo.Net. This step might also encourage their continued participation.

 

4. My most controversal suggestion. Make patron status a requirement for rating. I know some people are poor, but if they can afford a camera, film, scanner and computer, they can probably afford $25 to join photo.net. This would also raise money to help support the sight.

 

Hope this helps...

[alaghi]

If only the patrons members could rate, we will loose very much numbers of ratings, and this will not to correct the problem, because the patrons have a EGO too.<br>

I think would be a way to raise the number of ratings, the "ratings hunters" will not became expressive, because a good photo continue to be a good photo even with a bad rating.<br>

The real problem is on the people, and none system are immune to people. We need rules, but the rules cannot attack the ones who are correct.

Ratings can be wrong, and critiques can be much more offensive, do you think about this? Take the comments that make you raise, learn and improve in some manner, and do not take care about bad critiquers and raters. If your work is good, excelent or AWESOME, your work will not be killed with sht.....<br>

I gave my suggestions back, and I didn't change my mind.<br>

<br>

Happy learning!<BR>

[absinthe]

OK, I think any experimental test on the ratings is a good thing. If it doesn't work, try something else. hell, I really don't rate or care about my ratings anyways... I am more interested in comments & this is where I have a small issue with your proposal:

 

The length of comments. Once can say everything they need to say with one word. I have left 1 word comments.... one particuar image was very green. Thats all that came into my mind when I looked at it. Green. I liked the image, but all I really had to say was GREEN. Thats it. While I admit, you will open the door for lots of people leaving such things as This Sucks or Brillian or my all time favorite one word comment... SNAPSHOT or better yet... MERE SNAPSHOT for more emphasis, overall you'll free up people's ability to express themselves freely. believe that in this world, you have to take the good with the bad & this msot definately applies to open forums and public Comment & Sugestions boards.

[scott bulger]

How does the comment "green" differ from "snapshot"? Just so you know, "green" wouldn't necessarily be considered a helpful comment unless you elaborated to tell them that there seemed to be aan "overall green cast to the image", but if it was a photo of a tree, and you commented "green", don't bother.

[reillyphotography]

After reading through this thread there are 3 points that make a lot of sense. First and foremost, James suggestion of anonymous photos for the first week. That would take the wind out of the back slappers sails and could possibly jump start more rating and critiquing of photos. Second, get rid of ratings of 1 and 2. As Bob said, they are retaliatory rates. They are primarily used in retaliation and by low ballers. This site is supposed to encourage photography, a 3 is low enough. If people hate a photo that much, let them give it 3's or not and/or leave a real critique or not. Lastly, whatever you decide to do, do it in baby steps. I used to write 3 or 4 critiques a day at photosig as a last chance critic. They had their heart in the right place when they decided to change and try to get better critiques as you are now contemplating but it's not working there. It was a good place to get a quick measure of the publics opinion of your photo, not by the ratings but by the views, the same goes here but it's not as immediate. Photonet excels in the forums. It seems that most active members here like to discuss the different aspects of photography and critique the POW which is fine by me. I've learned a lot here. In my opinion, anything that would push for more critiques is great. It's hard enough to get most people to just click on a couple numbers and give a photo a rating. Figuring out how to get them to think about a photo and type out a critique is going to be a tough trick. I thought and still think critique circles are a great idea but apparently they haven't worked out. Good luck.

[birgit_baude]

"3. For photos on the system less than 30 days, users would be

limited to not more than 5% of 7's. So, someone can go through

older pictures in the database and rate the ones he or she likes

without restriction, but on newer pictures would be limited to no

more than 1 "7" per 20 photos rated."

 

I think it's impossible to prevent mate-rating by simply changing

the rules. People will always find their loopholes. Why shouldn't

these twits wait a month so as to be able to give their pal's

pouting patsy with pink pants a solid 7/7 and Mr. Gougenheim's

wretched photographic failures the 1/1 they deserve?

 

If someone is an verifiable abuser of this system, he/she

shouldn't be punished descreetly (deleting his photos, kicking

him out of PN etc.) I'd love to see a "pillory page" where their

names and malpractices are publicly visible. Arrgh.

 

Birgit, avenger of the ill-rated

[Former P.N Member]

I <b>really</b> like the <i>'pillory page'</i> idea. All those identified as being an abuser and/or 'mate-rater' should have their own <b>"Page of Shame"</b> (good title?) providing the specifics, with the most recent additions being listed on the p.n home page alongside the picture of the week.

<p>

It just might be that public identification and (hopefully) humiliation would take care of the problem when other attempts have (to date) failed. I doubt that there would be much effort involved to create a new section in p.n and a little space on the home page to list new additions (much less, probably, than the systematic approaches tried thus far).

<p>

This would have the advantage of being more or less 'member policed' - in that the 'victims' of the activity could report to Brian and the 'elves' in much the same manner as is currently done. They, in turn, would review the allegations and flag the account which would cause it be be displayed in the appropriate places - and possibly trigger some lose of privileges as well.

<p>

Bravo - Good Idea!!!

[lex_jenkins]

I dunno 'bout a "Pillory Page" or "Page of Shame." Tho' it'd be great fun I don't see much point in picking on the mate-raters and cliques.

 

Sure, they're annoying because they elevate each other's work to prominence on the gallery displays.

 

But would we pillory each other simply because I happen to favor and collect, say, Eliot Porter photos (yeh, in my dreams), or you like original Weston prints, or someone else collects Helmut Newtons to the exclusion of everything else?

 

The major reform I'd like to see is toward the improvement of the quality of critical commentary and the elimination of trolls and knuckleheads who either post deliberately insulting remarks or just plain nonsensical tripe on our photos. For example, comments such as "I don't know what to say about this photo" - and nothing else - should be subject to immediate deletion.

 

I'm far less concerned about those who poop on a photo with an abnormally low numerical rating without leaving any commentary. When I see something like a 2/2 rating on a photo that otherwise received an average of 5/5 or higher it reflects badly only on the rater and not in the slightest on the photographer or photograph.

 

However since far fewer comments than numerical ratings are attached to a photograph each comment becomes more important and a needlessly insulting or clueless remark is a serious detraction from the enjoyment of that photograph for others and enjoyment of photo.net as a valuable asset to the photographers seeking meaningful feedback.

[jimknowles]

Please rate this photo. IF YOU KNOW IT, PLEASE WAIT UNTIL OTHERS HAVE

RATED!!!

 

I'm especially interested to know what Scott, Bob A., and anyone else who

believes there is something wrong with giving out 7's when one feels a picture

has earned the highest rating on merit, according to whomever may be doing the

rating.

 

So please - anyone? Rate this photo. Comments and critiques are welcome! BTW

- this is just for illustration purposes only. I'm hoping it will help illustrate a very

important point.

 

Again, please - IF YOU KNOW THIS IMAGE, DO NOT RATE IT YET - Photographer is

to remain annonymous until after this illustration has been completed. (May 20)

Thanks all.

[jimknowles]

Well, I've never tried uploading a jpeg on a forum before - live and learn.

 

So, if you don't recognize the photog's name above, please take a look at the

image and rate it. It's not the best scan - but it's good enough for the purpose

here.

 

The point is, YOU may not give this image a 7, yet it's one of the most highly

sought after photographs in the world, and considered one of the jewels in the

history of photography. No doubt, a lot of Mr. Drtikol's peers didn't think much of

it when it was made, either. Nevertheless, it gets a 7/7 from me and lots and

lots of other folks. The image was made in 1930! Man Ray, anyone?

 

I guess all I"m trying to point out is that any image can be a 7/7 to anyone. I

happen to give lot's of 7's because those pictures I give them to deserve them!

PERIOD! I've only been here a couple months, but have NEVER asked ANYONE to

rate any of my photos! I do find I have a certain affinity to a couple photogs (so

far) personalities, but this does not prevent me from rating their images

honestly.

 

If others want to "mate-rate" (how do you define that, by the way? Is there a #

that determines when someone has become a dreaded mate-rater? If a photog

who's work I dig a lot deserves 50 double 7's, why shouldn't i give 'em? Why

should I suffer because I know more about what I like? Why should YOUR opinion

of what's good or great or perfect become my standard?) Man, that sort of b.s.

just tears me up! Who do you think you are to tell me what I like? I could care

less WHOSE picture it is! I like it that much , I give it the 7's. SO now there's a

bunch of people who evidently resent other's getting 7's so much they want to

LIMIT how many 7's can be given? What is THAT???????

 

I've seen hundreds of images here that are worthy of at least one 7. Perhaps

thousands! As I said, I've only been here two months. I'm sure I'll see lots more

images worth at least a 7 the longer I'm here. Maybe one of YOURS! But you limit

my ability to rate an image the way I see it, you're telling me I don't know what

I'm talking about! WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME THAT?

 

See what I mean? THe high end is POSITIVE. If SOME people ABUSE the use of 7's

to "mate - rate" so be it. Again, I say, that's about politics, not photography.

BUT, THE LOW END OF RATINGS are NEGATIVE! I too have seen MANY MANY

images here deserving of 1's and 2's - but the way this site works, you simply

cannot give out 1's and 2's! And anyway, why bother??? Any picture here that

deserves a 1 or 2 isn't going to be around long, no matter how many pals

someone has!!!!!!! No way!

 

The mediocre pictures that really deserve a 3 or 5 will benefit a lot from pals

giving higher rates, but hey, so what? There simply cannot be that many

sycophants on p.net to make it a real problem! So let's say 5 so called mate

raters get on the top page per week, there's still 16 other photos there that

probably deserve to be there straight up. Good enough for me. Since the "TOP"

image doesn't get a prize, and since the POW isn't chosen by the most rates,

who cares!~

 

I WANT MY PNET 7'S!!!!! WHEN I'VE RUN OUT OF 7 WORTHY IMAGES TO RATE HERE,

I'LL LET YOU KNOW. BUT I HOPE THAT NEVER EVER HAPPENS!

 

Here's to all you great shooters out there who keep growing, learning, and

sharing!

[scott bulger]

Personally Jim, I think that image is a piece of crap. Collectability has little correlation to the "aesthetics" or "originality" of any given image. Andy Warhol couldn't take a decent photo to save his crazy ass, but he's very collectable. Good marketing.

 

I think that many folks on here have their groove meters stuck straight up. If as you just posted you want everyone to keep learning, everyone telling everyone else that their photos are 7/7's doesn't help that. I feel that since there is no higher rating than 7/7, that it should be reserved for the best of the best. Images that you really can't find any fault with AND have some modicum of originality. Granted, there isn't much truly original work out there anymore, but with 28,000 flower macros on this site, one had certainly have something special going on with it to get the 7/7.

 

Every amateurish Photoshop swirl or weave gets 7/7 if it has the right names on it and flamed if it doesn't. There most certainly is a double standard there. There are photogs that some newbies are afraid to go near if they don't like their work for fear of retribution by their posse. Some newbies are just so eager for acceptance that they seek out these allgedly great photogs to join in the praise and make a new friend.

 

I have seen many pictures worth 3,4,or 5 that get plenty of 7/7's from their buddies. Are you saying you haven't?

 

But go ahead, light it up. Dish em out. if you dig it, lay a 7/7 on it. I'm not going to try to tell you whether you know what you are talking about or not. I don't even know you.