Photo.net is UN-Balanced

[root]

If I may say so, neither of you understand the system, and if you

don't understand it's nuances, given your intelligence and

experience, then much of Brian's work to fine tune the system is

largely wasted.

 

YOU DO NOT NEED HIGH RATINGS TO GET VISIBILITY. How

do you explain by image with 99 rates with barely a 5.0 average?

I have quite a few in the low 5s that have 30, 40 50 ratings.

Check them out.

 

Do these show up on the highest rated page? Well, it depends

on which of the many search criteria you use. It is true that some

long term searches do require a minimum of 20 rates, but that

only underscores my point. It's the number, not the average.

 

Doug, you can use 'number of rates' for any time period you like.

 

So I ask again, why are so many concerned with what a

particulat set of search criteria returns, given that we now have

so many options.

 

To answer your last point, I do enjoy finding a good discussion

on an image, but I'd prefer to find one where the maker is an

active and willing participant and preferably someone who

doesn't already have more than their share of visibility.

[dougityb]

Yes, you may say so, and you may even be right, and I have no idea how to explain the phenomena going on in your folders. To save my research staff their valuable time, could you post links to the images you are talking about.

 

Even so, my gripe is not primarily concerned with visibility, nor with ratings averages, etc. These are secondary benefits, or ancilliary results, whatever that means.

 

My complaint is that people don't rate because they are afraid, and others are using intimidating tactics to discourage the balancing influence on their images. As a result, they recieve inflated values. It's simply not fair. It's not Brian's fault. It's not the software's fault. It's your fault for not stepping forward with your rate. It's my fault for being a coward. It's the fault of everyone who is doing nothing.

 

Let's think of it this way.

 

When I see an image with 30 ratings, I'd like to see that it has an accurate average. If I think it's rated far too high, then why don't I offer my opinion? Why should I feel timid about it?

 

Have you ever seen an image in the TRP that you felt was ridiculously rated, yet you didn't do or say anything about it? What about anyone else reading this? Any of you seen a horribly overrated image in the TRP and instead of rating it you just shook your head and clicked somewhere else?

[root]

" . . . I have no idea how to explain the phenomena going on in

your folders. . . ."

 

The default page, and others turn up images with the most rates

even if they don't have very high scores.

 

 

"My complaint is that people don't rate because they are afraid, . .

"

 

. . . . or because they've done that and discussed all the issues

that make these image, trite or lame, kitschy or whatever.

 

" It's your fault for not stepping forward with your rate."

 

A rate - any rate - will give it even more visibility, so it's

counterproductive.

 

"When I see an image with 30 ratings, I'd like to see that it has

an accurate average."

 

According to whose tastes? Yours and mine, but not the 'popular'

vote that sincerely likes them. The change in behavior that would

help the site the most is to leave that stuff alone and concentrate

on images that deserve attention.

 

Here it is:

http://www.photo.net/photo/1433784

 

You can also click on my name and browse through the

'single'and 'B&W'' folders with the 'view ratings' on. Note that the

images that fit the earlier description were uploaded after the

change in default pages.

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

What I think is funny- is that none of the top rated photographers bother to leave rates at all, opting only to leave comments under the guise of "comments being better than rates". However this conveintly keeps anyone else out of the top-rated pages.

 

Just my two cents.

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

Let me re-phrase that:

 

Very few of the top-rated photographers bother to leave rates at all...

[tom_menegatos]

Unless things have changed, the critique request queue works something like this: Photos are ordered by rating, once the photo reeives a cretain number of ratings it get pushed back so that lower rated photos have a chance as well. It's relative to the other photos in the queue. My biggest compliant was that the critiques request used ratings in some fashion for sorting. It's prioritizing people who want to view nice pictures over people that want to get help with their photos in my opinion.

 

Carl, I just took a quick look at your portfolio and the few random images I pulled up only had about 10 ratings in them so my guess is those images you're talking about are the exception. You also make it sound like a 5 rating is bad. I guess it is when you realize that other people with the same or worse work are consistently getting higher ratings. I've seen photos that are very much like yours do better.

 

Doug,

 

People aren't going to change. Let me explain to you why. It is so much more important for the people that want higher ratings and more exposure to maintain them, than it is for people that want to be honest to do so. What do I gain from having to deal with a few emails a week complaining about my ratings and occassionally having people rate my images lower? Where someone who harrasses low raters gets the benefit of them being fed up and avoiding their photos. The whole system of having to comment on 1's and 2's and 7's but not 6's is also biased towards not giving low rates.

 

The effect is that people who rate honestly don't participate as much. And there were a lot of people I liked getting input from. SOme people never bothered from the beginning. People don't have time to leave comments on every photo they see, but ratings are quick and easy. Someone like Bob doesn't rate that many photos and I don't think most of my work is his type of stuff but if it happened to run across him I'd love a rating from him.

 

Try it Doug. For the rest of the month, try and visit the recently posted queue and then some of the critique request queues. Rate every photo you come across good or bad and give an honest opinion. Then find some of the photographers that could use help and go through entire folders leaving ratings on all comments on the ones you feel you can add a comment to. Also go through the highly rated photos and give your honest opinions. Not just singling out those you think have overly inflated ratings. I'm not saying go out of your way to rate bad images that are highly rated, just that don't skip over them and be honest. Although, go out of your way to find people who could use some advice. See how that goes. People accuse you of all sorts of things if you state oppinion that isn't inline with others.

[mg]

"Go through the highly rated photos and give your honest opinions. Not just singling out those you think have overly inflated ratings. I'm not saying go out of your way to rate bad images that are highly rated, just that don't skip over them and be honest."

<p>

Well, Tom, you might be surprised reading this, but I've done just that, and many times. For example, in the past, I've rated many images by Emil Schildt, Jorg Grundler, Adam Orzechowski, Fred Vnoucek, Erwin Friesenbischler (spelling?), Fred Kamphues, Nana Souza, Ken Williams... Most of their portfolio in fact, at that time. I've left ratings between 1/1 and 7/7 on these pages. I've also rated quite a number of pictures by Valter Filippeschi, Vincent Tyler, Ilona Wellman, and quite a number of others. I've finally rated ALL the top 300 photos on the site twice in 2 months time - often leaving 4s and 5s, and many 6/5s, very few 6/6s and 6/7.

<p>

So, what happened ? Well, retaliatory ratings piled up on my own pages... and since not many people did what I did - expressing negative opinions -, my ratings on some top-rated photographers works had no effect at all on their visibility on the site. Yet, my own work became a lot less visible in a matter of days.

<p>

Conclusion: Doug is right. As long as only a few rare individuals will speak up their mind, all they will do is to push themselves out of visibility. If you search for the site's "Rating average > All" pages, you will now see many shots worth a 5 perhaps, but rated at an average of 6.X. That's photo.net today. Why ? Simply because people think of preserving the visibility of their own images instead of speaking up, or because people got tired of being insulted for the critiques they posted. Personally, I couldn't care less anymore about the visibility of my own pictures, as I have received already much more than my fair share of comments, but I'm not here to get insulted, and I find an absolute shame that photo.net does virtually nothing against VERBAL ABUSE. But as a result of all these practices, criticism is dying on the site, and great images are burried under loads of crap, and I still see nothing done by Photo.net nor by its members to set things straight and revitalize criticism; and that's one of the reasons why I lost interest in this site and stopped critiquing 2 weeks ago - the other reason being that verbal abuses are now tolerated, to the point where one can post "Fuck Marc", trash an entire folder with angry comments, and be there the next day to do the same again. Sorry, but that's not what I came here for. I'm now trying to figure out what photo.net and its members are planning to do in the near future, but I can't seem to get any answer to my questions, so I guess I'll do what Bob said and let players play and nonsense rule. Regards.

[jhenry]

I took time to read all that threat because I also feel quite fed up with this un-balance. I fully agree with initial comment of Doug.

 

But, as most of people in PN, I don't want to play the 'bad' guy. Therefore, I rate picture I generally like or like a lot; but still my average of the 760 pictures I have rated so far is around 5.6.

I don't think I belong to special group of mutual backscrtcher althought I like some photographers' works more than others.

 

The problem here is that 'To give a good mark cost NOTHING'. Imagine what will happen if the situation was similar at school and university (everybody would get a PhD!)

 

That said... BACK TO SCHOOL and although I studied mathematics, everybody can understand the following.

 

If we admit that the balance is around 4.5. Lets fix it at 4.5 as a SIMPLE RULE FOR EVERYBODY.

 

Then from now on when PN rater will rate a 7 he will have to rate a 2 before continuing to rate; when he will rates a 4 he will have to rate a 5 before continuing,...and s.o..

 

In order to make it practical and feasible we could get 5 or 10 rating decay to get back to average.

 

Then you will see the standard deviation around 4.5 very small and probably the number of rating will diminish. But at least people will think twice before distributing good marks that cost nothing.

 

I think this measure can be VERY easily set in the system since there is an memory count for PN member rating.

 

So when do WE start? It is urgent before rating become too meaningless

and ridiculous.

[jhenry]

Additionally to my proposal, the images which cannot reach a minimum number of rating (5 or 10) after 3 months should be automatically erased.

 

Then both problem would be solved: the rating and the memory. As a result, we may not have the biggest photo website in term of quantity of images and level of rating but at least the highest in quality one,.... IF IT IS THAT WE WANT...!?

[wenger]

While I think Doug has many valid points, in the end, what does it matter? Aside from the fact that none of the top rated pages have been functional anyhow, the only important page that I know of that is sorted by high ratings is the &quottop photographer&quot page. As Bob said, &quotnobody wins anything&quot here, and the primary function of this site is receiving valuable feedback on your images. I think Carl's initial argument has been the strongest, and may be worth re-reading. If fact I plan to change my behaviour here on Photo.net because of Carl's following statement.

<br><br><i>

You can give me a 4/4 anytime you want, and you'll be doing me a favor. (The people who comment without offering others the chance to join in the discussion by not rating it don't understand the realities of the current system.) . . . . . . . . . . . .

</i><br><br>

Most recently I have been guilty of more often than not only leaving comments and neglecting to rate unless I felt strongly one way or another about a particular image (in fact my combined ratings are an average 1 full point lower than Doug's). But in the future I will strive to find a number to accompany my comments. Not that I didn't understand the system, I just didn't appreciate its subtleties. Thank you Carl.

<br><br>

I must also say that as a relative novice there is a bit of intimidation felt in throwing a rating that goes against the popular opinion on an image and I guess Doug, from what you're saying, you old pros feel some of the same.

[wenger]

Great idea! At least the first part.

[mg]

"IF IT IS THAT WE WANT"...

<p>

Well, the trouble is that I honestly don't know anymore what WE want. Who is WE in the first place ? Is it Photo.net ? I'm under the understanding that Photo.net is THE One that should decide and state clearly what IT wants.

<p>

Yet, here is a thread that was addressing the right issues, and which is about to sink in oblivion...:

<p>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005FB5

<p>

What does Photo.net want ? Business model 1 or business model 2 ? That's the 1st question on Photo.net's list of priorities - after the hardware issues of course, which are now, understandably, the main focus.

<p>

Based on a clear objective (stated for all to see), it may indeed take time, but a better system - if not a *perfect* system - could probably be implemented.

<p>

Meanwhile, Doug or Tom's suggestions of rating more images - and rating them honestly - is the only thing that members can do.

[tom_menegatos]

Marc,

 

That's my point exactly. You don't have to tell me what happens. I know what happens when you rate and comment honestly. Some of my favorite stories, I commented on some horrible pictures giving some advice. I mean they were really bad. Barely enough exposure to understand what was going on, bad composition, etc. This person apparently got paid for these shots and didn't like my comment so went through and rated some of my photos 1/1. Found this out after ratings were no longer anonymous. I never rated her photos just left my constructive criticism. My favorite was I met this one guy in the photo critique chat room. Any photo he rated of mine was given 8/8 and I had no idea who he was. People accused me of creating it as a fake account. The funny thing is that he stopped rating photos because he pretty much only rated photos he thought deserved an 8/8 but one day someone sent him a threatening letter for rating the photo an 8/8 because it brought down his average.

 

I don't care if I become unpopular with some people with overinflated egos. I'd rather tick off a few people by being honest as every once in a while my comments/ratings help someone. I've never been much of a sheep. THough there are some people's portfolios I avoid now because they want to keep thinking their great, why should I try and stop them.

[mg]

"A rate - any rate - will give it even more visibility, so it's counterproductive."

<p>

No. Sorry.

<p>

Yes, perhaps so during the first 3 days. Then, no longer. Count, Carl. How many searches are available ? "Highest number of ratings" and "Most viewed folders", then number of comments, are the 3 only searches I know of are not "average-based". On the other hand, Highest average, Highest Aesthetics, Highest Originality, Photographer's highest rated image, Photographer's highest overall average, Highest rated photo of the day, all these searches are based on scores - and NOT NUMBERS of views, ratings, comments. . You might look at the searches that are not based on averages, but who else does ? I can bet with you that the most used top searches are the average-based ones; and once a picture at the top of an average-based search, Doug is right saying that rating it lower (if that's what you think) will DECREASE and not INCREASE its visibility. Besides that, if a new-comer arrives on PN looking for the best pictures, do you honestly think he will go to see the pictures that have the highest number of ratings...?

[jhenry]

Entirely agree with you Marc on the fact that PN should decide what direction they want for their site before it degenerates too much.

 

Marc said "Meanwhile, Doug or Tom's suggestions of rating more images - and rating them honestly - is the only thing that members can do."

 

I agree also but you experimented it as some other did and you get ignored or retaliated (I prefer retaliation than ignorance anyway). So it is NOT A REALISTIC solution. We definitely need a rule set by PN, otherwise which solution would time the most consumming: try to be fair and fight the system (or the absence of it) or create a new site ex-nihilo ?

 

Suggestion I made was quite simple and easy to set, and whatever business plan PN is choosing for future, it won't be a constraint but an advantage compare to other site.

[StuartMoxham]

I have been looking today at the average ratings given by the photogs in this thread(including me) many of us are way above 4/4 and some of us are above 5/5 so are we all rating only what we like. Maybe.<br>

But it may also be true that we choose to view what we like then we give the rating so of course it is above 4/4. So to achieve the balance that Bob was talking about at the begining we would all have to start viewing pictures that we don't like so we can rate them accordingly. IMO this is the problem with ratings and you will never change it because people don't go and view what they don't like.

[root]

You're right. If I had a DSL connection, then maybe I'd be willing to

go through lists instead of the various top pages searches just to

make my averages look good. Too many people think that dropping a

load of 3/3s on snapshots is good for the site in that it makes your

averages look good, but all it does is clutter up the top pages /

number of rates with junk making the only useful search criterion

useless. People, please don't do it.

 

Marc, you're right about most search options being average based. My

question is WHY, given that the official function of the ratings

system is not to order all the images best to worst, but to serve only

as an initial filter to weed out 80% - 90% of the daily snapshot

uploads. . .

[StuartMoxham]

I agree that with you that photonet should not be used as a place to upload pics of rallies, partyies or club outings there is plenty of free blog sites and free webspace around for this kind of use. But many people don't understand what this is all about here they think it free web space or something. Maybe they need pointing in the right direction.

[pdoyle]

There may be more search options that are based on averages, and I agree that those are typically more useful to me, but the fact is that the default search -- when one clicks on "High-rated Photos" in the menu -- is "Number of Ratings" in "Past 3 Days." Thus, Carl's point about the sheer number of ratings being the key factor is in fact correct for anyone who clicks on that link to the top photos, which is probably at least where most people start if not where they also stop searching.

[dougityb]

Carl's point is uncontestable, but is nullified by the fact that these wayward images make it not only to the TRP, but through it was well and into the database. The number of ratings gets them to the TRPSE. The quality of ratings keeps them there. All this talk about revising the ratings system is a terrible waste of time. I'm not trying to change "people." I'm trying to change YOU.

 

Let me restate my point (with the benefit of all comments and clarifications, above): These images get to the default page anyway either because of alliances, gangs, true merit, or whatever. When they get there they typically acquire another dozen or more extremely high ratings before sliding off into the database. Well, good for them, and more power to them. The pictures have somehow earned their way to the TRP, so they must be good. The trouble is, what if I (or you) look at them and think: Who the bleeping blazes pulled the wool over the eyes of so many that this dull image is rated so highly.

 

The issue in question is why are we, you, me, allowing them to proceed into the database without our individual input?

 

"I rate only what I like" I've seen that many times and formerly practiced the same thing.

 

This is rubber stamping an approval signature on what is good, and I feel it's a legitimate and necessary action. However, it is in fact only expressing one-half of your aesthetic. I, for one, am as happy as the next person to rate what I like, thereby fulfilling my need to express my aesthetic IN TERMS OF WHAT I LIKE. There is the other side of expressing my aesthetic, namely in terms of what I don't like. Want to hone in on your aesthetic? Start calling a spade a spade. Your work will get stronger. Your conviction will get stronger. You will get stronger. (You will also get retaliated against, but that's the price of sharpening yourself. Take it or leave, I say. )

 

The logical end to this, in my view: I do a search on the TRPSE, All Images/Average Rating. (This search should bring up the very best image, according to ratings, the single image with the highest average rating.) Open the image in the top spot, the upper left hand corner. Open the ratings page. The names that are NOT there INDICATE BY THEIR ABSENCE, a form of consent that yes, this image belongs here.

 

Want to truly see the best of the best on the TRP? I mean from day one to now? Get three or four hundred members doing this on a daily or weekly basis, and you'll see a wonderful dynamic taking shape.

[g1]

Well Doug this is a very persuasive argument, and after only 2 rates over the last year, you have managed to talk me into using the rating system again. Besides which, if Brians new ratings reform goes ahead I will need at least a hundred bellshaped rates to earn anonymous ratings...

[bob_pictaker]

The fact that my adding a 4/4 rating to a top rated image will push it higher up the page is nothing to be concerned about. And in one important way this is a benefit! Face it, even without my rating these images will still be just as visible as ever, right there on page one. And it's true, if 10 people were to add honest 4/4 ratings with comments explaining their rating these images will indeed climb higher on the default page, but with much more realistic averages. The additional benefit is it will allow even more people to see that there ARE indeed other opinions. The group of people who slap 7's on highly rated images simply because they are ALREADY rated highly and therefore MUST be good will be offered some other opinions for a change. And maybe some will start to think about their ratings more carefully in the future.

[jimmcnitt]

As they say in politics, Photo.Net is one helluv a big tent. It

embraces experienced working pros, first time hobbyists and

everything in between -- from digital artists to photographic

fetishists.

 

When you factor in the international reach and the language

problems associated with photographic jargon, it�s amazing that

the ratings system works at all. But in the midst of all this

complexity, it not only works -- but works rather well.

 

It�s clear that cronyism and ratings inflation are going to be a

feature of any subjective ratings system that is not anonymous.

Just look at the Olympics. It�s human nature.

 

Still, the designers of the present iteration of the PN system had

a brilliant idea in awarding the default �High-rated� status based

on the volume of ratings. To get a lot of ratings, most

photographers must make a lot of ratings. This structure favors

PARTCIPATION which is certainly good for PN�s own page-hit

stats as well as for building an active and loyal community --

presuming, of course, that there�s server capacity and bandwidth

to handle it all.

 

This is not to say that the system doesn�t have a built-in bias. On

the plus side, IMO, truly exceptional work does stand out and get

noticed very quickly. Novel ideas and techniques also tend to

stand out -- although there seems to be an ebb and flow as

today�s novelty becomes tomorrow�s cliché.

 

Finally, there�s a political bias. This is what Doug is talking

about. Fair or not, photographers who post a lot of images, rate a

lot of images (especially with pleasantly high numbers), have a

reputation among the regulars, and develop a network of

�mates,� are going to end up dominating the top-rate pages.

 

In short, the ratings system as presently structured is partly

objective and partly political, which, when you think about it, is a

lot like most other human �communities.�

 

Doug believes that we aren�t speaking up in opposition to what

we know to be imperfect or mediocre images. He�s probably

right. But it�s also important to realize most people shape their

behavior to maximize their reward from the system.

 

I, for one, take commenting seriously, and whenever possible, try

to devote considerable time to making helpful (and realistic)

suggestions for improvement. (�Pity you overexposed it,� is not

what I consider a helpful comment.)

 

I spend a couple of hours a week in the Gallery, commenting on

the work of talented new-comers, or good new work by regulars

whose names I recognize. I ignore what I consider banal.

 

I also spend a couple of hours trying to rate the work of people

who have taken the time to comment on my images. This is

sometimes rather painful, because frequently, I just can�t bring

myself to give someone a 4 or 5 when they have, out of the blue,

commented favorably and given me a 6 or a 7. So, often I

regretfully leave their work un-rated. It�s not really anything to do

with fear of retribution. I just know that people DO take ratings

personally.

 

I�m also inclined to be overly generous with people whose work

I admire or who frequently rate and comment generously. I take it

even Doug is apt fall into this particular behavior pattern.

 

Finally, I get extremely pissed off when critics use someone

else�s creative work as a forum for addressing the generic

problems of the rating system. This is a vital topic, but properly

discussed, as Doug is doing, in the site Forum, and NOT in

ratings comments of specific photos.

 

Doug�s point, as I take it, is that we should be rating the images

we don�t like, as well as the ones we do -- at least the one�s that

make it to the �High-rated pages.� Call a spade a spade. Ideally,

this is true. But realistically, this is not behavior the system

rewards -- if anything, it�s behavior the system discourages.

 

Yes, we can all be more aggressive in promoting our �aesthetic�

-- although I personally prefer to make such statements through

my work, rather than by tearing down someone else�s image

with contentious comments.

 

It's not an easy thing to tell a sincere person that you consider

what is presumably their best effort to be fundamentally flawed

and mediocre in an objective and emotionally neutral manner.

I'm not sure I can do it. I seen very few photographers on PN who

can.

 

PN could, I think, eliminate this conflict by going to a system

where the uploading photographer remains anonymous during

a given ratings period, say a week or ten days.

 

This would surely promote objectivity. Would it be fun? And most

importantly, would photographers upload a thousand images a

day in order to take the inevitable lumps that would come from

being rated anonymously? Probably not. Which leaves me

thinking that the current system, despite its flaws, does a pretty

good job for most of the people, most of the time.

[jimmcnitt]

P.S.

 

Somehow I missed Jacques suggestion earlier in the thread. It

won't do anything to address visibility, but it sure would keep

ratings inflation in check.

 

There's one potential side effect that needs to be thought

through. Would it result in sudden wave of photographer

suicides? If, in effect, one must gave out a "1" for every "7,"

there's going to be a lot of highly discouraged novices.

 

Still, it's something worth considering!

[root]

No one has mentioned the Personal Favorites page. I had hoped people

would use it to find strong images rated highly by people whose work

they admire . . . a sort of referal system.

 

But perhaps in the same way the nuances of the number of rates pages

failed to bring a lot of people back into the ratings game because

they failed to see that there were many more options available, so too

have the personal favorites pages failed to get much attention . . .

and I can prove it. Mary Ball rated one of my obscure images a 7/7,

so it's on her first page. Given that she's one of the five selected

critics on the Gallery Page, along with Seven who has also rated a few

of mine higly, I would have thought others would have found and rated

those images according to their own criteria.

 

You guessed it, they have barely been noticed. This is discouraging

not because of the fate of this particular image, but because I would

have thought that finding out what YOU think are the best images on

the site is much more useful than what the popular consensus for the

'best' images are. I don't understand this preoccupation with what we

think other people find in their own searches for the site's best.

 

Another example: Is your 'highest rated' and 'most rated' image that

comes up on their respective searches your best work? Mine isn't . .

. not even close.