Photo.net is UN-Balanced

[keith_laban]

I get the impression that many, including some working closely with photo.net, feel that it is probably a waste of time even trying to improve upon the ratings system/gallery, seeing it as rather like flogging a dead horse.

 

I am not a mathematician, analyst or statistician, but surely somewhere amongst all the photo.net contributors there are those who are and could apply their specialist skills to arrive at a solution or at least some options to improve upon the present system.

 

I know that right now there are perhaps more pressing problems for the likes of Brian to tackle, but I worry when I see photographers such as Marc Gouguenheim walking away due to the sites perceived lack of direction and inertia.

 

A very wise old head once told me �you are judged by the company you keep�. If photo.net is to thrive and be more than a dumping ground for holiday snaps, it needs the active input of photographers such as Marc to attract other talent, who will then likewise do the same.

[tom_menegatos]

"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, "

 

Carl, things like what Marc described failed to bring a lot of people back to the ratings game and only serve to drive them away. So the only way to be part of the ratings game is to play by the rules that a small but very vocal part of the site have set up. Not only are people being dissuaded (to put it mildly) from rating. Their old ratings are being erased somehow. In the past 3 months even with the addition of new photos and new ratings I still have about 60 less ratings today than I did almost exactly 3 months ago (I have a quick way of checking) and my ratings have increased so it looks like low rates where axed. So not only are the people rating honestly on things they like and things they don't like being discouraged, people with lower ratings are being removed from the system! I had no cause to complain about these people but apparently others did. On one photo I lost 13 out of 75 raters.

 

The majority of first time visitors to this site come here for the information contained here not for the photos. How can I be so certain about this without seeing any of the usage reports? Easy, the photo pages are not indexed by search engines, and like most sites, a lot of new visitiors come to sites like this through a search engine. This site was set up to discuss photography and learn from others. The forum/static pages get about the same amount of traffic as the gallery section according to one of Brian's posts but the gallery section consumes the most resources. Now the people with the best photos on here generally have the least to learn from others on here but so much of the attention is geared towards bringing people to their photos as well as other people discouraging leaving ratings on not so good photos. It just doesn't seem to follow the roadmap of the rest of the site.

 

"so too have the personal favorites pages failed to get much attention ."

 

I just saw that recently pretty neat. I don't know how long it's been around because it's not on the community member page, just on the portfolio page for users. Depending where you click the name from you get one or the other. Why you're not getting more exposure (comments/ratings) from it... my guess people look at it mostly to compare how someone who rated their photos rated others, rather than to find new work. Although I did see some very nice photos that I've never seen before in some cases, I didn't have the urge to rate them because I'd have to click it to get the photo page, then click the ratings tab to add a rating, then submit my rating. Too much clicking and backpaging especially if I wanted to add a comment. I generally stick to the ratings queue and critique request as well as rating whole folders just for that reason.

[root]

Rating folders is not common practice - in my portfolio, exactly once

since joining a year ago.

 

Rating from a queue is not a practical option unless you have a high

speed connection. Too much chaff, not enough wheat.

 

Encouraging comments on overrated images ignores the fact that most

rates are based initially on genre preference. Very few frequent

raters on this site are qualified or inclined to offer valid

constructive criticism on a broad range of images. Look at POW

comments for examples.

 

Brian's fine tuning of the top pages interface and the setup of

personal favorites pages was a big improvement, but if we want to

deemphasize the competitive nature of the ratings system, then adding,

removing and modifying existing search options would help.

 

. . . . then figure out a way to promote these changes to encourage

greater particpation.

 

. . . but you can't change - or critique - people's tastes.

[dougityb]

"if we want to deemphasize the competitive nature of the ratings system, "

 

What's this "we" stuff? Is this something "we" want to do? Is this a stated Photo.net goal? I'm asking, using a little humour (very little, I know) because I don't know. Is this a goal, to deemphasize the competitiveness?

 

". . . but you can't change - or critique - people's tastes."

 

Watch out for disagreement here. A new word to consider: Education. It has been working to change people's tastes for thousands of years.

 

And I think you are perfectly entitled to critique people's tastes. What's un-critiqueable about someone's taste? I'm lost here, if I'm wrong. I agree you can't pass judgement with condescension, but everyone is entitled to hold an opinion. If the advocate is saying "you can't critique someone's tastes," then I see that as a cultural taboo, however, on this site, you are not only empowered to do just that, but expected to render your opinion if you want to be a player. Otherwise, someoe else will be making the decisions about what your aesthetic is. For example: "Hey Friend, my photographs are on Photo.net. Check them out." Response: "I've been to Photo.net and there's nothing good there. Let's talk about sports."

 

Lots of sound wisdom in Jim's comment.

 

I'm not advocating a sweeping change of the system, or of the species in general. I'm simply encouraging all of us here, those who are concerned with how Photo.net looks to the rest of the world, those of us who care what passes as good photography, and those of us who have or want a stronger sense of our own aesthetic, to take special care that images don't slip into the database, or remain there, with abnormal, fraudulent, or grossly inflated ratings.

[root]

" Is this a goal, to deemphasize the competitiveness?"

 

Yes, it is. Brian and Bob have made this abundantly clear.

 

"Education. It has been working to change people's tastes for

thousands of years. "

 

By showing what is 'good', rather than knocking down what is

'bad'.

 

"I've been to Photo.net and there's nothing good there."

 

As I mentioned above, part of the solution is in the interfaces.

Stop calling these images 'top' or 'high'. Since anyone can rate,

call them 'popular' because that's the truth of it. If we had

categories, people could focus on genres they like rather than

the out of balance representation that we see now.

 

Whose fault is it if someone can't find good images on

photo.net? Mostlypeople aree too lazy to figure out how to use all

the various search options that are available.

 

Do you think there are photographers who upload images on

this site that you would like but don't know about? I doubt it. All it

takes is finding one image by using 'photographer's highest' in

various time periods, checking out their portfolios, marking them

as interesting, then visit when it suits you.

 

Maybe we need a highly visible page entitled "how to find the

best images on photo.net".

[dougityb]

Maybe we need a highly visible page entitled "how to find the best images on photo.net".

 

I think we have one of these already, the same thing I've been calling the TRP.

 

But I appreciate your perseverence and can finally see your point, (I think):

 

All we need to do is change the name of the link on the masthead, and elsewhere, from "high rated images" to "popular images." The TRP will then become the MPI for Most Popular Images, and there will be no need to worry about their quality because, after all, popularity is not a measure of quality. Quality won't matter, mate rating will make no sense because the number of rates will be key, not the value and ratings inflation will end. To express your asethetic you can rate an image you like, which is what everyone does anyway, so there will be no need to change the species; ignore images you don't like, which everyone does anyway, thereby inactively expressing your aesthetic, which no one wants to do actively. To populate the MPI with the best quality of images on the site, we will only have to worry about the quality of the membership. If you don't like an image, you can comment, suggesting improvements, but not rating, because you don't want to promote an inferior image, and you don't want to quantify the actual degree of dislike you might have, saving everyone from using terms like Bad and Below average, and no one's feelings get hurt.

 

Sounds like the perfect solution, unless I missed something. Seriously, is this the perfect solution? Have we been upset all this time over semantics?

[pdoyle]

<i>Maybe we need a highly visible page entitled "how to find the best images on photo.net".

 

I think we have one of these already, the same thing I've been calling the TRP.

</i>

<p>

I think what Carl was proposing was a short tutorial somewhere on how to use the TRP search engine to find what you want, whether that is "most popular" pictures or "best" pictures or what have you.

[tom_menegatos]

What I never understood is why do people want to rate photos that have already been given good ratings? Especially when they just rate them high as well. I can understand wanting to look at the photos that have been given high rates to find good work but when it comes to rating and critiquing why bother with only the good ones.

 

The main reason I critique on this site is to learn and hopefully in the process someone picks up something from what I've said. I look at the photos and figure out what's good and what's bad, how I would have done things differently. The same type of thoughts I have when I look at my own photos. It's a fairly selfish motive but I try to share with the photographer and everyone else that might view it. It may sometimes come across harsh compared to other people on the site but I don't sugar coat it for myself either. Although I don't think it's as selfish as just focusing on the ones you really like. How does that help anyone else other than to add to ego stroking.

 

What value do you add to a critique (or more importantly the site) if you're just making the same praises everyone else does on the same photos by the same photographers? The critique requests random photos should be the input areas for ratings. If you want to participate in ratings you do it through there. If you want to look and comment on nice photos you use the top pages. I've always wondered what would happen if you could only rate images that were submitted for critique in the forum but you could comment on any photo. Also if the rate random, was set up so that it randomly chose one photo from different photographers in a fair way to rate from there as well. Instead of seeing 20 photos each from the same few photographers every time you look at the top page, you'd see more photographers represented. That would be good for the people new to the site to have their photos on there. I mean, if you see one great photo from one photographer on the top site you'll probably click into their portfolio. Why do you need to see all their up loaded photos on the top page? Spread it around a little and I think more people will be into the site.

 

If you look at a lot of the highest rated photographers you'll see a common thread in their ratings. They will have a decent amount of ratings from people who only rate a few of their photos. The lower ones sometimes get deleted on the premise of abuse. The reason why they're so high is because there's a large fan base that will rate all of their photos or a majority of them with nothing but 6's and 7's. Usually coming out to 1 to 3 points above the average rating. And these people that rate a lot of the photos high, you'll see on all the high rated photographs and sometimes are the high rated photographers.

 

And I remember quite a few photographers on this site that I didn't find through ratings but rather from doing searches for a specific camera, lens, developer in the old gallery search that had practically no ratings.

[root]

Good question. I can think of a few.

 

Although it is not true that images 'vanish' after a short time on the

top pages, it is true that longer time frames are more competitive and

even though all the regul;ar uploaders are represented by something in

the various searches, YOUR Favorite may indeed be harder to find.

 

And that is what the personal favorites page is all about. Seem

ashame to load them up with mostly POWs which are easy to find on it's

own search. Most of mine are selections that some might have missed,

even if they know the photographer.

 

If you are familiar with someone's work, don't you think someone who

respects you would be pleased to know which one of his is your

favorite?

 

. . . . . but the overriding issue is WHY you like it. How many

popular images do you see that still don't have an in depth critique

that show a newbie why and how this works. It's not self evident, and

not everyone can explain why. If you know, say so.

 

And lastly, images that are 90% there are the one that benefit the

most from a suggestion that could help change the image in question -

and more importantly, future images - from 'good' to 'great'. Every

now and then, somebody drops an idea on one of my images and I think

"why didn't I see that?

[keith_laban]

I'm fairly new to the Gallery and not too bright. Would some kind soul please tell me how I find the personal favourites pages?

 

TIA

[peter_daalder]

As an example (because it has featured in this thread) go to Carl's <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=524475"> Summary page...</a> You'll see the <b>Photo Ratings</b> heading and will easily be able to identify where to go next to browse Carl's "highest rated photos"... Cheers,

[root]

The summary page can be found by clicking on the person's name, then

the number of images uploaded

[peter_daalder]

Thanks for clarifying the omission in my last comment, Carl.

[keith_laban]

Peter and Carl

 

Many thanks indeed.

[seven]

Repetition, post after post the ratings, eh - why do you keep changing your name, Doug? Is it CLEVER? Oh, right......the mate thing - get them rushing to your pics.<p>

 

So you want a different model, us to spread our rates about? I'm IN and have been doing this for yonks; but your mates.......well, they don't want to do it DOUG. Look around, then follow this link <br>

 

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004PUX"> go here, we've talked about this before. Are YOU to blame for your question??</a>

[StuartMoxham]

Well this has been interesting. We could go on with this for months but I have come to my on conclusions that work for me.

The rating system it's self is not that flawed it is human nature that is to blame. I am not likely to put bad ratings on peoples photos that have given me good ratings I prefer not to rate it and leave maybe a polite comment. I am not likely to put bad ratings on a photo that many other have rated highly not because I fear retaliation but mayby I am wrong and it is a good image. I don't use that rapid fire production line rating page. I prefer to look at thumbs and choose the pictures I like to look at. And in some way we all mate rate because we like someones work mark them as interesting and check their work when they add new pics.<br> These are my conclusions I hope you found them interesting, this at least explains how I rate photos.(rate what I like, view what I like).<br> Stuart :)

[seven]

Stuart - we are all extemely grateful for your input; even DOUG who no longer has a handle ...... on things.

 

If I can help, I will - just send the email buddy.

[bob_pictaker]

I'm not sure what type of help Stuart was asking for Seven? It appears to me that he was simply describing his rating habits. Oh well, it was nice of you to offer anyway!

 

I may be wrong, but I think I noticed a touch of sarcasm in your comment before Stuart's. Could that be true? No matter!

 

"but your mates.......well, they don't want to do it DOUG. Look around, then follow this link"

 

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you are driving at here? Which mates don't want to do what? Look around where? I followed your link, but that didn't answer my questions either!

 

But I would like to respond to your comments on both of these threads right here if I may. The only "mist" I am aware of is the one engulfing the top rated pages. It consists for the most part of spittle resulting from all of the mutual tongue kissing, and similar forms of slobber going on between a subset of the community who need not think much beyond the act of pressing the shutter on their cameras in order to receive a flood of 6's and 7's.

 

This concept proposed by Doug, as radical as it may appear, is very simple! Voice your opinion! Speak up! We have the privilege here to be able to speak freely (avoiding profanity, and other abusive behavior), so why not take advantage of that privilege? If you see a family snapshot with an average over 6/6 and you think it deserves 3's, or 4's then say so! Rate it! Be polite, but be honest.

 

Well, I don't want to run on too long, so I'll just stop here. I hope I explained this concept adequately, but I may not have. So Seven, if I can help, I will - just send the email buddy.:-)

[root]

Well, we could take turns picking the photo of the day - the one Doug,

or anyone else has preselected to visit en masse to voice our

collective opinions. Maybe make it automatically the most rates - 24

hour. I suspect we'll be reading lots of text based entirely too

often on genre preference, but I would seriously like to see the POW

idea extended, since it's usually dead after two or three days.

[peter_daalder]

Going around in circles...in more ways than one! Carl, your last comment prompted me to drag out the often suggested idea of appointed PN curators, who select Top Photos... Like the POW discussions, this might be an invitation for lively threads on the chosen Top images. Unfortunately, I can feel a discussion erupting about who should be the appointed PN curators - don't you just love this place!

[seven]

Yeah Pete; sick and running around 100 degrees, but this place is okay.

 

Will send email.

[rubens_abboud]

I think we're talking two different things here.

 

1. Critiquing, which implies a critical assessment of one's image using aesthetics and originality as criteria; and

 

2. Rating, which implies, to me at least, some sort of competition.

 

To me, those looking for #1 cannot be fullfilled by number ratings alone. They are looking to improve their skills and need critique in the form of text (e.g. your highlights are blown, composition is skewed and sloppy, etc).

 

Those who come to compete, are really looking for numbers and could care less about what you might thinking of their blown highlights -- unless, of course, you think their blown highlights are worthy of a 7/7!

 

By combining both forms of evaluation, those coming to compete (#2) are pushing those coming to be critiqued (#1) aside with no feedback to improve their skills.

 

I think a critique forum should be used for critique, with no ratings.

 

A "competition" forum could be created where ratings could be the main form of communication. But, to help control abuse ratings should be controlled:

 

1. everybody gets a fixed number of ratings that they begin with, say, 10 ratings

 

2. the ratings that each can assign are distributed equally along a Bell Curve (say, you get 3 ratings of 4 (average) to give, you get 2 ratings of 5 and 3 (good and not so good) to give, and you only get one rating of 6 and 2 -- wait, this doesn't work out with a total of 10 ratings, but you get the gist.

 

3. once some assigns all of their ratings, they get another batch of Bell Curve-distributed ratings to assign. Perhaps, the number of ratings per batch can increase once a batch is depleted.

 

Disclaimer: I do not consider myself a great citizen of this community since I am guilty of offering limited text feedback and do not rate those images that I find horrible.

 

Rubens.

[root]

The Critique Circles were discontinued without explanation.

 

Multiple fake accounts would undermine your ratings allocation and are

difficult and time consuming to trace.

[dougityb]

Seven, Buddy, use your email to answer questions, too, like the one I sent you yesterday morning. Sorry for my stupidity, but I don't know what your point was with half of your first comment. Can't answer you 'til I do.

 

The ratings system, in my opinion, only needs to be changed to the extent that people will use it. In the meantime, it's not working because people aren't using the full range of available rates.

 

 

"my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not qualified" I've heard this excuse. NEWS FLASH: Your opinion DOES matter. If you have a membership here, you have a voice. Use it. Your opinion does matter. There are scores and scores of people just like you, but on the opposite side: They don't know a good photograph from a bad one, but they're not afraid to rate the ones they think are good. Most of those with this excuse follow this somewhat twisted logic: "I'm not qualified to judge a bad photo (even though I know one when I see it, but what do I know) but I am very well qualified to judge a good one, which is why I rate only the ones I like with 6's and 7's. "

 

Personally, I don't think that makes sense.

[dougityb]

Also, why wait around for someone else to appoint curators? Don't you see: We've already been appointed!

 

That's the whole idea of the ratings system in the first place: To give each of us the responsibility of selecting the best images to represent Photo.net. That's what curators do, they are the ones in charge of a collection, exercising the power of choice and rejection, building a strong collection more by rejection than by accepting? Don't believe me? Send your work to the museum curator closest to you.

 

You can't fulfill the task of being a curator by only accepting work. You have to equally, consciously, thoughtfully and actively reject work, too. Otherwise, you're not being a curator, you're just nominating.

 

Shall we take the POD suggestion to the forum? I don't mean suggest the idea to the site at large. I mean post, (or email) a link to a particular photograph which you will visit, critique and rate according to your own personal sense of aesthetics.

 

As a trial, I'll do this for one week with images I feel need a balanced perspective, either an under-rated image, but to begin with probably an over rated image. One per day. I'll start when 6 people accept this challenge, promising to rate according to their conscience, and posting in this forum their intent to participate in this experiment. If it works out, if it becomes an worthwhile and productive activity, one where learning, education, balance and a quest to discover excellent photography prevail, then we can continue and someone else can propose an image for critique. Then someone else the next time, and so on.

 

Does anyone accept this challenge?