Photo.net is UN-Balanced

[absinthe]

I thought that the DB here wasn't just for technically & aesthetically perfect images, but also a place where people can learn. How else is one to get critiqued constructively if one doesn't place thier non-perfect attempts up on the db for all to see, out of focus & all? Is this db only to be used as eye candy?

[dougityb]

Carl, I sent the links in email.

 

Carrier, explanations are not required. The only thing needed is to evaluate the image based on the image. The system is designed to do the rest. If the majority think it's great, it will rise to the top. If the majority think it's crap, it will sink. If the majority don't rate, then whatever happens is inaccurate.

 

Good point Heather. I'm not sure how to respond to that right away, but I guess my first answer would be to say that this is only part of the purpose. The search engine allows entries for highest average rating, and that average has nothing to do with educational value, but only with aesthetics and originality. I don't know how to make the search engine call up the most educational, maybe number of comments comes closest, and this is right now one of the choices. Something tells me that *almost* excellent images are more educational than excellent ones, anyway.

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

Carrier- not aesthetically, No. Of course I don't. But some of those shots are getting O2 A2. I mean C'MON. They're much more original than THAT. But getting off topic.

 

Marc- I rate my friends the same way I rate strangers. If I think t's a 2,2 I give it a 2,2 if I think it's a 6,7 I give it that. You should too. When and if I EVER post any good images I won't appreciate your friend Igors ugly ducks clogging up the top rated pages because you gave him undeserved 7's.

 

It's not a matter of taste- Doug you're right. It's a matter of dishonest ratings. Or people who don't even think about the image before they rip it to pieces. Just like real life- things get messed up by ignorant people who just don't give a crap about others.

 

 

People just need to grow up, and theres nothing you or I can do to make that happen. Just rate all your pictures honestly. That's all you can do.

[bentes_world]

A walk of sorrows

With thanks to Doug, Geraldine and some others I lately have had many visitors at this photo - or perhaps the original Photo. First I was wondering why. Now I know why. Doug had chosen it in order to present it to other photonetters - for the ratings he found were much too high. People might rate and comment as they just like to do, but in my opinion Doug could have been so kind to tell me he had put a link to my photo, so I knew what was going on. Just my opinion. Thanks.

[dougityb]

Bente, I apologize for not obtaining your permission to use your image as an example of problems here on Photo.net. As it is a public image, I didn't feel it was necessary. I'm not implicating you in these problems as I don't see that you have rated your own image. In fact, I'm not even upset with all of those that DID rate the photograph. The problem I'm trying to address falls in the lap of those who did NOT rate your photograph. I stand behind any member's right and privilege to rate any image as they like, whether it be with 1's, or 7's.

 

My link, above, went to the image itself, without any identifying remarks. The link provided the image alone, not the page, not your name, not the ratings list, not the opportunity to rate. I was very careful not to provide a link to an actual page, but to an image only. It was posted for discussion. The last rating, by Ilan Ginzberg, was posted this morning before it was referenced in this thread. I know this because I saw his rating and his comment as I was researching an image to post here for the purposes of the discussion. So, in point of actual fact, no one has yet rated, or commented on your image as a result of this thread.

 

I see that you have switched it for another picture, which is of course your perogative, but I hope you eventually change it back, seeing as how others have posted their opinion on a photoshopped cat in a pot, and not on a "Walk of Sorrows," which is a much better image, photographically speaking, in my opinion.

[g1]

Bente it was me that drew attention to your cat-pot picture. I found it by myself, and quite frankly I was surprised that it had earned so many 6's & 7's. It was this very reason I decided Doug was right about the rating issue, and decided to start using the rating system again after a year of opting out in favour of comments only. I brought your picture to Doug's attention as a prime example of the rating issue he was discussing. People are rating according to who is a friend instead of according to the quality of work being reviewed. I do apologise if the attention to your picture was unwanted but it is on a public forum and is open to discussion and critique amongst members, as well as high rates from your friends. I do hope you understand what we are discussing here, and again please accept my apologies. It was not intended to single any person out, as the problem is currently widespread.

[root]

I rated and commented on the image after it was brought

forwards as an example of an image that had high rates but

where the comments were of no benefit to the photographer

beyond making him feel good. Bente, I don't know if you were

aware that the bright stick and leaves is a flaw that keeps the

image from comparing well with other similar images. Why did

no one else mention it?

 

I was not aware that more than one of your images was selected

for the purposes of discussion and I think that's unfortunate and

unfair.

 

Doug, may I suggest that if you want people to rate and

comment on 'popular' images that seem not to have had the

benefit of critical analysis, that we devise a way to pick images by

formula, not by personal random selection, as was done here.

 

The POD - there would actually be several - would be the first

image on the 24 hour / most rating page. By definition, selecting

it would assure that it stayed there, but it takes several hours to

get to that position and will be gone in a few hours to be

replaced by another one that has a few more hours of maximum

exposure.

[dougityb]

The image in question didn't have any sticks in it. It was a cat in a pot with photoshopped edges.

 

I selected it as an example of an image with high rates and little else. It was not set forth as an image open for visitation, although I did ask for people's opinions within this thread. I was very careful not to provide links to the page itself. Carl asked for links so he could see my comments and ratings, and I provided them solely to him.

 

I'm very frustrated with this issue and am thinking the database can take care of itself, that it doesn't need my help.

 

I apologize for taking up everyone's valuable time with my unreasonable ideals.

[bob_pictaker]

Don't give up yet Doug, I like this idea! A "potentially" overrated image one day, an underrated or mostly ignored image the next? Count me in!

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

Spoken like a true Martyr.

[tom_menegatos]

"ok, but how do you explain to the people with popular/other taste, that their pictures are not worth being in the database?"

 

Snobs like this tick me off. That's not the whole point. And I've seen photos from a $40 Argus that have been "worthier" of being in the gallery than yours if it's really about worth.

 

Doug,

 

I'm curious, what are you going to do now? Are you going to rate "honestly" and more "balanced" now or have you been scared away because you think your ratings might go down or convinced it's not a good idea because rating low dones't "do anybody any good"? I liked your comment about being a curatur. I hope you stick to it. There are a lot of people that will rate honestly. They usually don't have any photos on this site so they don't have concern for their own ratings. (I guess that's how the harassment started) so their easy targets for being called fake users. It's nice to know we discourage some new members from staying on the site because they just joined and had all their ratings deleted.

 

THe ratings system wasn't that bad. It's that there are some people on it that are very vocal about ratings and cause problems by getting all snippy when someone rates their images low or leaves a less than glowing comment. If it wasn't so rediculous it would be sad. I can't count the number of times people have contacted me saying they would change their ratings or have all their friends rate my images better if I did this or that, how many times I get a slew of emails over one comment or rating (sometimes all the emails just from one person), people telling me that giving low ratings is not a good idea when they have given me 1's and 2's on images that other people loved. And you'd be surprised to know who some of these people are.

 

The intimidation, accusations of every rating under your average being ratings revenge and other bullshit like that needs to stop. Accusing a new member of ratings abuse just because he has no pictures and recently signed up needs to stop. How many new users have we lost because they come back only to see their ratings all removed sometimes their accounts as well.

 

Most of the changes to the ratings system have done nothing to address the inflation, intimidation, problems. They've actually supported them. It's the reason why it took me so long to subscribe. I didn't come here for the gallery but I like getting opinions on my photos. But while the more important side of the site is going to to shit the ratings side is getting more and more time committed and features are being put in that obviously are draining the system since they load so slowly. THe changes also make it easier for people to manipulate the system. I'm sorry I take that back. Not easy to manipulate the system, it's actually quite a lot of work to manipulate the system the way it is being done. But the changes have been done in such a way as to not negate any of that hard work.

[panzerwolf]

why is your walk full of sorrows (a good picture in my opinion) in your CAT FOLDER? what a coincidence, haha...

<br><br>and tom, i agree with that... i really thought about leaving, when this one guy started posting deformed versions of my pictures in his comments... well, we get along now and i don't care anymore for my ratings, but it was not a good start...

<br><br>i also like the idea of the curators, why are you suddenly discouraged, doug?... i admit this discussion is getting a bit complicated, but it's worth working on...

<br><br>and btw, i got an overrated pic with 7/6,75 average, haha... ok, two of the raters know that it won a POM, but it was a quite small gallery, so can some of you <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1551660" target="blank">go there</a> and do justice? = )

<br>thanks...

[g1]

Carl, Bente changed the photo under discussion after it was brought into this thread. For reference it was a picture of a cat in a pot, with an extremely PS blurred background. The edges were the most rough cut n' paste I have ever seen. The point was that so many 7's would merit this picture a masterpiece, or at the very least an extremely special piece of work. The best. Clearly there was a need for an alternative perspective on the image. Perhaps it was not worthy of perfect 7's? Perhaps not everybody thought it a masterpiece? Doug is not saying you cannot rate 7's if you honestly believe a picture is worth it, but that <i>others</i> ought to use their ratings to contest those 7's if their own considered opinion is different to the general populous. <p>

I would be interested in how Bente thought of the high ratings. Did it qualify as the highly original, or the absolute best in aesthetics? I would be surprised if Bente considered that it did. Surely a few 5's would be encouraging enough? Why is it necessary for friends to go over the top with so many 6's & 7's in order to be 'kind'? Why didn't Bente write in response to the issue discussed, the photograph itself, or respond to the points raised, instead of making a complete diversion by bringing in a different issue about politeness? <p>

Tom I think you are getting mixed up between taste and acceptance of logical and objective criteria being used for assessment when placing rates. Please note the said image was rated by me as a 3/3. It could have been lower and still been justified. I would not rate anybody's image so low if some level of thought, skill, technical proficiency, or design input had been present, <i>regardless</i> of whether it had high rates on it or not. Speaking for myself here, I am not acting like the self-appointed police which has happened in the past, where high rates are brought down simply because they <i>are</i> rated highly, or even because I do not <i>like</i> the image. Somewhere some objectivity must play a part. For me, if technical ability, thought to aesthetic design, or some concept is apparent, then extremely low rates are not justified IMO. The same as high rates are not justified when they are absent. <b>Regardless</b> of who the photographer is, or whether I like the picture or not.<p>

With reference to comments about newbies, I agree that positive encouragement, time and tolerance are required. They need to feel welcome, and that they are contributing or at least developing and progressing. This applies to more serious photographers with more experience too, and all those in between. We never finish learning, or 'arrive' at a winners gate. The goal posts continually move.

[g1]

On the point about snobbery; what is your definition here? To me snobbery is when one person thinks themselves better than another. That is quite personal and judgemental, and often without foundation. This is <i>not</i> what I wish to see on PN. Discernment on the other hand is quite a different matter. If you cannot discern between 'good' 'bad' or 'interesting' 'boring' etc, in photographic technicality, originality, or aesthetics, then what is the point of rating at all?

[dougityb]

Tom and Carrier, to answer your questions, I am going to stop *talking* about the issues raised here because talk is worthless without action. Everybody complains about the system, but no one does anything. I'm not discouraged about holding to my ideals, but I am discouraged about the endless discussion.

 

And, I don't see snobbery as having anything to do with this at all. It's more about a democratic process with all sides equally represented.

 

Now, how do I shut this thing off?

[tom_menegatos]

Geraldine and Doug,

 

Re: snobbery. I thought I was very clear. That comment I quoted regarding photos "not worthy of being in the database" is snobbery. Any photo that someone posts here for a genuine critique of their work should be able to get some input whether they post the most technically perfect, aesthetical pleasing photo of a unique subject or if they post a grainy, out of focus, badly composed picture of their kids toe. To say that one photo is worthy of being on here and another is not, or even to say that one is worth rating/critiquing and another is not is snobbery in my opinion.

 

I still believe that the original purpose of this site, the reason why it became popular, should continue to be the foundation where any new features are built. Why mess with something that's been so successful? That includes the gallery/rating/critiquing sections. OK, not the original, original purpose (Phillip G's website) but what grew out of it which was a place for people, mostly amatuer photographers, to discuss, learn and improve their photography.

 

If all the attention in the gallery is set up to focus on only the very best images, how does it help the majority of people on here that want to be able to take better pictures. How do we help the PN community if so many people are just fawning over the same photographer's images, that constantly posting consistent work if there are some people on here, that want to improve, that are never told they need to watch there metering, are underexposing their images, frame it slightly different, change the lighting, etc.?

 

The whole premise that the gallery should just be full of only the best images, to me, is just bullshit. Going in that direction will quickly reduce the range of people that want to participate in this community. Less people, less involvement means less revenue.

 

I'm not saying that the better work shouldn't be highlighted but that it should be a by product of an honest, fair critiquing system where traffic is directed not only to the images that are gathering high ratings but also to the images that could use some thoughtful criticisms. While it's true that people can learn from looking at good pictures they will learn a lot more if someone takes the time to tell them what they could do better in their photography. Some people will get offended, some people will be rude about their critques but that's the way things go, we can't always agree, but ignoring images you don't think are good enough to get high ratings doesn't make this site better, it just makes it more pleasant.

 

The gallery is slowly becoming a playground for a few photographers and many people are frustrated that their photos aren't getting ANY attention in the photo critique section. So many photos in the request for critique section are getting overlooked and it seems there are more and more complaints about it and people giving up on trying to participate.

 

Imagine where photo.net would be today if the purpose of the site was for experienced photographers to post advice randomly, like a photography tips site instead of a Q&A forum where someone comes in with a problem and people offer solutions.

[Jeremy Stein]

I agree 100% with Tom's latest post: he is reminding us of why photo.net has become what it is today, warts and all, yes, but very handsome still, despite the warts! Certainly we need to have a site that is self-supporting, whatever that takes, but if we become more elitist and appeal to a more limited group of posters and readers, we may very well go down the tubes anyway. One of the things we need to remember is that anyone who posts a picture here is entitled to a fair and honest critique, constructive and helpful. That does not mean we have to sugar-coat our comments; some of don't know how to do that anyway, but we need to be clear and direct and give real photo comments along with our opinions.

 

This has little to do with ratings, BTW. The ratings are inevitably skewed and all too often simply personal applause for one reason or another. The critiques are what nearly all of us want. If you want uncritical praise, I guess you get 7/7 ratings accompanied by �fabulous� or �Your pictures are always so great� or �You are a great artist� and similar meaningless drivel. We already know who wants this stuff and complains bitterly when real criticism is posted.

 

So I guess I am joining the chorus to say that all of us who really think that honest criticism and evaluation is what this site is all about must step up our efforts to deliver such critiques more often and to more members. We should especially try to give helpful criticism to those who seem to us to need it the most, whether they announce that they are beginners or not. We all could use some help of this kind, no matter how skilled or experienced we are.

 

Let�s make an effort to do this, each and every one of us, and try to restore the spirit that made photo.net grow and flourish. Go forth and critique!!

[panzerwolf]

the sentence you quoted was actually a misunderstanding, i just noticed... i thought, what doug was referring to as "the database" was something like POW, a collection of pictures that should represent this gallery... "worth" was maybe the wrong word (i'm not native english) what i meant was how do you explain to people rating highly popular taste, that better not too much of this should represent this site. my mistake, and i understand that it was ticking you off...

<br><br>but i don't think it's snobby to explain her ratings to erin, since most people don't even take the time to look for good composition or artistic intent in pictures displaying a low technical standard, when there are so many others to look at... and this has nothing whatsoever to do with my own pictures, i didn't compare hers to mine...

[g1]

Tom, yes I hear what you are saying. I had actually interpreted Carrier's comment to refer to the top rated database. Judging by his response above, I guess that is what he meant. I don't think anybody has suggested some members don't deserve rates or critiques. Certainly there should be no elitist element active on PN. I would be the first to leave if that was how things developed.

<p>

Basically what is in discussion here is what Jeremy describes when he says <i>If you want uncritical praise, I guess you get 7/7 ratings accompanied by �fabulous� or �Your pictures are always so great� or �You are a great artist� and similar meaningless drivel. </i> Well it isn't really of utmost importance, but nevertheless it is a shame when you want to view a variety of the best pictures that PN has to offer, only to find these kind of 'drivel' pages from the same few photographers over and over again. How else are we to find the best of PN's photo bank? <p>

I like Jeremy's approach and perspective, and think his post is a great note to close the thread on: <p>

<i>So I guess I am joining the chorus to say that all of us who really think that honest criticism and evaluation is what this site is all about must step up our efforts to deliver such critiques more often and to more members. We should especially try to give helpful criticism to those who seem to us to need it the most, whether they announce that they are beginners or not. We all could use some help of this kind, no matter how skilled or experienced we are. </i> <b>Jeremy Stein</b>

[joe_garrick]

In response to comments on adding additional rules about when and how ratings can be made (currently restricting 1, 2, and 7) - These restrictions only serve to distort ratings. Part of the reason (not all of the reason certainly) that you get so many critiques that just say "Wow!" is that you have to say <i>something</i> to leave a 7. If there's already a long thread discussing why the photo is good (or not), why should you be required to say "I agree with what's already been said here 32 times." just to leave a 7. If you want to rate it, just rate it and move on. If you want to leave a comment, then do that. If I think something is worth a seven, but what I like has already been said, I've taken to just leaving "!" as my comment.

<p>

As for the people who are only interested in the ratings game, I say let them do their mate rates or whatever other trickery they care to use. I have better things to worry about than whether or not someone I've never met is interested in boosting ratings on a web site.

<p>

If you're looking for good work, rather than worry about ratings from the point of view of the top rated photos, start browsing the favorites folder of people who's opinions you respect regarding a genre that interests you. I use three tools here to surf photos. The <a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/">Rate selected recent photos</a> link to browse a few random uploads, the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1481">Member requests for critique</a> link to see new work where people have specifically asked for critiques (normally immediately jumping off to the more specific areas), and finally, to the recent comments and highest rated photos section. Ratings from one person to the next vary for any given photo, but they do tend to be consistent from photo to photo for the same person. I might have an inherent bias for portraits, but you can still find the ones I thought were the best among my favorites. A good tool to see the bias is the average ratings by the members, it allows you to see if they're just rating the "good or better" photos as many people prefer to do. Have a look at my <a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/one-critic?rater=707382&period=2000">highest rated photos</a>. You might think I'm a genius or a moron for picking them, but if you like them it's a nice way to browse work that someone thought was good. Maybe you'll find <a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/photocritique/one-critic?rater=510681&period=2000">Doug's highest rated photos</a> to be a better selection.

[james_oneill]

If you want a classic case of where this sort of stuff goes on take a look at <a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1564640> This one</a> 5 Ratings and I'm the only one not to have given it 6 for originality. But Tell the guy who put it for critique "Rain drops on Roses" hasn't been original since before the sound of music and he throws his toys out of the pram. But if no speaks up its pictures like that that end up top of the scores.

[joe_garrick]

James O -

 

You're basically correct about the way the photo you linked was rated, but in part I blame that on the ratings system itself as much as on the people assigning the ratings. My preference would be for a system something like scoring for figure skating - one score for technical merit and one for artistic merit. As it is, we're stuck with what we have, and I have no idea how to rate most photos on originality. There are precious few shots that haven't been done before, but it doesn't seem practical to be rating 90% of the photos low on originality, or to rate stuff you think is crap an O7 just because you haven't seen it before. I don't have a perfect solution even for me, so I just go with my intuition. I gave the rose shot O4/A5, since it seemed to be about an average idea for a flower macro. There are worse approaches than the admittedly tired raindrop cliche used in that photo.

[maria_s.]

The rating system has to go, period. We all fall into its traps more often than we would like to admit. I am not picking on you, Marc but since you are so vocal and well known I decided to use you as an example of inflated ratings. Just yesterday I found this folder rated above average with ratings 5/5 and 5/6 from you: http://www.photo.net/photo/1207737

 

I don't dig it? We may differ in opinions but I know you can tell a bad photograph from a good one. But the explanation was easier than I thought -- you just felt obliged to return a favor to a photographer who rated many of your pictures 7/7. Let's be honest with ourselves, stop that madness and abolish the rating system.

[mg]

Maria,

<p>

I rated Andzrej's picture a 5/5, based on the following: I like the light, I like the composition and

the 2 swans in the background. A 4/4 is the average on PN. Is this image "average" ? Meaning:

are there more pictures that are better than this, than pictures that are worse than this on PN ?

I don't think so. But of course you may disagree. My main point is that Andzrej is not a top-rated

photographer and that a 5/5 will not help his picture to occupy the front pages. All the contrary, a 5/5

is keeping this image OUT of the top-pages. Did I always rate perfectly ? No. But I think this image is a 4/5

or a 5/5. Or at least this rating is consistent with my way to rate.

I don't find it much better or worse than the picture of Valter I started my thread here http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005KLV with - for example.

Now, this rating and others I gave to Andrezsj have nothing in common with the 7s or what ever that I have

received. I think you need to understand the difference between a 5 and a 7 on PNet. My 5/5 here instead of

a 4/5 or such is used to tell Andrzej which of his pictures I find better than others, and that's all it does. Whereas

a 7 is a step towards the top-rated pages.

<p>

For example, your 7/7 on THIS image, which is in my view well done but absolute kitsch, has helped to

position it in the highest rated images ever on Photo.net:

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photo/1506617

<p>

That is, to me, a lot more questionnable, especially given the fact that you rated this one a 7/7 too:

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photo/1010076

<p>

but this one a 3/5:

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photo/1545619

<p>

and this one a 4/6:

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photo/1420616

<p>

I honestly don't care about your ratings, Maria, but how are

you going to justify these differences in your ratings ? How are you going to justify that

these 2 images of mine are just as original as or less original than the average of the images uploaded

to PN...? Perhaps your previous ad hominem attacks against me in this thread

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005KLV are the best justification...? :-)

Feel free to deny...

<p>

Perhaps, you could also explain to us why Andrezj's picture is worth a 1/2 by your standards. How are you

going to rate the same shot if it is completely over-exposed for example ? Etc.

<p>

You are wasting my time, Maria, and I won't let that happen again, so don't be surprised if your next ad hominem attacks are left unanswered. All the best.

[maria_s.]

I won't engage in this nonsense with you anymore as well -- you never listen anyway and get defensive each time somebody sees things diffrently than you.

 

Anyway, my ratings has changed in the past few days and they pretty much illustrate the idiocy of the system and our own shortcomings. I don't believe any campaigns will ever change that. To answer you in short (and you did waste your time following my comments): my 1/2 ratings on Andrzej's picture would change to 1/1 if the shot was grossly overexposed. I stand by my ratings and I feel awful that I had to rate it. As to your photographs, which I finally had guts to rate after all those years on photo.net, I will follow my ratings with a very polite comments remembering that "all that a person does or thinks is of consequence" (Whitman). So, please, please, don't take it personally and don't look for any innuendos because there are none -- no politics or agendas. I am thinking of a critique of your work in Susan Sontag style -- I hope you are familiar with her essays On Photography. They are a bit old but still a classic. Goodnite, Frenchman.