Why do they bother?

[stefanovandelli]

One of my recent pictures has just received a low rating without

comment. That's fine... well... not really, but I sort of got used to

people rating low without explaining why in their opinion the photo

doesn't make the grade. So I am not complaining about this, but out

of curiosity I checked what pictures this guy is taking. Well, you

guessed it right, No of photos: 0. Once again I am kinda used to this

so... I am not going to complain about it. The one thing that ticked

me off is that this guy has rated 109 photos on the site with an

average of 3.85 for aestetics and no highest rated photos. Now, if

someone cannot find beautiful pictures on a site like this, what the

heck are they looking for?Surely one is bound to bump into a photo

from Mark Gougenheim or Nana Sousa Dias just to mention a couple. Why

do they bother?

[briany]

Very small p.....s :)<br>

Interesting, I tried to check your portfolio, but all images showed up as blanks. But the site is usable one again.. hmm...

[colin_mcsweeney]

Stefano, I am as bewildered as you. Only I do get "pissed off" I find that not only do these people have no photos on display they also are usualy not patrons. But not putting their images on the site and then going off and giving low ratings really does bother me. I would definately like to see something done to change this. If you don't have images displayed you should not be allowed to critique others. Are you out there Brian??

[bobatkins]

Why not? You can't support this on aesthetic grounds, otherwise you'd have to say that if you don't have GOOD images in your portfolio, then you shouldn't be allowed to critique because you're not good enough. After all, would it be any better if you KNEW your critic was a lousy photographer than if you just suspected it!

 

You could support this on the grounds that only subscribers should have access, but then do you say only subscribers with GOOD portfolios should be allowed to critique, or can photographers who have either no portfolios or lousy porfolios also say they don't like your work just because they paid their $25.

 

There's also an implicit assumption that only good photographers are good critics. That's not true. Some non-photographers are great critics, with a good appreciation of photography. Some great photographers are lousy critics because they don't know what to say about other people's work or how to say it.

 

Some people don't want to rate only beautiful pictures. Some people might want to rate pictures of average photographers. Some might chose to help out beginners more than experts, and in that case their average rating will be lower.

 

Not everyone is looking only for the "slap you in the face, WOW THAT'S AMAZING" images", otherwise 99% of the images on the site would be totally ignored.

 

I'm not saying the current system is perfect. I'm saying it's a complex situation not easily addessed by simple solutions.

[david_henderson]

Yet again. It is ridiculous to suggest that the validity and

usefulness of someone's criticisms is related to their ability as

photographers or indeed their desire to have their work on public

display. Do you think that theatre critics are great playwrights?

Do you think that literary critics are great writers? Are art critics

great painters?

 

Whenever I see this point two things go through my mind. There

are a number of people on this site who resent being "marked"

by those with no pictures up because it removes from them the

ability to retaliate. More benignly I think there are people who

seek to discount criticism of their work on the basis that the rater

is (in their opinion) a poor photographer. Neither of these

motives are creditable.

 

Where I do very much agree with you however is that it is

unhelpful to give low ratings without explaining why. Personally I

think it's unhelpful to give any ratings without detailed comments.

But then I'm just one of those people who think that the site

would be improved without a rating system at all- only

comments.

[stefanovandelli]

Just to clarify one small point... I am not complaining! I just don't understand anyone going through the bother of signing up to this site for the apparent only motive of rating photos that they don't like. No pictures posted, no participation to the great forums, no criticism to rated photos (at least with respect to my photo). It doesn't particularly piss me off, but it most definitely leaves me puzzled.

[keith_laban]

<i>�It is ridiculous to suggest that the validity and usefulness of someone's criticisms is related to their ability as photographers or indeed their desire to have their work on public display.�</i><p>Perhaps though a complementary critique from Joe Cornish would have a tad more kudos and meaning for you David than a similar critique from someone who has rather less or no ability? Without having their work on public display, how will we ever know of their abilities?<p>I have never rated a photograph on photo.net and can�t say I�m likely to, but I can see that the ratings game has a value as filter, giving many of the �better� photographs greater visibility to all those who do enjoy the game.

[wind.dk]

What's wrong with an average of 3.85 for aestetics?

 

If I remember right, the ideal rating average should be 4.00, so this guy you claim not to be upset about seems to be one of the best raters on photo.net, being only 0.15 from the correct average.

 

Ask him for a comment if you want to learn, or for more ratings, you may just have found someone who thinks about his ratings. But then again, why should he bother, on the face of it you don't seem to want a critical opinion.

[stefanovandelli]

Sorry Ivar, but I really have to point out that I am not complaining, I am not complaining, I am not complaining. As with regard to the critical opinion.... well... I'd love that. THAT is the reason why I use this site.

[tree]

I don't mind my pictures being given a low rating. I do mind when my pictures are given a low rating without any comment. If the purpose of the forums is to provide feedback to people on their photography, then perhaps no ratings will be accepted without some amount of feedback. The current restriction on 1/2/7 requiring a comment goes some way in this direction.

 

I post my pictures so that I can get constructive critiques of the subject and the technique. Unfotunately rarely do I get either... to the point where it doesn't seem worth going to the effort to scan the negatives or prints or chromes and uploading them. If I wanted to look at pretty pictures I'd just surf over to Getty or Corbis and browse away.

 

I must admit that there have been cases where I received a low rating on a picture from someone, sans comment, that prompted me to go look at their portfolio to see if they can "do any better." In virtually every case not only can they do better, but they consistently do. That stings all the more because I would like to know what it is about my work they didn't like, since they are obviously accomplished photographers.

 

Like Stefano, I'm not complaining, just observing.

 

To me this sight is worth the $25/yr I spent, and then some, just for the forums: the galleries could pretty much disappear and I would still be a regular participant.

[jamie bekkers]

I personally appreciate the feedback of non-photographers as that is at the end of the day our audience (well mine anyway).

[raczoliver]

I don't see why it should be a problem if someone who rates your photos does not have pictures on this site, are not good photographers, or are not photographers at all. I have not uploaded any of my photos, because I am not a patron, and when I got to know that the site was having difficulties, I decided not to add more by uploading my pictures. But I do critique others' photos (though I have never rated any), because I think that helps them. I don't think rating would help a lot, so to tell the truth, I don't see the real use of the rating system. People with rather childish instincts can go and tell you that your picture sucks, without having to say why they think so. And if there are no comments, you'll have a hard time finding out whether the one who rated your photo low (or high) really had a reason for that or just felt like he/she had to do something funny. So from this point, I wouldn't bother much about my photo's ratings. The comments are much more important.

[zcreem]

What a load of bull, what do you mean I don't care what my peers think I am only interseted in the prolitariate, are you a communist or what. Do you really believe we are all created equal, we are not, I can not play piano, I cannot write a thriller, I cannot.... do you really believe we should all come down to the lowest common denominator, as I thought communist... Sorry but your days are over, Viva la difference... BTW I have a number of small beers and I may regret these words tommorow, but I doubt it, goodnight.

[jay belton]

I am irritated when <B>anyone</B> gives low ratings and doesn't

give feedback. But then I realize that a lot of it is snap

judgements. They only see the picture itself. <P>

 

However when an awesome photographer gives me a low

rating with no feedback. I don't know if that's snobbery OR

maybe it's making you find the reason <B>yourself</B>. Maybe

they are making <B>you</B> figure it out. Maybe they just don't

want to go into a portfolio to look at it's details so they rate and

move on.<P>

 

I've gotten the best feedback when I've put story details as the

caption. But that makes the whole page look messy. I think a

bunch of people are lazy and don't bother to go into the portfolio

to see what it's about; the story behind the picture. Sometimes

the story changes your view on the shot. You could probably pull

a shot out of context from "The Americans" by Robert Frank, post

it, and it could get rated badly too with no critism. So... maybe you

can put the actual text for the critique request, or details,

underneath the picture, something similar to the actual portfolio,

and then the ratings box <B>under</B> that. That way details are

right above the ratings box. I don't think a little bit of extra text will

eat a ton of bandwidth.<P>

 

As for non-subscribers with no portfolio. It's just the nature of it

all. I've had some <B>really</B> good critism come back from

some. Point there is: If you get limit non-subscribers from

rating just because they have no portfolio then you stop some

really good feedback from the ones that <B>do</B> participate.

Kinda like throwing the baby out with the bath water.<P>

 

And nothing replaces the feeling, that a photographer has, when

they see the expression on a person's face, good or bad, seeing

the shot for the first time. To me, that's what really matters.

[tom_menegatos]

Sounds like complaining to me because if you were curious about what people like that were thinking then you'd ask them instead of posting it to the forum. Some people just come to this site to view photos and rate them. Just because they don't post pictures doesn't mean their not entitled to an opinion.

 

Not everybody is going to like your work and it's meaningless to only understand it when people rate your photos where you expect them to. 3.85 is just about average (4) So considering the majority of photos on here would be about average I would say that guy isn't too far off the mark.

 

Rating photos isn't about finding beautiful photos and giving them high marks it's about helping people get a sense about what others think of their work. The site was started as a place for people to learn about and improve their photography. Only rating the good photos doesn't help those people that need it.

 

I rate more photos than I comment on. Some of them you can't really pick out what's wrong, you just know it's not a great photo. I'm not going to skip over photos in the queue just because I can't give them a high score, like some people do.

[StuartMoxham]

This question or discusion comes up every week. We need to encourage more people to rate and comment not less by limiting people for what ever reasons. Everyone here can rate or comment on photos and have their photos commented on. We won't always agree with a persons comments and ratings that is part of this we have to live with.

I personaly only comment and rate what I think is good if I don't like it I just pass it by. This may not be the correct thing to do but I feel it's better than upsetting someone. What do other people think about this. I know some argue that it leads to rating inflation but I think the top photos still come out on top what ever way you look at it.

[brian_proctor2]

I don't have photos uploaded because I use film and don't have a working scanner. I've tried holding the print against the screen and yelling at it, but that doesn't seem to work. I reviewed my ratings and the lowest I've given is a "3". I usually comment on those I wish to give a 6 or 7, because you have to. I feel that I am contributing a Lickert Scale opinion to be averaged in to the rest of the raters. If I am really blown away by an image, then I would comment on why. If it's the 3 to 5 range, then I feel it is a variant of average. I don't comment on those because I 1) don't have anything posted to show what I can do, and 2) feel that comments without appreciable feel for the citiquier's ability are somewhat lacking in real use. Then again, if I start posting after I get a working scanner back, and I'm seen as mediocre by the ratings masses, would my opinion have as much meaning? As a non-critiquing, non-posting rater, there are a number of reasons why there are not comments. Conversely, there may be negative comments and low ratings by crappy, posting photographers who just have an attitude that are more meaningless than non-commented, non-posted raters.

[root]

Many - dare I say most - people rate images based on their attraction

to the subject matter. Those that are trained to evaluate lighting,

and composition are more likely to explain how they think an image can

be improved even if the genre is not something they normally shoot.

 

It's hard for me to imagine that someone who understands light and

composition would not be able to also apply it to their own work, but

this view seems to be a minority viewpoint. .

[peter_daalder]

Tom wrote:<br><p><i>"Rating photos isn't about finding beautiful photos and giving them high marks it's about helping people get a sense about what others think of their work. The site was started as a place for people to learn about and improve their photography. Only rating the good photos doesn't help those people that need it."</i><br><p>

Probably one of the best succinct statements that I have come across in recent times...<br><p>Neither my images, or comments will set the world on fire, but I try to contribute on this site to the best of my ability.<br>Stefano, I'm going to suggest that many don't bother to comment because of the time involved to do this. "receiving ratings without comments" is at the core of your question, I don't know if it makes a difference whether your raters have portfolio's of their own, or not. Like Tom said, everyone is entitled to an opinion...<br>Carl said in the past that many obviously prefer to perform a number of mouse clicks to leave their mark (rating). The key to this is high speed - look at an image for a few seconds and award a numerical value between 3 and 6. 1,2,7 require typing skills of some sort, although I will acknowledge the "Wow" crowd (in fact, I even did one of those today (deliberately) to someone who would appreciate the "joke").<br>It all takes time! Sometimes, I only manage 4 critiques per hour (!), because I like to be as thoughtful as possible. BUT, I'm fortunate to have the time... I can spend at least a couple of hours at PN each day. Many who only click on numbers might not have that time on their hands... Many just do it, because they obviously get a kick out of rating. The question: "Why do they bother" cannot be answered, I'm afraid. People will <b>never</b> change.<br>I have not taken the trouble to check you out and see how long you've been at PN, but essentially, nothing much has changed in the last 10+ months that I have been here...