Drive by low raters and no posted images

[Coho]

One of the common threads I see in this forum is the concern 3 or

less ratings from people who have no posted images. Anecdotally, I

have seen this trend and have rarely seen a 3 or less from a paid

member or someone with more than 10 posted images. Is there a way

to determine ratings averages in relation to number of posted images?

More specifically, what is the rating average for the group who have

no posted images compared to the rating average of the group with 10

or more posted images? Break down the findings into people who have

participated for less than 3 months and more than 3 months.

 

If this was statitiscally significant, it might be reasonable to

require comments for those with no postings, perhaps for three

months. This would discourage both high and low ratings. It would

allow the newbies to really hone their critiquing skills, hopefully

resulting in more thoughtful ratings.

[markplawchan]

How about limiting those with no posted images to ONLY leave comments and deprive them of the ability to "drive-by"...

[mottershead]

The statistics don't bear out the notion that people with no photos uploaded are harsher than others. If anything, the opposite is true. The average ratings of people with no photos uploaded are Aesthetics=5.20 and Originality=4.96. The average ratings overall are Aesthetics=4.83 and Originality=4.69. In fact, people with zero photos uploaded tend to rate a little higher than people with 1 to 100 photos uploaded. People with over 100 photos uploaded tend to rate a little bit higher than everybody else, including people with no photos.

 

There *is* a correlation between number of photos and number of ratings. The people with the most photos rate more than people with fewer photos, and people with no photos don't rate a lot. The average number of ratings by people with no photos is 27.

 

I must admit that I have a completely cynical attitude towards people complaining about low ratings. If they get a low rating on a photo, they look for a pretext to dismiss it. That the rater has no photos uploaded is one of the most popular of pretexts. If the rating is average or high, they don't bother to check out whether the person has photos uploaded. So they remember low ratings from people with no photos uploaded, but they don't remember high ratings from those people.

 

I did a similar analysis of ratings accompanied by comments versus those unaccompanied by comments. Ratings accompanied by a comment are higher by about half a point than those unaccompanied by comments. This is not as big a difference as you would suppose from complaints about "drive-by" ratings without comments, but there is a difference. Whether this is because people who give comments are slightly more generous in their ratings, or whether it is because people tend to give comments on photos that they like -- I don't know. Probably a bit of both.

[scott bulger]

Bravo Brian. Well said.

[sk_arts]

Brian-

 

I get the impression this topic has been going on for a very long time. But I feel I have fueled the fire somewhat, I am noticing a lot more of these kinds of posts after I posted my original. Sorry if I have given you a headache.

 

While I certainly think something needs to be done about drive by ratings, I do not think that we should assume that newbies are incapible of proper critique and regs are simply because they have been here longer.

 

This is snobbish, but maybe we should require only those who have visual/performing arts degrees can give critiques... Hopefully after a few years doing it they'd know how.

[Coho]

Brian, don't get me wrong. I am complaining about BOTH high and low raters. I look at both high and lo raters and I dismiss only those who have rated several of my images either too high or too low.

Bottom line is the numbers are only a popularity contest. The meat is in the comments.

[marshall]

Thanks for the stats Brian.

 

Visual Arts degrees, eh? Yep, that'll solve the problem of people complaining about not getting enough critiques. [sarcasm: A Way of Life.] I think all we can really do is think about what people tell us about our images and take it for what it's worth: commentary by strangers of varying experience levels and tastes. At least we've got somewhere we can get some feedback for cheap...

[s._fisher]

I liked it when photo.net required comments for very high or very low ratings; for some reason that requirement was removed. It would be nice if people could at least set an option to require comments for extreme ratings. It's useless to have a 1, 2, 7, etc rating and not know why.

[ole_tjugen]

I've stopped rating photos. I see far too many 1/7 (beautiful cliche) and 7/1 (original, but gutwrenching), and don't want to get into a fight over the ratings.

 

Why are the ratings for "originality" and "esthetics"? What I would like for my pictures is feedback on technique, composition, idea and execution - not (only) vague and highly individual matters of taste?

[h._p.]

"maybe we should require only those who have visual/performing arts degrees can give critiques"

 

Yes, it is snobbish. My idea would be to bar people with visual/performing arts degrees from giving critiques and yes, that's snobbish too.

[stephen hazelton]

"This is snobbish, but maybe we should require only those who have visual/performing arts degrees can give critiques... "

 

You might keep in mind that invariably, the photos with the widest circulation are those intended for the general public; the most acclaimed photographers are generally those who appeal to the general public.

 

But if you really want to limit it, since this is a "photography" forum, I'd suggest limiting it further: instead of "visual/ performing arts", just limit it to those with photography degrees- wouldn't want any of those painter people rating my work! Or go another step and only let landscape photographers rate other landscape photographers, etc.

[louis1]

Brian 2 points.

 

People with over 100 photos rate more highly. You don't know

why. Could I suggest they are more active in all aspects of the

site and tend to surf down through the lists more than others and

therefore SEE MORE above average photos. You cannot equate

their ratings with another group (eg no photos posted) as you

cannot assume that the photos these 2 separate groups are

rating are overlapping.

 

You say people complain about low rates etc and then state that

they look for reasons to dismiss the low rate. My take on this is

that when i get a rating I ALWAYS look to see who gave it. I want

to see if their interests photographically are the same(their

portfolio) and also what do they give high rates to. I then

mentally rate their rating based on the info before me. If Marc G

gave me a 6.6 I would regard it much more highly than most

others (there are of course many others who I equally value

perhaps 30/40).

 

I am upset that once I get the easy 10 ratings(immodest in the

extreme ) you dump the image down the pile and those I value

hearing from would have to work very hard to find me. A lot of the

easy 10 ratings are low value to me. I also realise that under the

older systems some of my images may not have got 10 ratings

but that is OK by me. Positive discrimination is dumbing down.

 

What would I suggest .

 

In your posts you put forward various beliefs you have as to how

people act. Not once Have I seen any effort to ask us the

subscribers ( not non subscribers) what we prefer. Then use

this to run the site and as your guide when you are thinking how

to handle various topics.

 

Perhaps others could put forward the ONE main item they would

like surveyed, giving the question and the 3 or 4 answers a

choice needs to be made from.

Louis

[sk_arts]

<<What I would like for my pictures is feedback on technique, composition, idea and execution>>

 

Ole- I do not mean this as a critique of your images, DO NOT TAKE IT THAT WAY... I intentionally did not review your work to avoid that.

 

I think that this would work if we were all stock photographers, but the technical aspects is not everything, and i am not sure how you would judge "idea" on work which you do not always know/understand the intent...

[markplawchan]

Louis-an EXCELLENT point, why not limit all non-subscribers without posts (or even with posts) to a "non-participatory" level. This should take care of "dummy" accounts used to inflate egos AND provide a greater motivation to subscribe...

[charodiez]

Interesting thread, so many times discussed over here.

 

I am with louis here. Whenever I get a low/high rating I go to see this photographer´s skills, to get to know if his/her rating can be considered as useful.

 

For instance, let´s say that I post an image in BW of a composition on lines and textures. So I get a 3-4 or a 7-7, so I check his/her work. Is the portfolio full with macro insects, flash-snapshots, family pictures�or the type of stuff that has nothing to do with the photo he/she rated, or in general, his/her work is less than �overall�????� Then, I forget about it.

 

Is it the photographer, as louis said, Marc G. (and so many other great photographers on this site), so his/her ratings is quite interesting to me. (even though I may not agree with)

 

We all know, that what matters for us (the subscribers and non-subscribers) are the comments, and that the ratings are USEFUL for the software of this site, so as it is suggested only people with at least a number of uploaded photos (don´t know how many) will be �allowed� to rate other people work. So everyone is happy enough: the users of the site, and the site system itself...