Exclusion from the Gallery Rating System

[bob_pictaker]

I smoke. I know it's a disgusting habit and one of these days I'll stop. But every now and then I find myself in the no smoking section of a restaurant. When I am in that position I do not smoke, but I could easily decide to light up anyway. I could smoke my cigarette and listen to my fellow customers complain about it to the manager. I could hear the restaurant manager discussing my smoking with these customers during which he CLEARLY STATES that this is a no smoking section, and that he WILL do something about this problem. Yet I could continue to smoke one cigarette after another because no one has specifically warned me not to. I could ignore the fact that I am lessening the enjoyment of my fellow customers while endangering their health. I could snub my nose at these people, and at the restaurants policy regarding smoking even though I knowingly sat my butt down in the no smoking section. But if I did this, what would you all think of me? Should I, as a responsible and considerate adult need a warning to stop smoking in the no smoking section?

 

Since I joined photonet last August there has been an almost constant series of threads in the site feedback forum concerning the issues Brian has addressed here. Brian himself has communicated to all of us in those threads many times to say that he understands mate rating exists and that he would like to end it. He has CLEARLY STATED that mate rating is detrimental to the health of the gallery, and lessens the enjoyment for many. He has also CLEARLY STATED many times that the only thing preventing him from taking action was finding a workable solution. It's from reading these threads soon after I joined that I came to understand that the ratings practices described by Brian earlier in THIS thread are not in keeping with the original intent of the gallery section. It was very clear, and easily understandable. Anyone who's read those threads yet continued mate rating has essentially snubbed their noses at this site, its administration, and the entire community! What should we all think of this?

 

In my opinion those threads provided ample warning. It was simply ignored.

[koval]

I do see the reason why people are trying to do somthing. Bravo. How about this: introduce the period of time when the uploaded photos are not visable in photographers portfolio : someting like 3-7 days. They could be viewed in critics forum but no name of photographer would be shown. No name ! Not easy to get mates rates! 3-7 days are gone photos secured their position in the charts and they apear for everyone to view in photographers portfolio. So , critics forums with photos but no names . Last 24 hrs and 3days ups but the only order would be the date and time of upload. Then , we look at the photos them self not photographers , even when gone to photographers potfolio it wont be wisable till the 3-7 days period is gone....no mate rating. Still, I think you should retur an otion of rating to everyone ( Ann is the onl one I tried to rate and was not able to) and find better alternative. Regards PK.

[mottershead]

<p>Piotr, if you search around you will see that I have suggested something similar to what you describe and in fact, I have even set something similar forward as the thing I am going to implement when I have the opportunity to do it.

 

<p>Unfortunately for my credibility, I have announced my decision to implement several different solutions to the rating problems on this site. Each time before I have the chance to implement the solution, I realize that it won't work or I see the need for an "interim" solution.

 

<p>While I appreciate the support that Bob Hixon and others have given my decision in this thread, I must admit that I believe that some of them state the case against "mate-rating" too strongly. It is a problem for the site and for the Gallery: I believe that it increases the enjoyment of many people in the Gallery at the expense of making the Gallery seem unfair, especially to newcomers.

 

<p>But I don't believe that the people who engage in "mate-rating" are evil, dishonest, corrupt people who are plotting in dark cellars to dominate photo.net. I think the amount of corrupt brokering of ratings taking place via email is so vanishingly small that it is not a problem for the site at all. Most of the people who are involved in "mate-rating" probably don't even realize what those who are up in arms about it are talking about, and they certainly don't consider themselves to be "mate-raters".

 

<p>Here is an example of mate-rating. It is an average case; there are many that are much worse that this.

 

<p>This person has rated 1200 photographs on the site, all of them 5-7, with 6-7 being the most common. The person has rated 370 different people. So far, so good. There are certainly 1200 photos on the site that are worth a 5-7 rating, and 370 photographers is quite a lot. But dig deeper. Here is how the ratings break down:

<ul>

<li>1200 on 370 people

<li>929 on 185 people

<li>720 on 90 people

<li>500 on 30 people

<li>350 on 20 people

</ul>

 

<p>In short, high percentages of the ratings are concentrated on a small percentage of the total. If you dig deeper, you find that the 30-40 people who received nearly half of this person's ratings were the people who rated his/her photographs. If you dig still deeper you find that those same 30-40 people are spending a high percentage of their time rating each other -- that it is a group.

 

<p>The person in the example is not evil. On the contrary, he/she is a nice person, making only encouraging and helpful comments on the photographs. He/she is a subscriber to the site, with work that is often very admirable. This person would totally reject the label "mate-rater". He/she would say "I rate the work that I like", but it turns out that work he/she likes comes from a tiny, tiny, fraction of the 25,000 photographers with work on this site. Why is that? Is it because there are only few good photographers on the site, and naturally the recognize and rate each other more than everybody else?

 

<p>While sometimes people get over-enthusiastic about their friends' work, generally the mate-raters are talented, and nobody can really argue that the ratings are undeserved. It is just that there is equally good, or better, work that is not getting showered with high ratings, and that work becomes buried.

 

<p>This is an average case. There are many far more egregious than this. The main thing that is wrong about this is that it makes "succeeding" in the Gallery a matter of getting friends. When large numbers of people are concentrating their ratings on a relatively small number of other people, you have to break into one of those groups in order to get ratings and visibility. If you are in one of the groups, the Gallery is a nice, friendly, social, place (as long as you aren't targeted by the "balance brigrade"): you see your photos with high ratings on the Top Photos pages regularly. If you aren't in one of these groups, it seems like the "mate-raters" have a stranglehold on the Top Photo pages. Since the "mate-raters" are pretty talented on the whole, this is not a total disaster, but it is not the outcome for which anybody would consciously vote, at least I don't believe so.

 

 

[bob_pictaker]

Brian, I agree that the majority of people involved with "mate rating" are indeed very nice, friendly, and supportive people. I also agree that there is a lot of talent represented in that group, and I have rated some of their work highly in the past. But as we all know there are varying degrees of talent in any group.

 

My comment was directed at a small subset of that group. But if I were to extend my smoking analogy to include a person who is so caught up in the fun of the moment that they truly didn't see the effect they are having on others, then I would agree that a warning would be called for. But I don't think that was the case in this instance.

[peter_eisenburger]

Brian, I think the development of "groups" is totally normal given the high number of photo posters. Sure I look at the portfolio of people who rate my photos. And sure I more often give them ratings than any other people who never took a look at my pictures. I often give higher rates than they gave me. Sure Marc Gouguenheim or Jim McNitt are pros. It's understandable that I more often look at their portfolio than of some others. But I do rate unknown posters also but not quite as much as some others. What's wrong with it? The emerging of this a normal social pattern.<p>

 

The "Your Friends" section is exactly one of the basics for that.

[mottershead]

It may seem normal and natural. However, when you aggregate this "normal" behaviour across many individuals, the result is cliques, whether or not the clique-members recognize themselves as such. And that produces a Gallery that is much less fair and open to all comers than it should be.

 

So, if "normal" behaviour leads to cliques, how about doing something "abnormal" -- like rating a broad range of photos fairly, trying for consistency, without regard to whether or how the recipient has rated you? If people aren't going to do that, then I don't see any real advantage for a democratic system over one where I just decide which photos are shown.

[root]

"Thank you for offering constructive criticism on my image. I know

you like other ones of mine better. I'm not sure I agree with all

your suggestions, but I appreciate the time you spent, and will visit

your portfolio from time to time to return the favor."

 

I think that's what we're all supposed to be doing. It's mate rating,

but in a limited, critical way.

 

The goal is to discriminate between stronger and weaker images in any

given portfolio, and to try to find as many images that are worthy of

critique from as many different photographers as possible.

 

Right?

 

. . .

[joe_garrick]

Brian -

 

Except for the scores, the ratings distribution you described could easily be mine, and to a degree the site design encourages this through the favorites list and highly rated photos list. I frequently revisit pages of people who's work I appreciate because I want to see if they've posted any new gems. I also surf the random uploads and new critique requests, but I still only dig into the portfolios if I see work I like.

 

I think it would be interesting if we had access to the type of statistics you've shown, at least for our own ratings and possibly for anyone's ratings. At present, the only way I have to determine if I'm concentrating ratings on a select group is to go through all 1100+ of my ratings and hand tabulate them. That's a considerable chore to say the least, and one I'm certain not to undertake. If I could see the stats, however, it would certainly be something I'd watch.

[photomark]

Brian, this is clearly a systemic problem. Focusing your attention on individuals is

only going to be a temporary fix that makes your job harder and makes folks mad by

punishing them for acting human. If your goal is to weigh the prominence of photos

based on their merit maybe the current system is just too simplistic to work. I know it

isn't exactly helpful, but it seems obvious that if you really want to this to work, in the

end you will need to scrap the system and find a new paradigm. Maybe taking a page

from slashdot's book would help.

 

Given the choice people will pay more attention to people they know than strangers.

If you want to keep people from giving ratings only to the people they know, you will

need to remove that choice. How about something like this:

 

At the top of the gallery pages is a link called 'rate photos.' When you click this you

are offered a random photo to rate. This is the only way to rate photos and it would

be anonymous. Maybe you could make the ability to rate photos only available after

you have been here a while too. You could offer an adjective rating as well so

someone could rate a photo with a number and also mark it as 'inappropriate' or

'snapshot'--or anything else you want to track. This would allow you to single out

people who load their portfolio with 1000 vacation shots and enforce whatever policy

you would like. You can eventually drop the bottom percentage of photos from the

rating system after they have accumulated enough poor ratings to be confident they

are not interesting to your users. Everyone would have an equal chance to be rated

and people would be forced to rate poor photos as well as good ones making your

data more useful

 

This would certainly upset some people because a subset of users enjoys the

personal aspect of rating their friends and enemies accordingly; in fact that is

probably why they are here. It is my understanding, however, that the rating system

doesn't exist to provide entertainment for these people but has a very specific

purpose of filtering the good from the bad. The people you piss off will be the very

people you intend to piss off--those who like rating their friends.

 

I'm sure their are some considerations I haven't thought about and this system would

have its own problems, but I am convinced that it is this type of solution that you

should be aiming for rather than singling out individual users as a sort of photo.net

law enforcement.

[wind.dk]

Very good, this initiative has my full support :)

[gib]

I dont understand what the ratings system is supposed to be or be used for. Sorry, I dont get, let me try to explain why I dont get it.

 

According to Brian's normal and abnormal, it is wrong for me to choose a subset of the photos, I should somehow view, rate and comment all photos, I dont understand.

 

It is a natural tendency for people to see photos they like and to return to look at photos by the people who made them. I spend my time the way I want to on the system because the aesthetic in my head reacts to certain photos. I dont care about some neutral perfect equal splitting of my time.

 

I have in fact worked back from the comments of the people who have rated my photos and found other photographers work that they also rated or commented on and have found new work, not just new work that is similar to mine, but new work of different quality and subject and aesthtic sensibility and that is a good thing.

 

I have spent lots of time on the random posting display looking at whatever comes up and seen new good work, and new less good work. I am not interested in spending my time in meeting some platonic, soviet, swiss neutral even statistical distribution. I come in here to look and play and enjoy. I look for new work. I dont give a damn about making the statistics work out to some ideal curve.

 

When I go to a museum or gallery or exhibition, I pick what I want to spend my time looking at.

[dennismk]

Frist of all I wish to say that I love this site. When getting back into photography in a serious way in 1999 after a 30yrs absence this site and Lumiouns Landscape brought me up to speed and gave me much information. In the winter I have more time to be more engaged in this site. But the BANNING OF ANNA I CAN NOT SUPPORT!!! I have looked at a lot of images on this site since 1999. And I still can remember the first time I saw some of her stuff here and thought...Wow! So I put her on my list of people's work to watch....I have rated her more times than any other photographer on this site and there are a lot here I like. The other person I rated a lot was Hide Ishura. Why? Because I truly loved there work!!!! Anna to me has a great gift and she has worked hard at it. She can "see" in so many differnt ways! That it just stuns me. The best of her work is first class! Those are the ones I rate the most. So I guess I am a "fan" you might say. But only because much of her work moves me more offten than any others I have seen on PN. I do not feel I am playing a mate rating game. I only rate work I like or some rare times show a person how I think an image can be better. I and others I feel truly love her work. To take her off this site is wrong. I have been in the arts for 30yrs and in all groups of people there is back stabing, petty shots etc. etc. And of course it is strongly in the arts as well. Artist's can have very strong ego's or run the other way as well. It is a shame that many take the comments of other's to hard. As I told Marc once "Let the monkeys howl" me, we, you in our work are never going to please everyone. We can't and never will nor should we. As artists we must "follow our bliss" we create images or what ever or should to please our selfes and find self expression and thus find deeper meaning in our own lives. Artist are a wierd lot. Just do some research on some of there lives, great and small. Look up a book by Kay Jamison called "Touched with Fire" and see the price many artists have to pay for there work.

[mottershead]

William, nobody is saying you can't look at whatever you want to look at. But when you rate photos keep in mind that you are helping to decide what is going to be visible on the site. A high rating on a photo increases its prominence. There are only so many slots available on the Top Photos page, so when you act to increase the prominence of one photo, you are simultaneously acting to reduce the prominence of other photos.

 

Those rating decisions multiplied 3000 times per day are the only curatorial mechanism that the site has. Do you want to submit your photos to a Gallery where only the work of friends of the curators are on the walls? Or one where every work of merit has a chance to be seen, even if one submitted by a stranger? You are one of the curators -- you decide.

 

If I can't get people to see that this "natural" human behaviour of rating their friends is a problem, I'm afraid the rating system really is pretty meaningless and is only working at all because people want to be friends with the good photographers.

[lex_jenkins]

Let's consider this another way...

 

Earlier this year the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth, which inherited the Eliot Porter collection, devoted an extensive display to his work.

 

When the curator took the work down to make room for an entirely different genre of work, should Porter's relatives have screamed that they were going to consult their attorney or seek a court injunction?

 

Nope. Presumably they understood that the museum retained the rights to display the Porter collection as they saw fit. (For the purposes of brevity I'm ignoring the obvious legalities involved.)

 

Frankly, I believe the photo.net administrators should retain the same rights and exercise the same judgement as museum curators do. If they choose to make certain adjustments to give prominence to other photographers that can only be a good thing for the site.

 

Nothing is hindering visitors from viewing any photos they like. And nothing is hindering photographers from establishing their own websites, advertising their work and clawing for whatever prominence and attention they seek.

[andy_eulass]

I applaud Brian for this decision. Although I feel bad for Anna's situation, I too think it was the best thing that could be done under the circumstances. We collectively have borne for too long the slings and arrows of the practices which Brian's decision have now addressed. But I hope Brian's decision also calls on each of us to scrutinize our own individual practices on the site and to ascertain whether we have been guilty of the same or similar sins from time to time. I know I have. But let's also look at this decision as a clear call to each of us to embark on a civilized, reasoned and (as much as human nature will allow us) critically sound approach as we roam through the site in the future. Whether we look upon this decision as just or unjust is less relevant than the big-picture issue of what led to the decision: a failure by a lot of members to keep the purpose of the site in view. If one can't feel good about one's work by drawing on the learning process this site has to offer, then that person ought to re-assess why he/she is here. In my opinion, this site is not here to validate me as person or to whip my ass into abject self-pity, its here to help me learn how to do what I love to do a bit better and to look to the examples of others' work to learn from both their successes and their mistakes. When that process gets perverted by ulterior motives, however well intentioned they may be (and I think most of the poor practices were driven by good intentions), then its time to fix the problem and move on.

 

There's an old saying among lawyers that "good cases can make for bad law". I'm not saying that Brian's decision was a bad one, but it sure was, in my opinion, the best that could done given the facts of the case. Ever think of becoming a jurist Brian? You did pretty good yesterday. Well done.

[roberto4]

<b>William</b>:" I pick what I want to spend my time looking at".

Yes you can but I can't, because Brian excluded me of Rating of Anna's folders.

<br>

<b>Brian</b>

I try but I have no time to go through all portfolios to comment a rate photos.

So I prefere a group of phtographers I find interesting . It is not a clique

but it is grown naturally by

exchanging comments and critique.

I hope every day I can get a new person added to this group learning from him/her

by discussion and...and...

Somtimes I make spontanous rating using the request for critique and somtimes

I pick out photos of the top pages or from the random pages.

<br>

The problem, that many good photographers or newcomers are not on the top rated pages

can by solved by:<br>

a) all active members who must look,rate and comment outside the groups of friends <br>

b) by the active commenting of those person who like to be on the high rated pages

( using the mechanism of comment exchange described above)

<br>

But the problem cannot be solved by banning persons who recieve too many high rates

or by prevent others to rate high.<br>

As <b>Dennis</b> said above Anna has a lot of very good pictures and I like her work.

So BANNING OF ANNA I CAN NOT SUPPORT!!!

<br>

I am here not only to be (high)-rated but I want to learn and want

to know how other photographers

see my pictures. I like good critique.

I like serious discussion but also I try to have some fun here.<br>

Brian's action shows me that it is not easy to keep all the things together.

[leanne_newton]

I think it is counterproductive to single out a single person in this way, someone who has dedicated a lot of time and effort to the site, and whose work is obviously widely appreciated as well.

 

I don't think the rating system works very well. On my own work I have had certain images completely ignored, which I know are my best work, and more "popular" subject matter ( pretty girls, for example ) somewhat overrated...

 

We are never going to see edgy exciting work coming to the fore with the rating system as it now stands. We are going to continue to see the "people's choice", with all the limitations of appealing to a wide, conservative audience. Mainstream, as it were. I don't see how excluding Anna's work is going to change the look of the top pages, there will simply be other work of the kind, perhaps less good, taking its place....

 

Live and let live is what I would suggest. I think it is quite impossible to control how people critique/rate images.

 

An editorial page featuring interesting work would be a positive addition to the site, I think.

 

I am unable to see how treating a photo.net subscriber in this way is a positive move.

[Landrum Kelly]

No matter how you slice it, once you get some authority figure involved in (1) deciding what is a valid rating and (2) policing persons' ratings, any system of ratings is going to tend to become bogus: persons who care about their standing in the eyes of the administrators of the site are going to tend to stop rating by their own criteria and are going to start trying to please someone else. I will continue to turn on the machine, go to the site, and either click on the random gallery OR see who among my favorites have posted recently, and go from there. The result of doing these two latter things might result in the illusion of "mate rating" over time, unless I DELIBERATELY decide to take it upon myself to be one who randomly evaluates photos on the site, irrespective of whether I like them or not--and I have better things to do. I refuse to spend much time fooling with photos I don't like, and I intend to continue to go back repeatedly to the sites of persons whose work I have appreciated in the past--always keeping an eye out for someone else's work that I have not previously noticed. As long as I am allowed to be on the site, that is what I am going to do, and I don't care what the effect is on the top-rated photos section. The top-rated photos are not necessarily the best or the most interesting according to one's own tastes, and most of us are here to indulge our tastes, not preserve the ratings system.

[roberto4]

Yes, some of us have their own websites. But we are here to discuss,learn,compare,wrangle and may be have some fun!<br>

We can support this site , you can make it work well.

<br>

But banning and punishing photographers because they are not d'acore

with your imagination of a system of rating, appears to me strange.

[Landrum Kelly]

As if it mattered. . . .

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1237592

[mottershead]

Lannie, as I keep on saying, nobody is trying to regulate which photos you look at or how you surf the Gallery. When you rate photos, though, you are acting as a curator of the Gallery. One of the things about photo.net that sets it apart from traditional museums and galleries, is that everyone is potentially a creator, a critic, a curator, and a visitor. What we are asking is that when acting as a curator (that is, rater of photos) that you try to keep this apart from the friendships that you have formed on the site.

 

If this is really so unreasonable and impossible to understand or accept, or just plain too much like work, then perhaps we have to abandon the idea that everybody is a curator -- because the result of that seems to be that the site becomes increasingly daunting to penetrate for those outside the existing circles of friends.

 

Incidentally, people keep referring to Anna having been banned. It looks like Anna might abandon the site on her own initiative, but she was not banned. Her photos were removed from the rating system because she was so much the beneficiary of mate-rating and also so much the target of the "balance brigade" that the ratings ceased, in my opinion, to have any validity at all. But her photos are still there; she can upload more; anybody can look at and comment upon them; and Anna can look at, rate, and comment on the photos of anybody else.

[pen name above]

Lannie,

 

You celebrate the violation of human dignity in reference to the upload of the woman's masturbatory actions. By taking recourse to photography as the merit of its own aesthetic you are holding up a mirror which reflects your own objectification.

 

I wish you well and thank Brian for reaching such a difficult decision.

 

Regards;

[Landrum Kelly]

To the contrary, Jason. I celebrate nothing by pointing up this photo. If you had read my commentary, you would have seen that.

 

To Brian regarding Anna: I don't blame her for leaving. How much abuse is too much?

[photomark]

Brian,

 

Everyone understands that photo.net is undermanned so take this with a grain of salt.

 

At some point you need to ask yourself which option is easier:

 

1. Convince all 225,000 registered members to use the system in accordance with the

wishes of the management, in spite of the fact that those wishes are not in

accordance with human nature and the system allows counter-productive behavior.

Then spend your time policing the system to weed out individuals that break the rules

 

2. Change the system so that it can only be used properly.

 

Seems like a no-brainer. Ever noticed that nobody breaks the laws of physics?

[Landrum Kelly]

I just want to say that I respect you, Brian, and I always have. This is the first substantive thing that we have disagreed on, and it won't change the very high level of respect I have for you. You are truly one of the greatest assets that this site has ever had, and I hope that you'll continue to administer the site.