Exclusion from the Gallery Rating System

[FranzWeber]

thanks for the link. Now I really know: nothing is normal. Greatings from germany, the country of rules.

[root]

"additionally when the guy leaves some comments on some pictures, then

say by e-mail that he can discuss more if you want and answer your

questions about few pictures by e-mail, . . "

 

You still don't seem to understand that the real content - the comment

- is supposed to benefit the entire site, not hidden in an email

exchange.

 

Everyone's busy defending their behavior patterns instead of trying to

understand and accept why the forum guidelines are the way they are.

 

I'm done, unless someone really feels the need to be provocative.

[vincetylor]

Here is just one of a thousand other ideas to help refine the ratings situation.

 

Today I looked over the top rated pages looking for the macro images Bob Hixon mentioned above (never could find them). Anyway, one image caught my attention and I eventually rated and commmented. Here is that specific image (photo_id=1592559) by Alberto Conde. This one simply caught my attention because of the beautiful rich colors. I also loved the lighting as well as thought it was well laid out or nicely composed. Simply put, my kind of shot! I gave this image a 7 for aesthetics and a 6 for originality. Now here is where I would like to make a suggestion or two. If it were possible to truly rate this image specifically how I liked it, it probably would have been more like a 6.4 for aesthetics, and then perhaps a 5.5 for originality. Obviously I cannot do that under the current system. So, I felt that in both cases rounding UP was justified and ended up with the 7/6. Sure never hurts relations if you are a tad high rather than a tad low...if know what I mean!

 

In my opinion the greatest area of confusion is between 5 and 6 with both ratings. For instance, the difference between the two is enormous. If a photographer averaged a 6/6 or 12.0 total average, he would be one of the top few photographers on the entire site. However, if he averaged a 5/5 or 10 total, he would be ranked somewhere around number 670. THAT is one tremendous difference. So, when rating an image you have to decide whether it is a 5 or a 6. (of course this is only for argument sake we know it's really 1-7) Sometimes both numbers is the best way to go. What if we could actually rate exactly how we felt, decimals and all?? Is that even possible? How much more meaning the ratings would offer since you know exactly where the rater stands. Rarely does an image really deserve the ratings given. Usually it is somewhere in between, but we have no choice but to choose the closest number. Most of us would prefer to be a bit generous anyway by nature. So if it's really a 5.6, or even a 5.2, I am most likely NOT going to give it the 5, since that would be rating lower than I truly believe. So it probably gets the 6 instead. That is also not true, but all that I have in front of me to choose.

 

I think you would also see FAR fewer 7s as recommended above. If I can rate a 6.8 or a 6.9, you would perhaps see one or two 7s amongst my 2400 ratings. I would suggest also considering changing the scale a bit down to 2.0 - 7.0 with the decimals for an exact rating. Now lets see whether or not mate rating will continue. It is very easy to justify a 7 since many many others give it, and it is one of the only 7 choices we have today. I also think the one receiving the ratings would appreciate the decimals because it truly helps to determine the real value in my opinion.

 

Anyway, like I said initially, this is just one of many ideas that may make things better. I am sure holes can still be found somewhere there as well. Just another thought, figured I'd throw it in!!

[bob_pictaker]

Vincent, I didn't mean to mislead you. Those flower macro's I mentioned were posted a couple of weeks ago. They were just a good example of what I was talking about. But I'm sure if you keep an eye out for this type of thing it will happen again soon.

 

As for rating with decimals? In theory it could possibly help a bit, but I don't see it having a major impact on the situation. You would clearly be willing to evaluate an image to the decimal point but there are other people to whom ratings are as Brian says, "the currency of exchange" (I think that's the term). And the other group who are just being friendly. Even if given the option to rate to the decimal point most of the ratings from these groups seem to be directed at the photographer as opposed to the photograph. I think at best we could only expect to see a few WOW! 7/7's replaced with WOW! 6.9/6.9's.

 

From my standpoint I would welcome the ability to be able to rate to the decimal point. I've been caught between numbers many times myself.

[robert_fleming]

Carl, be fair and then you can be done! <p>you said "You still don't seem to understand that the real content - the comment - is supposed to benefit the entire site, not hidden in an email exchange."...!!??

<p>I rated publicly your pictures and commented publicly few of them and sent you an e-mai saying that I visited your pages and appreciated your pictures <P> Then YOU commented my ratings and gave/asked me some justifications regarding few of your pictures BY E-MAIL so I answered you SO. <p>I dont hide my comments nor my ratings, nor my viewpoint as everybody can see. I commented few of your pictures (sometime not very long comments, I agree) but You didnt respond to it publicly so far, instead you went to my page commenting my picture. I dont pretend to make perfect rating nor comment, I just try to be consistent and fair, and to look only at the picture. I am just one voice among many others.<p>

In a population of good and skill people, like most of the photographers here, I dont see why the average should not be set around 4-4.5 for an average photo of a good photographer. In school we said "could do better". <p> Just as an example, in 3rd grade of Art School, the average notation for works is 11 on a scale of 0 to 20, but most of people in such school have certainly much skills than outside population so should they get the school set 16 as average?!<p> Lets just request a bit more from ourselves!

[marshall]

Much as I would also frequently like to resort to fractional rating, the practical impact might well be to make the photo ratings resemble the numerical wine ratings we see, where almost everything rated gets 70 and up (on a 100 scale), and truly good stuff ends up rated within a very concentrated part of the scale. Thus, images here would end up still rated between 5-7, just with some finer gradations. I'm not against it, but I'm not sure it answers the overall issues.

[root]

The few comments you made were very short and did not seem like the

kind of thing you were going to check back on. They didn't ask any

questions. The maker should not be expected to respond to every

comment that says, in effect, I like this better than that.

 

My comment about private emails was in response to your remark that

sounded more general to me. You seem to be suggesting this as a

recommended pattern, but it runs contrary to what Brian wants us to

do.

 

The difference between your visit and mine is that I tried to be more

selective, pick something I liked, and something that I thought needed

work . . . and explained why - something you didn't do.

 

You have given us a new insight into your rating philosophy which I

had suspected all along. It appears that you were rating my images

against myself. In the art school class you mentioned, it's that

class that is supposed to be the universe, unless stated otherwise, so

the majority can not be 'above average'. Given that most uploads on

this site are snapshots, I don't think that any of my images are 4/4,

let alone 3/3. That's not ego, that's statistics.

 

I assume you have a DSL connection (I don't). Go to the top pages and

pick the 24-hour view and hit PREVIOUS. This will put you at the

images that have just been uploaded. Keep hitting PREVIOUS after

you've browsed each page, making a note of how you would rate each

one. Only then will you know what the site 'average' looks like.

 

A more general comment - This site is supposed to be the rating

universe, but the image quality does not fit a bell curve

distributionas many have asserted. There are tons of below average

snapshots, and a fair number of 'good' pictures. That's '3', and '5',

respectively. The people who deserve more attention on this site are

the ones who are working hard to rise above snapshots and who want to

turn their '4' into a '5'. A simple rating that tells them you like

or don't like it does them no good. They want you to take it apart

and let them look at it in a new light. Can you do that?

[leanne_newton]

To answer your question, Carl, no, I can`t.

Sure, when you are talking about absolute beginners,

an experienced photographer can give a lot of direction,

of a purely technical nature, mostly.

 

When you begin to discuss the work

of more advanced photographers, you get into more

complicated

assessments, such as personal vision,

the creation of their own world,

the wrong turns we all take in the quest for approval.

 

This sort of more indepth feedback is impossible with the current ratings system in place.

 

It would be more useful to encourage personal relationships between

photographers, where thoughtful and valued critiques are exchanged and lively discussion,

which I can only believe would be benificial to all in the long run, if conducted online and not via e-mail

exchanges,

as I suspect is currently the case....

 

Of course, if the aim is high visibility and good ratings,

popularity and so on, there are several guaranteed

formulaic approaches to take,

but forget about advancing on a personal level.

 

Where I come from this is sometimes described as `

selling out`.

 

regards, L

[peter_daalder]

<i>There are tons of below average snapshots</i><p>

Here's a good <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=317552"> example </a> of what is 'allowed' to be uploaded at photo.net....<br> Come on, how would you rate this sort of <b>crap!</b><br><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005MtB"> Here </a> is what Brian had to say about these kind of uploads.

[leanne_newton]

If you allow yourself to be judged in the company

of snapshooters, and then take ratings seriously,

what can I say ?

The filter works for the site`s purposes,

not for the individual photographer!

I can only hope that any rating I receive

would be a measure of my own work, against myself,

and not against whatever is out there....

[robert_fleming]

Carl, art is subjective, especially when it starts to concern personal works. So that I can understand that you dont question good or very good rating, that is very natural. So that you stated that "your pictures cannot be rated 4", how come?! There is no wrong or right rating, these are just opinions, feelings, sensitivity. And there is an open market and the appreciation move with bid offer, fashion, new trend, new comers, new players and is rich of its own variety...

<p>Funny enough, you added "there is statistics for that"... but Carl I am part of the statistics like any other people visiting and putting appreciation on your works. there are mean and standard deviation around the mean.

<p>

I dont act that quickly, I know your portfolio since quite a long time, it is 2 years that regularly visit PN (without rating/commenting). <p>Now I decided to make my input in the statistics and I regularly review and check the comments and sometimes can modify my views and learn, that is also the reason why I am here.

 

<p> just as a symbolic example <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1012313"> this picture of your folder read lifesaver</a> that I rated 4/5 (representative of the ratings I gave to your works) and commented (one line). Do you really think it is more useless than other?

<p> And I will be finished, saying that I am not here to review Uncle Jimmy drinking a bud and other snapshots like Peter showed us and which are posted for friends but certainly not for rating/comment; so I keep surfing on top page and on selectionned pics by some photographers whom I feel in sympathy with their selection spirit. I that is already quite a big stock to view and appreciate to be busy for quite a long time!!

[robert_fleming]

You said" I can only hope that any rating I receive would be a measure of my own work, against myself, and not against whatever is out there...."<p>

Leanne you read me perfectly, that is exactly my goal, to indicate to the photographer I like, in which order I would sort his works within his own portfolio with limited tools given by this site (ratings and sometimes comments or simple encouragement). that is precisely the reason why I review generally entire portfolio. To have a global view on this artist. Like a friend who can say "yes" and "no", or at least somebody who is not indifferent to his works.

[root]

Robert, I'm posting yet again because you keep saying things

that could easily confuse people who want to have a better

understanding about how to use the rating system.

 

Your comment to Leanne is only half right. Relative ratings are

perhaps useful, although hardly at all unless it includes a

comment, but they must also serve the curatorial purposes of

the site. You are asked to pick images for the top pages, both

long and short term. You don't seem to want to accept that

responsibility.

 

Regarding my portfolio, I did in fact tell you that you overrated two

of my images and told you why. The red lifesaver picture is one

of the few where I agree with your assesment. What about the

others?

 

Never mind . . . please don't answer.

[leanne_newton]

Y`know, I don`t know why I bother,

I am not interested in being a curator

of Photo.net`s gallery.

Carl, this discussion has turned into your

personal demand

to be recognised as a popular photographer

on this site.... Well, I wish you the best

of luck.

There is a tradition amongst photographers

to pass on knowledge and technique, love for photography

and ethical behaviour towards our colleagues,

but I guess I am over- estimating this situation.

[leanne_newton]

No, maybe I am misunderstanding the situation.

 

But if we rate `top` photographers only 6/7

and the others 5/5 and below, are we not back

to

a form of `mate-rating` all over again ?

[pdoyle]

You seem to be reaching some kind of agreement as to the method of rating, so I'll address my remarks to you both. It's possible that I've misunderstood what you're saying, though, so correct my assumption if that's the case. The thing I have trouble with in your approach is that it seems to imply that for any given photographer with at least x photos in his/her portfolio, there will be some personal "average" photo(s) and at least one that deserves a 7 on originality, aesthetics, or both, because you're rating their photos against each other and not against anyone else's. But then one person's photo that got a 7 from you might be much better or worse, even in your own opinion, than someone else's photo that also got a 7 from you.

 

Now, if I'm understanding this approach correctly, it doesn't work for at least two reasons. First, unless a photographer is done uploading new works, you can never say for certain what their personal average is. Every time they upload a new "personal best" photo you would have to revise all your ratings in their folder to some extent, which isn't very practical. Second, and more important, the ratings system on Photo.net is meant to be applied universally, as much as possible. In other words, a photo with a 7 rating should stand well alongside any other photo with a 7 rating, no matter who the photographer.

 

Now obviously, even the current, "relative to all other photos" system is imperfect because each person's sense of what is "average" is constantly being refined as they view more and more photos. So what I once might have given a 7 in Originality might get a 6 at some later date if I had seen several other similar works in the meantime. This is similar to the first problem I described in the previous paragraph. But I still think we're better off trying to evaluate each photo in the context of the entire Photo.net photo database, to the extent that we can individually. I believe that is indeed the objective of the site's administrators. If we are all rating according to entirely different philosophies (e.g. I rate relative to all photos I've seen on PN, but you rate relative to that photographer's other works), then the ratings will lose coherence even more.

 

Since there are so few steps between Average and Excellent, we are being asked to be more stingy with our 6's and especially our 7's so that the best of the best can be differentiated.

 

Finally, just to be clear, "mate-rating" is not about whether to give high marks to excellent work. I think everyone here fully supports giving a 7 to an exceptional photo, no matter who the photographer. It's when 7's get handed out more because of who the photographer is, and what ratings they have given you, than because of the quality of the photo itself, that people get upset.

[twmeyer]

I still cannot understand what the advantage is to being "top rated" at photo.net, other than psychological income. Brownie points.<p> Has anyone been offered an exhibit because of their "top-rated" status? Have Art Consultants been sending checks and making deposits? Are magazine and book publishers knocking on your doors? If they are, do they say "Gosh, I saw your stuff at Photo.net where I handle the work of <i>all</i> the "top rated" photographers, and now that <i>you're</i> "top rated", I want you in my (gallery/magazine/museum/etc)"? Let us see those letters, let us see those check stubs, lets see those book/magazine covers/tear sheets. Right. Lets see a testimonial from your new patrons who found your work at photo.net. <p>The problem is, I've seen such psychotic behavior in this thread that I'd be suspicious of any document or testimonial produced as evidence. I'm shocked at the number of psychotic whiners that have oozed out of the server, and the number of good people who respond to them seriously. Hell Brian <i>has</i> to... it's his <i>job</i> (I guess), but <i><b>you</b></i> (un-named-who-know-your-name), why do you waste your time? Are you living on a trust fund or something? Nothing on the Weather Channel? <i>You</i> have something to offer, but let me give you a clue... a "5/4" isn't it!<p> While I'm at it (on a roll, wahoo), I am shocked by the number of people, whom I believe to be intelligent, pleasant and engaging personalities, who also engage in the collosal waste of time that is rating pictures. If you have anything to say, <i>say it</i>. It's not a critique if you just push a button, and move on. <p>The rating "system" is useless competion for no reward other than enmity and strife. I implore all thinking intelligent people to stop rating. Period. <p>Spend your energy giving useful and valid, <i>conversational</i> feedback. Rating a picture without offering some verbal assessment is a waste of time for everyone involved... t<p>p.s. please do not rate my pictures, or what the hell, knock yourselves out, it means less than nothing to me... t <p>p.p.s. Actually, if you leave <i>any</i> rating on one of my pictures, it <i>will</i> send me a message... that you're clueless.

[leanne_newton]

Philip, I apply my personal taste

and experience to judging photographs,

not only taking into consideration

what is published on photo.net, but what I would

appreciate generally speaking.

Then within a body of work I might have a preference

which I will indicate.

[Spearhead]

I'm giving Tom Meyer a 7/7 on his comment. First time I've rated anything here.

[wenger]

Phillip, well said and illustrated. <br><br>

 

Carl, While I generally agree with most of your points and what you are trying to get across (especially that the comments are the true value within the system), it seems that you are at times trying to win on both sides of the argument. I don't agree with Robert's average-among-one-photographer approach, but based on your statement from <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005HI4">this</a> thread, a rater like Robert should be your best friend BECAUSE he increases the likelihood of someone coming along who will have something more to say. In addition, while I haven't gone through and looked up what he said on each of your images, while succinct, what he said on the photo listed at least had some value (as his opinion, whether you agree with him or not).<br><br>

<i>You're asking us to spend time trying to fix the averages, but it's the number of rates, not the value that I use to find interesting images. As far as I'm concerned, AVERAGES DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. - it's all about getting enough visibility through ratings - ANY RATING - so that someone who cares enough to comment will know it's there. ...

 

<br><br>

...You can give me a 4/4 anytime you want, and you'll be doing me a favor. (The people who comment without offering others the chance to join in the discussion by not rating it don't understand the realities of the current system.)

</i> - Carl Root<br><br>

 

This also goes against your complaint about receiving 4/4 ratings. Like I said, I agree with a lot you say, and respect your opinion, but pick a message and stay with it.

<br><br>

I know that I don't consider the "snapshots" as 1/2 of the photo.net inventory when I do my ratings. They very may be, but I generally don't rate from the general gallery, but rather rate from the "critique request" gallery. The number of snapshots that pass through this gallery is much lower, and this area generally represents photographers who are looking for feedback. The range of photos that I see pass through this in conjunction with what I see on TRP is how I generate my scale. What the hell use is the scale if it starts at 4? Of course a scale that starts at 4 could go a long way to explaining why there are so many 7/7s.

[jimknowles]

I lowered my cholesterol!

[wenger]

JVK - LOL

 

Tom - It is not entirely true that ratings are worthless. A rating of a 6 vs. a 3 is of little significance except to those who strive for that Top Rated Photographer status for whatever reason. But as Carl has pointed out, if you see an image that has a value to be commented on, by offering a rating you increase its likelihood of being commented on by other members. Especially if it is within the first 3 days of being uploaded. Someone like you who has been around this game for quite some time may not need that extra visibility to have your photos commented upon, a relative newcomer like myself doesn't have the network of piers from whom we can count on comments. Otherwise I enjoyed your comment.

[mottershead]

The universe for the ratings is stated in the tutorial as "photos on photo.net". It is also stated that the average photo on photo.net is supposed to be around 4.

 

This means that if everybody who rated any photo rated all of them, the overall average should be 4. However, people don't rate all the photos. Nobody even looks at all the photos in a single day, never mind all of them, never mind rating them. Indeed, people have various strategies for finding their preferred photos, and the site provides many mechanisms so that they *can* do that. Moreover, people don't rate even all the photos that they look at, tending to "pass" on photos rather than rating them below some minimum rating they they have. (For some this seems to be 6; for others it is 4 or 5.) Because of this, the average actual rating should be higher than 4, probably quite a bit higher. Still, people should keep in mind that theoretically the average photo on photo.net should have an average rating of 4, because that concept anchors and gives meaning to the rating values. Similarly, it anchors and gives some kind of meaning to the values if you keep in mind that only the handful of best photos, say, a few per day, should have an average rating approaching 7, and only the handful of worst photos, again a few per day,

should (assuming there were any point in rating them, which is doubtful) have an average approaching 1.

 

We obviously aren't trying to compel people to look at all the photos and rate all of them. That would be stupid; the *whole point* of the rating system is to help people find photos in which they are interested *without* compelling them to wade through piles of uninteresting photos. More than 50% of the photos uploaded to photo.net are not of any interest to anyone but the photographer and the photographer's friends and relatives. Most of those wouldn't even be of interest to the photographer if he hadn't taken them.

 

So, I'm not trying to tell people that they have to rate all those photos. Having made that clear (I hope), I do think it would be great if people calibrated their rating scale by looking, at least occasionally, at a broader range of the photos that are uploaded. This would be especially helpful to people who rate at the extremes. If you haven't looked at the full range of photos at least on occasion, you might not realize that the photo you are giving a "7" is actually pretty typical of the couple hundred good photos that are uploaded daily to photo.net. Similarly, those photos that you are rating 1 and 2 are probably nowhere near as bad as the worst that are uploaded -- especially if you found them through some site feature designed to show you the good photos.

 

The rating system is the main curatorial mechanism of the site. The ratings are not there as an open-ended mechanism for people to appropriate for any purpose they choose, into which they may pour any meaning they fancy. When you take the time and trouble to rate photos, the only good reason to do so is because you would like to help the site identify the best photos for being showcased on the site. If you aren't going to try to do that in some consistent and conscientious way, it would be better for the site if you didn't rate photos at all.

 

It makes no sense, for example, for somebody to say: well I use the rating system to communicate to the photographers who I've gotten to know which of their photos I like the most, rating my favorites in their portfolios as "7", and others in those portfolios that I like as "6". The reason not to do that is that those "7" and "6" ratings are being taken by the software to mean, effectively, "vote for Top Photo", and are being aggregated with other ratings to arrive at the list of Top Photos. Your private little "7" which you supposedly intended as encouragement for one photographer has an effect on the visibility of all the photos, increasing the standing of the recipient photo, and correspondingly reducing the standing of other photos.

 

Ratings which are made with some private meaning apart from their intended curatorial purpose are worse than a waste of time. It would be better to spend the time writing comments, or out taking photos, rather than appropriating the rating system as your private communication mechanism to the photographers, with your private meaning for the ratings. Especially since we provide a much better method of communicating things to the photographers; namely the ability to write comments on their photos, their portfolios, and their presentations.

 

Some people have angrily stated -- in this very thread, in fact -- that if they can't rate how they want, they just won't rate at all. THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE. We'd be rich if somebody was paying us for each rating, but lamentably that is not the case, so we aren't trying to maximize the number of ratings. We are only trying to give the limelight to the most deserving photos, and the ratings are a means, not an end.

 

Perhaps, in the interest of keeping everybody happy and not seeming surly, we should have a checkbox somewhere that says: "I'm appropriating the ratings to mean what I want them to mean rather than what the site wants them to mean (read my bio for details)." Anybody who checked the box could then rate any old way he or she liked, and the software and the moderators could ignore the ratings of anybody who checked the box.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[root]

This from Vincent two days ago:

 

"I do not need high ratings to make a living in this profession. I

post to showcase on Photo.net. Many images have over 50,000 views and

I have indeed recieved many offers and actually signed contracts for

stock simply because of posting on this site."

 

I was as surprised when I read it then as I'm sure you are now. Maybe

this explains what's been going on in some of the other portfolios.

 

Did you really read the whole thread? If so, you're as nuts as I am!

If not, then are you sure you know how we got to this point? I'm

trying to correct misconceptions according to my understanding of site

guidelines. You know . . be helpful. What are you doing?

[twmeyer]

trying to keep the forums alive, and photo.net from self destructing. This site was not designed to provide a sales tool for professional photographers... t