Exclusion from the Gallery Rating System

[patricia_eifel]

I ran into this string a few minutes ago and I must say it makes me very sad. As a new

member who is bewildered by all this, I felt I had to commment.

I discovered pd.net only a few months ago. I roamed the portfolios of photographers

whose images appeared on the "best photos" and "best photographers" pages. I

found a lot to like and was inspired by the creativity of many photographers on this

site--Anna Pagnacco was certainly one of those whose work particularly impressed

me by its variety and quality. I looked forward to every new posting of hers...

So I joined the site and posted my first photographs about 5 or 6 weeks ago (partly so

my family could see the images from my first show). I started submitting photos for

critique and immediately started receiving comments, some of which were laudatory,

others critical and almost always constructive. I commented on other's photographs

and kept track of the photographers whose work impressed me so I could see (and

sometimes comment on) their new work. It was such a positive experience - I was

inspired to work harder at my photography and to try new things.

 

In fact, I am one of the new photographers who is supposed to be discouraged by a

broken rating system. I have no personal friends on the site and certainly have not

exchanged emails with anyone; yet I have had several photographs appear on the first

page of the 3-day "best photos". It never bothered me that Anna had several photos

next to mine - on the contrary, I found it encouraging to have my work next to hers.

So, in my apparent naivete, I thought everything was pretty democratic on the site.

I also thought I was using the system the way it was intended. The workplace

specifically provides a place to keep track of certain photograpers; I marked those

whose work I particularly liked and, naturally, I tended to look at and rate their work

more frequently. I also went through the critique pages whenever I had time. I tended

to rate photos that were more interesting to me so my average ratings were fairly

high- isn't that the intention? After all, the fact that "best photos" are guaged by the

number of ratings suggests that photos should be rated selectively (otherwise the

page would be meaningless). So I just left comments on photos I thought were less

deserving... Sometimes I looked to see who had rated my photos and looked at their

portfolios (it means a lot to me when my photos are applauded by someone whose

work I admire). I found a few more photographers whose work interested me and

sometimes stopped and rated some of their photos...

 

It was all so inspiring... Then I started seeing the vituperous exchanges on Anna's

site and now this. I respect people's concerns, but is it really worth this? There is no

ideal way of setting up a community like this and there are bound to be squabbles,

but I thought it worked pretty well. Now people are worrying about being black-

balled and the atmosphere has become distinctly unfriendly. I used the site the way it

seemed to be intended -- now I'm just confused.

 

I am not a professional photographer although I am serious about my photography. I

have a demanding day job (I am an oncologist by profession) and, although I am

aware that the art world is not immune to this kind of squabbling, I am sorry to see it

illustrated so graphically here. Although I respect the role of the administrators and I

understand their concerns about the statistics that have been quoted, I wonder

whether this action might not do more harm than good, particularly if it leaves

members feeling that they have to be second-guessing every step. You have such a

good thing here. I hope it continues to thrive.

[roberto4]

Why <b>only Anna Pagnacco</b> is excluded from the rating system and banned from the top pages?<br>There are mate-raters all over the system.<br> She was very often on the top pages. Is this the reason?<br>Are there some people who cannot accept this fact? <br>

Is it a pure chance that she was aim of the action of the "honest raters"? What are the true reasons for this single decision to exclude only her?<br>

Or does she has to many files on the system and you cannot afford a new hard disc?

What has she really done to be treated that way?<br>

[pen name above]

No Lannie,

 

You are wrong (and I cannot put it more bluntly than that).

 

When you point, you make your mark. Just as when others read images (or your commentary for that matter, a significance which goes beyond your own understanding may be opened.

 

That is the "punctum" whose significant you fail to apprehend and reflection before action would not go amiss.

 

Kind regards,

[mottershead]

Mark, there are basically three problems with your modest proposal: (1) I can't think of a system that would lead to a Gallery that would be fair and open to all, but could not be misappropriated, misinterpreted, or abused. (2) If I could, it would have to implemented, and that would presumably take a fair amount of time. Meanwhile, we have the current system. (3) There is no guarantee that the ideal, fair, etc, system would be something that would be popular with the current participants or attract new people at a higher rate than the current participants left, and which people would find fun enough to be involved in to the degree required.

 

Contrary to what you say in your comments, I am quite aware that what I am asking runs somewhat counter to human nature. It is obvious that in the current system, in which ratings are public rather than anonymous, that the ratings will become a form of social currency to some extent and that it is basically impossible to get people to rate strangers as much as their friends. The current system replaced an anonymous system that was more subject to abuse, and was not as much fun or as socially stimulating. The ratings and photo submissions have easily tripled since it was replaced by the current system.

 

But the rating system does not have to be perfect to be good enough. All I am really asking people to do is to ease up on the mate rating. I don't expect people to work for hours every day rating thousands of dreary photos or photos that they don't "like" solely to satisfy me that that their ratings are normally distributed across a random sample of the 25,000 photographers. What I am asking is only that people be somewhat more fair to people beyond the circle of friends that they chance to form on the site -- that they rave a bit less about the people they always rave about and spend a bit more time helping to let worthy newcomers in.

[1000wordsphotography]

"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."

 

Brian, do you think museum curators don't show works that IN THEIR OPINION are good works and/or are the works of friends? Likewise they show works that IN THEIR OPINION sell. They do not show what does not interest them or that they can't support. That is how I rate images,,, I rate what I think are good works that I can support. If it happens that the same photographer gets rated by me on a regular basis, that doesn't necessarily mean I am abusing the rating system does it... couldn't it just mean that I like their style? If I don't want to give a low rating to someone... am I an abuser... or someone who just plain doesn't want to their waste their valuable time making negative comments? (If a curator doesn't show works he doesn't support as good, is he doing a diservice to the art world or just being a smart business person? ) The human element of ratings will always be there.... we are in fact human.

 

I must say I agree with the comment above by Mr. O who said , leave it alone... it will balance itself.

[erich_rohaczek]

Regina C and Robert O (and some other ) will be 7 and 7 rate for comments here

[root]

You suggested that emails that notified friends of uploads is

probably extremely rare. I agree. I suggested it only because it

is a way around a particular limit that you might set on site

behavior. Only a very few members would consider doing it.

 

Mark's proposal is to limit site behavior and you say it will be

abused. Yes, but as you said, the cases of abuse will be few

and far between based on my reading of the tone of responses

so far.

 

You have limits right now on the number of critique requests.

You've indicated that you are reluctant to place similar

restrictions on the number of uploads and number and value of

rates. You're relying instead on acceptance of a site philosphy

which runs contrary to human nature and contrary to site

interfaces.

 

Even though it is clear that many here don't share your

philosophy, I don't see them setting up false accounts to get

around upload and rating limits and I don't see them leaving in

droves either.

 

I don't understand your reluctance to put real limits on behavior.

Those of us who vote in elections understand that we can't stuff

the ballot box. The same behavior should apply here.

[mottershead]

Regina, I think people missed a couple of the elements of the mate-rating scenario that I put forward. The example I gave was real, and not the most extreme one I could have given. In it around 50% of the ratings of the person went to only 40 of the more than 300 photographers that the person had rated.

 

You could say, well, those 40 were just the people whose work the person "liked" who he/she had found so far. Of course they got more ratings than the others. But it also happened that those 40 were much the same people that had most frequently rated the person in question. Further, if you looked more closely at those 40, you would find that they are all heavily rating each other. It is a group.

 

There are 25000 photographers on the site, and probably hundreds, if not thousands of them are good, or at least have a significant number of photos that are good enough to be rated by the "I only rate what I like" people. New photographers who are good arrive all the time.

Yet here are 40 people who are spending a significant amount of time rating each other's photos with mostly 6's and 7's -- not exclusively, but predominantly. In part because of reliable support from others in the group, most of them end up on the Top Photos pages all the time.

 

You could say, well, there are only 40 photographers who are really good on this site, and natually they all rate each other highly and appreciate each others' work. That is a possible explanation, but I don't think that is it. What I see is that there are 40 or so photographers who so consistently rate each other's work higher than equally talented photographers who are not in the group, that nobody else has as good a chance at visibility on the site as the 40 do -- unless he or she can break into the group. This is not impossible, but to do it you have to be somewhat talented and give out a lot of 6's and 7's and flattering comments to the 40, and wait for them to be reciprocated.

 

Not all of the 40 are equally involved, and within the 40 there are different sub-groups. In fact, my example person was somebody on the fringes. There is no doubt that this group of people have talent, and it includes some of the best photographers on the site, in my opinion. But it also includes many who are only on par with other photographers who are neglected. Also, not all the work of even the best photographers is equally fabulous, but you can't tell that from the ratings.

 

To be quite honest, I would like to see this group broken up and the limelight spread around a lot more.

[nickolay_lavrik]

With all respect to those who are trying to make the rating system more rigorous, I think these recent events are sad. There is too much resemblence of witch-hunting. Not too long ago I thought diversity is the greatest achievement of this site. Banning ONE person from the rating system can hardly change something. Or, perhaps, the question is indeed "Who is next?" If PN becomes much less democratic or less devirese, I would see much less sense in renewing my membership. Isn't it controversy that often constitutes the essence of artistic minds?

[chris_hawkins]

Brian: I ask again, what happened to the idea of normalizing ratings from an individual?

[livvie]

have watched this thread with interest ... and feel great sympathy for those attempting to run the site in a fair and even handed manner. it seems that no matter how the ratings system is run an "elevated few" will dominate the top pages. gallery positions do not particularly bother me as i am looking for critique, but i do agree that the ethic of the site is drifting somewhat because of over exposure of the few. on reflection i feel bernhard's solution appears to best fit the bill.

 

rather than trying to swim against the tide perhaps we should try to go with it and form an elite gallery section where the crème de la crème can be rated against their peers. the awards to this section could be made by consensus, the elves or individuals could just pass to the prestigious gallery after attaining a higher average of ratings on works over a period of time. this would provide them (and us) a showcase of excellence without overwhelming lesser mortals.

[patricia_eifel]

I'm sorry Brian but I think you are misinterpreting the reasons for these statisitcs.

 

Of course there are many good photographs on the site from many photographers.

However, only a modest subset of the contributers (I would guess less than 10%)

produce steady streams of consistently excellent work. These photographers are

bound to receive many more ratings than those who have less consistent work or who

upload images less frequently.

 

Moreover, there are many different types of photography on the site. It was

apparently organized to make it easy for people to selectively critique certain kinds of

photographs -- portraits, nature, etc. I think this is a good thing but it further limits

the number of photographers who are consistently rated by a given individual. It is

inevitable that an individual will wind up giving a large number of their ratings to the

subset of photographers who share their interests and who are most prolific and that

groups of photographers with similar interests will tend to rate each others works.

Despite this, the "best photo" page shows a remarkable degree of diversity.

 

I think you are trying to fix something that wasn't really broken and in the process

may be seriously damaging it. Can't we just get on with photography???!!!!

[andy_eulass]

Lannie, I saw your comment above and the link to that photo. Let me say first off that I think its excellent work as well. However, if I take your comment at face value, you seem to illustrate the problem rather than the solution. As you state in your comment on it "could never place high in terms of aesthetics. It will thus never be among the Top Rated Photos, but its value is beyond price as a social commentary." Yet you turn around and give it a 6 for aesthetics. So if that's the case, why not give it a 5/6 or even a 4/6, hell even a 4/7? Personally, I would give the image a 6 for aesthetics because even though it has a "rough edge" so to speak, the aesthetic conveyed is perfect for the message or story being conveyed. This is ultimately the problem Brian is trying to address: when the rating is not consonant with making reasoned distinctions between great, good, average and poor, the rating has no meaning. And if, as you say, you believe the TRP has become a place that is a reflection of the tastes of the collective membership of this site, that's rationalization I simply can't buy after seeing what's been going on here for the last couple of weeks.

[bob_pictaker]

There have been a few comments here and there about this "war" that's taking place. I never had any intention of getting involved in a war. My intention was to simply start commenting and rating images that I have previously avoided. I've stayed away from these images in the past because I knew that even a polite and honest critique with a 4/4 rating could very likely result in rude responses in threads, retaliatory ratings on my folder, and angry emails. But when I saw people begin to speak out and voice their opinions of these images I decided that I would do the same. Even if I had to endure some 3/3's and angry emails, which I have. Why does it have to be this way?

 

My attachment is essentially the same one I've used on another thread just yesterday. I'm not attempting to single anyone out, or embarrass anyone. I'm only attempting to make a point. One of these photographers is within the group Brian has mentioned, the other is not. Look at the two images, and the ratings for these images and see if you can tell who is in the group and who isn't.

 

One other point to make. The photographer who is not in the mate rating group has received 13 ratings for their image since it was posted 6 months ago. The other photographer who is in the group received their first 16 ratings within 3 days of being posted. Look at these two images objectively, and then compare their ratings. Is one image really that much better? Then consider the speed in which these ratings have arrived and you may begin to understand why Brian and so many others want to see changes.

[Landrum Kelly]

I recognize the contradiction, Andy. Insofar as we do have everything conveniently pigeon-holed as "aesthetics" and "originality," however, I will do whatever I can to keep that rating system from penalizing a photographer for producing a good piece of documentary work. The photo is actually quite revulsive, but it is a good photo as documentation and social commentary. If we had ONE NUMBER to assign, then I could give it a 6 and be done with it. As for Stephen, he fails to recognize my pointing to this photo as a critique of the practice, not an endorsement of it. I am a social and political philosopher, not a photographer, and I have my own agenda for rating and commenting. I'm no aesthete, but I don't consider my rating to be the problem. I consider the rating system to be the problem, and, if it ceased to exist today, the site would still flourish if persons still posted photos and comments.

[dougityb]

Firstly,

 

Suppose we were each given a choice, right now, to choose either comments or ratings. One, or the other.

 

Which would you choose?

 

Wouldn't we all choose comments? Haven't we all at one time or another voiced a preference for comments over ratings?

 

In light of the fact that Anna's last recorded critique request was on November 26, 2002, a case could be made that this executive action is not such a terrible fate on the grounds that she does not need the TRP: So many have her on their IP lists already and inspect her page for new images at every appearance of her name on their workspace. Could it therefore be said that ratings are in fact superfluous for her? It is a bit insulting to have them removed in this fashion, that's true, but I believe it's plainly obvious that ratings are not necessary for her visibility, which is arguably the very purpose for ratings in the first place.

 

 

Secondly,

 

As a show of support, would those protesting this action like to stand beside Anna and also have their own images exempt from ratings?

 

 

Thirdly,

 

Anna's accomplishments are well known, as are the accomplishments of certain other members. Could these members be inducted in a Hall of Fame of sorts, for instance, for members that have achieved [some set number] Highest Rated Photo of the Day? Or [some set number]of images with over 10 ratings and averaging over [some set value], perhaps as a consolation for the removal of the ratings option?

[andy_eulass]

Your point concerning that photo is something I can comprehend. What about this one:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1579140

 

Here you gave it a 7/7 saying simply, "I like the warmth of this one, too." I need help here. Maybe I'm completely dense, but I just don't see the connection between the comment and the rating. Believe me, I'm willing to be persuaded by you that this is an all-around flawless masterpiece. I'd personally give it 4/5 or 5/5 because its quite pleasant to look at and seems to have take a bit of a satiric poke at the art world with the use of the paint brush. However, I'm not sure about how the eggs and the checkerboard (or chess board) play into the over all point of the image. I agree its got warmth, but the warmth isn't the sole catalyst for driving my rating. What else propels it to a 7/7? Or even a seven under a one-category system that you would propose? I'm not attacking you, I just want to understand it.

[Landrum Kelly]

Andy, according to the rules, a seven means "excellent," not "flawless." My comment addresses the question as to whether or not the color or B/W version is better. I could have gone on and on about the egg-shaped shadow, etc., but what really did strike me viscerally was the warmth of the tones. I could be critiquing Richard Rorty or Jacques Derrida right now, and I am defending why I gave a 7 on photo.net.

[andy_eulass]

Well, I guess you're right. I could be listening to the Ramones, but I'm defending my 5 on that image. Well my favorite song, "Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue" is on, so I gotta run. Toodles.

[patricia_eifel]

Doug - your suggestion would be fine if the site never expanded but how would new

photograpers learn about these special folks if they had no ratings and no longer

appeared on the "best photos" page?" I am aware of Anna's work because I joined the

site 6 weeks ago. If instead I joined a week or month from now, how would I know to

look for it? If all the individuals whose photos attract attention are removed from the

ratings, what will be left? How would you decide who is being too successful?

Comments are most helpful, but let's face it, it also is exciting and encouraging to

know that one of your photos has enough impact for a number of people to give it a

good rating---after all if that isn't the case, what is everyone so upset about?

Rather than develop some arbitrary method of exclusion, it probably would be better

to do away with the ratings altogether--although I predict membership would fall off

drastically. I suspect one of the main reasons people come to the site is to browse

great photographs --without the ratings, who would pick them?

[dougityb]

Patricia, I have no answer for the second part of your comment, but I think osmosis is the closest word I can think of to answer the first part. The idea is to have some sort of archive whereby these people can be recognized and I don't think it would be very difficult to have it linked from a page somewhere in the gallery, much the same way there's been a link to Phil Greenspun's photographs on the gallery's first page. Adding another link would be a piece of cake, after the page was built, of course. The real question would be what criteria to use to qualify.

[pdoyle]

Brian, since those who are subject to this ratings exclusion will still receive comments on their photos, will their photos still show up on the High-Rated Photos page if the filter is set to "# of comments"?

 

To those who don't understand what is wrong with going back to view and rate the photos of certain people whose work you enjoyed in the past -- you're right, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when a few of the people doing this seemingly lose their objectivity and start handing out nothing but 7's and some 6's to the same people over and over, regardless of the relative quality of each photo and without explaining in their comments why they consider that photo so extraordinary compared to others. And when it happens to be the same people who are giving them the same treatment in return, it starts looking a bit fishy. I grant you that there's a big blurry line between mate-rating and straightforward rating, but obviously there are enough egregious examples of mate-rating that it has caused the consternation we have seen from a section of the community over these past weeks.

 

Since "4" is "average" in this ratings system, it implies that "7" is relatively extraordinary and rather rare. If you have handed out hundreds of 7's to a small set of people, perhaps it is time to recalibrate your definition of "average" so that there is more differentiation at the high end between those photos you think are truly rare and exceptional, and those you consider merely great. Personally, I find that I'm continually refining my rating "calibration" and also starting to rate photos more broadly after an initial period where I mostly rated only what I considered "above average." Taste is personal ... there's nothing to say that you have to think the same as I do. But for the edification of others, explain sometimes what you find so extraordinary about those "best" photos -- so many of us, myself included, are here to learn as much as we can from this community.

[peter_eisenburger]

Patricia, well spoken. Your contributions are very balanced and sober - and true IMO.<p>

 

The more I read this thread the more I think this thing will damage PN heavily. Not only that newbies will stay away and "old cracks" get excluded. Moreover if Anna is serious about her announcements - and I don't doubt it - I see the possibility of high lawyers fees PN would have to face. I don't believe there are financial ressources for this.

[mottershead]

Anna's photos will still be visible (and are still visible) in the Top Photos. New photos will still appear in all the categories like "Number of Comments", "Views" and "Folder Views" that are not based on ratings. And the ones with existing ratings will be visible in the applicable periods. For that matter, if Anna uploads more photos, they would appear in the 3-Day and 24-Hour "Number of Ratings" views, since these include photos with 0 ratings, although they would be at the end, so this is probably not the place to look for them. Her portfolio will also be visible via a feature which I just added to the Gallery Main Page.

 

Concerning the question of 7's, I don't think people have really considered how rare they should be. Consider that the capacity of Top Photos is a few hundred photos per month at the most. About 30,000 photos are submitted per month, with about two-thirds of those being rated. No more than 1% of them can be in the Top Photos for the month. This suggests that 7's should really be quite rare - on the order of a couple, at most, per hundred ratings. 6's should also be much more rare than they are, probably around 1 in 10. Remember that the ratings are relative to what is uploaded to photo.net. photos aren't being rated relative to every photo taken in the known universe, but relative to the others on photo.net, and they can't all be "very good" and "excellent". 5 is a perfectly fine rating for a photo that you "like". Keep 6 and 7 for some kind of "Favorites" concept, perhaps reserving "7" to mean something like Top Photo of the Month and "6" to mean something like Top Photo of the Week.

[mottershead]

Peter, while it is true that people can sue you for anything, you do have to have some kind of case in order to get anywhere. Otherwise, why not sue your way into a much more prestigious place than photo.net -- like the MOMA Photography Department? Do you think that photo.net does not have the right to curate its photo exhibitions how it chooses?

 

You might think we administer the Gallery stupidly, and apparently a few people in this thread do think so. But stupidity isn't illegal, and I don't doubt that we have the right to include or exclude portfolios from the rating system, or the entire Gallery, as we see fit.

 

People have made reference to Anna being a subscriber, but that is not actually the case, since her subscription has expired. We only remove the icons after a couple of months. She also purchased "extra photo quota", but that only entitles her to have more space. Even if you could work the extra photo quota purchase up into an argument that we are obligated to keep the photos in the rating system, the extra quota expires in August, and we are surely not under any compulsion to extend it. Would a few more weeks of ratings be worth a lawsuit? She already has 10,000 of them, way more than anybody else.