vincetylor Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Just for the record after rating 2389 images on this site, only 50 have received 7/7..... Just over two percent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 This, at least, was in accordance with your respect for Anna, and perhaps - hopefully - with your repect for photography. <p> I quote you: "I have no problem to delete all mate-ratings when Ann could come back" <p> Perhaps any other members of the group would find here some inspiration and join you on this fair proposition...? <p> Then it's Brian's call, but to save the gallery, I believe exagerated mate-ratings just need to go to the trash... That's all. Imo, we do not need Anna to go IF mate-ratings are deleted. I understand that Brian wants a fairer gallery, and so do many of us. But if that can be achieved by deleting suspect ratings, even I, would rather have it that way than to see Anna leave... <p> I suggest you all think about this, and perhaps add your name next to Robert's and give up on all these meaningless 7s, to try to get Anna back. And I'm sure even nasty fellows like me and Anna could have some good times together analyzing weaknesses of our respective works. That's what this site is all about. It's an exchange of opinions, and nothing else. Each of you should unplug the rating wire once and for all. No you aren't excellent, neither am I. Perhaps Emil is, but even then, there are still far better photographers than all of us on our little planet ! Let's all remember this ! Why would we need to fight over silly figures ? Think about it. There are young photographers joining this site everyday and all they want is that their best pictures get seen and commented on. Let them have it, I say... Anna, Robert, Valter, me, we have all been 20 years old, right ? So why do we need to behave like kids when we have grown older ? Makes no sense. Delete all the mate-ratings, Brian, please, and delete all of MY ratings on these folks's works as well, and you folks give a green light to Brian to do so, and opt for criticism in the future, not for blind admiration. That's how all of us will improve anyway, and that's how I see a chance that Anna comes back to photo.net with her full rights. ALL IT TAKES IS A BIT OF GOODWILL, HUMILITY & GENEROSITY. <p> There is no price to be won, this isn't a competition. We'll all be happier if we get meaningful ratings and good critiques rather than useless ratings and a "wow"... We all know that. So move it, give Brian your consent to the deletion of all mate-ratings - let him be the judge of that, and all of us let's do our part, and perhaps Anna can come back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i._g. Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 May I suggest that the default search of highly rated photos display only one (1) picture from any given photographer at any time (not only on the first pages but on all the following pages as well). This will already make some space for photographers that don't get millions of rates. I think it should be quite easy to implement. Another one, a bit harder to implement maybe, is to limit the appearance of a photographer in the default search to once every 10 days or so. That way, photographers that keep uploading pictures that consistently get billions of ratings will not monopolize the place. Also, I think banning a photographer from the site could have been done by allowing rating on his pages but preventing his pictures from appearing in the search on the gallery. Not that it matters much, but it is an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincetylor Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 There is some mate-rating to be sure. I do not care for it nor participate in it. And, it should be addresed. There is also low balling taking place, it too should be addressed the same. As long as humans have free will there will always be these two issues to some degree. If you truly want to elimate it completely, then simply abolish the ratings system altogether! Until then, there will never be a system to completely eliminate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valter_filippeschi Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Vincent : I agree 100%. Eliminate the ratings !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roberto4 Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 very good solution you have my full support. I know my mate-ratings on all photos I rated during the last 2 weeks so I can help find it. <br>best robertO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roberto4 Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 the low-rate-bombs can be disarmed by the person who have put it. When not, so this rating will remain as a personal public memorial of this "war";-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Since the notion has been tossed around that the ratings system makes all photo.netters curators, of a sort, why not pursue that notion to its logical conclusion? Instead of allowing numerical ratings to give a handful of photographers long term, practically permanent, prominence on gallery views, try a system that is dependent upon a single individual rather than a group. Each day one photo.netter will determine whose works are prominently featured on all of the various gallery views. Photo.net can notify each member a week, a month or longer in advance by e-mail, informing them that their turn at curating the site is fast approaching so start preparing a batch of photos that reflect their personal aesthetics. Would a curator-for-a-day choose random images that he/she likes? Or go for a thematic approach and include photos that may not necessarily be at the top of his/her list of favorites but which are compatible with a theme? It might also be interesting to allow viewers to rate the curator-for-a-day on the choices he/she has made. One can only imagine the comments that might follow. As for numerical ratings figuring into a photographer's prominence on the site, photo.net could merely offer a text-only listing without any thumbnails. This would at least acknowledge that some photographers are more highly regarded than others - for whatever that's worth to anyone - while not stealing attention from the curator-for-a-day experiment. It might at least be considered as an experiment to last a month, or to be implemented intermittently. For example, Mondays could be reserved for the curator-for-a-day, and only thumbnails of that person's selections would be visible in any of the gallery views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valter_filippeschi Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 May I politely ask to come back to the subject ? may I kindly ask to reconsider the fact to not exclude Anna from the gallery rating system ? Please if agree give your OK Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumpster001 Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 i'm not too excited about the direction this thread is getting steered into. the issue at hand is not entirely about mate-rating, while it's certainly no meager contributing component, nor is it about Anna or any other individual. and certainly not about whether we need ratings or not.<p> if an assessment of a body of work doesn't take into consideration its qualitative merits, and is predominantly based on grounds of social kinships and other sundry frivolous reasons, it loses objectivity, and such assessments unmistakably interfere with those that are non-biased and render the whole system meaningless. i thought Brian was articulative enough. as for the proposals to amend the rating engine and its mechanisms, i personally have hope in the current mechanism. besides, no system can be fool proof and <i>change</i> should come at an individual level. and unless that happens, i don't see any end to this idiocy. <p> this rule here is to underscore the accountability, or lack thereof, when someone hands out a pair of numerals for a shot. this is to underscore the fact the each one of us has a moral responsibility when you rate someone's work, in the best interests of the photographer of the shot, and all the rest of the photographers and ofcourse, photo.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roberto4 Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 "Exclusion from the Gallery Rating System", using Anna as an example. So we can find a solution ( Marc's Idea) or we can stop this thread openning an new one where we can discuss the rating system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wenger Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Since the practices that are causing this trouble seem to be quantifiable (as reflected by one of Brian's earlier posts) and since it is assumed that (at least in some cases) mate rating is an unrecognized phenomina by the participants, couldn't an "error message" be generated after a suspect rating that would simply warn the participant that their recent rating "may be falling into the category of mate rating... ...while you feel that you are aiding the photographer by rating many of their photographs you actually may be hurting them because of the potential for disiplinary action... " or something of the sort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_p4 Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Your Portfolio Add photo Guidelines on Allowed Number and Size of Photos You are a "SUBSCRIBER", and your quota is currently 1200 photos. With a Gallery portfolio of 375 photos, you are within your quota. If this form doesn't serve your needs, try customizing this system. File to upload THIS IS WHAT IS WRITTEN TODAY JUNE 30 June on my page and what I read if I want to add a new photo to my portfolio SO.....I ASK TO THIS FORUM.....AM I WRONG IN BELIEVING TO BE A SUBSCRIBER? My ICON as PATRON has been showed until today..... . How many people in PN have this priviledge due to me for paying not only my quota but EVEN an EXTRA quota some months after my first subscrition? Anyway Photonet in the person of Mr. Brian Mottershead has already got copy of my lawyer's letter. I will do everything to protect my rights both from Italy and USA. Anna Pagnacco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g1 Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 <b>Brian said:</b> <i>"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."</i><p> This I am in total agreement, and it is so simple I fail to see why anyone would have such a problem in understanding it. If members cannot understand it, or refuse to honour the idea voluntarily, then perhaps the solution is to ration 6's & 7's in <i>exactly</i> this way. We only get one [or other set quota] opportunity to place 7 within the month, and only one [or other set quota] to place 6 within the week. I know rationing has been suggested before, but the more I think about it, the more I am convinced it is the <i>only</i> possible way to go. At least worth a pilot test Brian? It would be interesting to see how it affected the gallery after a couple of months wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_fleming Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 - "Coffee, cappucino, chocolate, ice-cream...?!"<p> - "Please one cream tart, not to eat, but to throw it away at somebody`s face!!"<p>:o)))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_p4 Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Every personal insult on this page will be added as proof as detrimental and offensive to a PN member ("public defamation" on Internet, there are very severe laws ) if allowed by a site's webmaster. Anna Pagnacco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wenger Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 I'd also like to add that I find it interesting that there are above posters who admit to "mate-rating" openly... perplexing. And Anna, your gallery is still up for everyone to see. I suspect that if/when you post a new image you will get many more visitors to that image offering their "valuable critiques" ("wow", "you did it again", etc) than I would if I posted a new image AND filled out a critique request. What's the problem? Are ratings really that important to you that they are worth the threat of legal action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gib Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 renameing the site after you is not an insult, just to show that you are the most important member of the community Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gib Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 As for closing www.photo.net, there is no sustainable business plan, the $25 subscription is not sufficient to keep photo.net running. It will close, it is just a matter of time. A one month warning period is a fair practice. Free lunch on the internet always runs out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Anna must never have heard the expression that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leanne_newton Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Getting back to the problem of the rating system, I personally find the `bombers` worse than the `friends`. What to do with a 3/4 rating on a not so bad picture? Rate the bomber 7/7 on his weakest offering.... and let the gallery pay for its system...? Internet Libel laws do exist outside of the USA, but I hope Anna will reconsider. ( after all, she now has her very own hall of fame...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_fleming Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 please another cream tart!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricia_eifel Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 I have given this problem considerable thought and although I'm sure I don't understand all the issues, I would like to make several suggestions for consideration. As I understand it there are several needs: 1) To have greater visibility for "emerging" artists 2) To continue to have very accomplished photographers appear on and enjoy the site without letting them dominate it entirely 3) To facilitate constructive commentary for new and experienced photographers alike 4) To improve the consistency of ratings Possible improvements: 1) Use more realistic descriptions for the numbered ratings. There are many more photos with excellent qualities than can fit on the first few pages of the ratings search. This confuses raters. How about 7= "outstanding" [i.e., it belongs on the first page], 6 = "excellent", 5 = "very good", 4 = "good", 3 = "needs work" and forget about 1 and 2 --- "bad" is such a pejorative word. 2) Require comments for "needs work"?a low score alone is little help 3) Change the "originality" rating to "originality/impact" --- this would allow people to express their appreciation of photos that are particularly striking even though they fall in fairly established categories. 4) Rank photographs according to the number of ratings that exceed some determined high combined score (e.g. 11). This would combine the level of the rating and the number of ratings, eliminating "low-balling" and reducing the impact of one or two inconsistently high ratings. It would also stop the current problem that critiquers are unwilling to give constructive low ratings because all ratings are treated the same way in the gallery. 5) However, only permit any given photographer to have a limited number of photos on the gallery pages. I would suggest 1 (the highest ranked image during that period) on the 24- and 36-hr pages, 1-2 on the week page, etc. This would eliminate anyone monopolizing the page. So what if some people give each other inappropriately high ratings--the raters and photographers will only look silly if they have poor photos appearing alongside great ones and surely they will only want their best work to make it to the top if only one photo will appear in the gallery. 6) Include a special icon on the thumbnail of work from "emerging photographers" who make it to the gallery pages. These could be defined as new members or even better, members who have had fewer than [?3] photos in the top 20. This would highlight them and encourage critiquers to look at their portfolios and rate their work. 7) Include a special gallery page for "emerging photographers" with less stringent ranking requirements and limited to new members or those who have had fewer top rankings. This would provide a place for committed critiquers to meet appraise the work of new or less experienced photographers. 8) Continue the front page which features unrated work from new members or emerging artists but consider featuring a few more (maybe 4) so they stay on a bit longer. 9) Encourage Anna to return and ALL the members (including Anna) to participate FULLY to showcase their art and share their talents with the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 You have no legal case, Anna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_fleming Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Here is one recent comment of AP to one of my picture after I rated her entire portfolio (with many 4/5/6 few 3/7 average close to 4.7 which is quite good IMO) like I started to do to many photographers (I receive many private e-mail from many of them and they appreciated the time I spent in nuancing my appreciation). <p> "Robert, take notice we are using a system rating that can not give full justice to the images. (...) So we must take it not too seriously. " <p> Isn`t it funny!! So Anna say what you think and do what you say. Please post nice pictures and dont take rating too seriously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now