ENOUGH IS ENOUGH - Ratings Abuse

[jhenry]

Carl I get your point and your analysis of the current process is quite accurate, and... that is THE problem... it leads to natural inflationnary of rating which now became totally absurd. Coolers, moderators, balance-brigade whatever you wish to call them, are needed here. If you see a bunch of very average class pictures getting and within 24hours ... rows of 6 and 7, and obviously a good chance to get commented (which I think is the most important thing here), tell me what will you give to just a good picture. <p> SO I can agree with your analysis of the current general process you described although I totally desagree with the process itself, which I find perverse.

[jhenry]

I think we both posted twice at the very same time!! ... ;-)

[andrew_buzzell]

I haven't rated much in the past because I am new to photography and felt ill-equiped. I rate more now. Similarly, I joined photo.net when I started photography. My photos received little attention. As my work improved, I have had more attention and made front-page TRP. I don't understand this bell-curve. Persumably, people on photo.net are not interested in snapshots, failed attempts, mediocrity, we want to make art. Making art is hard. Some of my hesitancy to rate stems in part from the fact that many of the photos here (and many of mine) are indeed 3/3 or 4/4 and I felt uncomfortable rating thusly. Recently, I've been trying give more honest ratings, like 6/3 (original, but poor excution) with comments.

 

Dammit now I've been sucked into the rating debate. Look, we all know Brian isn't going to change the system anytime soon, he as said so repeatedly. And we all know that the system is abused. And we all, presumably, have lives, so we don't care *that* much about bloody ratings. Most importantly, we all seem to think comments are a Good Thing. So let's all make more comments and try to behave, until such time as Bob or Brian says, "Hey, we're thinking of changing the rating system, any ideas" when we can then eat up all of pnet's bandwidth with our endless suggestions.

[root]

Too many people rate irresponsibly . . . . . that is, they don't

really consider the consequence of their behavior. . . . or they do

and have some sort of agenda. Objective rates are not

necessarily in the minority, but they've been contaminated to the

point where what is uploaded and what is promoted is clearly

influenced by this. The assertion that a lousy process still

manages to get good results is wishful thinking in my view.

 

My most conservative 'pop' shots are the highest rated and have

the most views. My most creative 'interesting' shots, like the

ones I'm uploading now, are buried.

[root]

Kudos for rating in spite of all this . . . and also for daring to give

a three point spread between originality and aesthetics. I've got

a couple 6/3s you can look at! (I'm serious.:-))

[dannym]

Thank you Mark, that's all I was trying to say.

[bacsa]

<i>"Do yourselves a favour, take a few months off, post no images to the gallery, make no comments about the rating system. "</i>

<br> Good advice, Keith.

<br>Go try to win a photo competition at your local camera store of your little town(if you have something like that), if you want attention, it will make you much happier than watching for better-than-average ratings from nevermet nobodies on photo.net... Or, lately, for useful comments.

<p>

This is equivalent with "go get a life" but said in a much nicer way:o)

<p>

If nobody takes the ratings seriously, nobody will be "abused" so there will be no point of doing it. There are plenty of good photographers here who never put a citique request, nor look on the "top rated"pages. They occasionally post excellent pictures on words/no words type threads, or comment/advice if you ask them.

[bacsa]

<i>"Many of my mediocre uploads have received undeservingly high ratings and attention; why, I have no idea "</i>

<br>Because you have an exotic name, mr. Chang?:)

[bacsa]

<i>"Brian seems keeping that member just to lower overall increadibly inflated ratings"</i> -Maybe A.Z./BS is Brian Mottershead himself!!!:o)

[bacsa]

I wasted 4 comments on this thread. That could have been 4 comments on 4 photos of somebody. I feel bad now. I don't want to count all the comments on all this kind of threads.

 

Of course, my low skills don't let me give great comments, so it's not a great loss. But YOU, guys!!!!! shame on you all.

[keith_laban]

<i>"Maybe A.Z./BS is Brian Mottershead himself!!!"</i><p>Mmmmm.....must admit the thought has crossed my mind :-}

[tony bell]

I think the problem is the available ratings. I work in a company where I as a supervisor go out and inspect our retail outlets (along with all the other supervisors) and it was soon discovered that to get an accurate idea of the condition of things you could NOT have a fence sitter rating, i.e. a middle number that screams AVERAGE. I think the same is true here. When you can rate 1 through 7, then 4 becomes an almost useless number. I rate lots of 4/4's but many times I almost feel bad about it. It may be below many other ratings already posted, but 4/4 says "It's an ok photo, nothing great but nothing horrible." I think 4/4's have inclined people to overrate in many cases because 4/4 is perceived as BAD in comparison to what the photographer wants or may expect to see.

 

In my personal opinion, a scale of 1 through 6 would be much more appropriate for the purposes of this site. 1, 2, 3 are obviously poor and 4, 5 and 6 are obviously good and there IS NO middle of the road. I mean really, what can be deduced from a rating of 4/4? It is as if the photo were never taken. And as I say, I rate many 4/4 because that's the current system but I'd much rather see the mid-point eliminated.

[root]

Just so you're clear about this . . .

 

A 4/4 is a mark on a photo that says 'send this one pretty far back

on the list' if it is within the first ten rates. After the first ten, it

doesn't matter because the default TRP promotes an image with

more rates regardless of what the average rating is.

 

. . . . after the three day period, a rate means very little unless it's

truly exceptional where it supposedly competes with others in

the longer views (although people don't check those pages very

often.)

 

So you see, rates mean very different things depending on when

they're applied. Not exactly intuitive, is it?

[tony bell]

Carl,

 

Intuitive it is not, that's for sure. But when I'm looking at photos to critique I'm not thinking "Oh, this is one of the first ten ratings...." I'm just trying to honestly give my opinion of the photo and I think that's what it SHOULD be. I will say that thanks to this thread I'm putting much more effort towards commenting on more photos instead of just rating. But even then there are some photos I look at and can rate but have nothing to say about.

[root]

I guess I'm asking people to pass over images where they can't

think of anything to say about them in favor of those that could

start a conversation. I think too often people rate things they

understand, good or bad, but pass over more challenging

images where they're not quite sure what to make of them.

That's the opposite of what a critique site should be about, in my

view.

[tony bell]

Carl,

 

You hit right on it for me. There are many photos I see that I don't personally like for what ever reason and I don't comment or even rate, just move on. Then there are some, LIKE YOURS, that I really enjoy but I have no idea what to say short of the stupid insipid "wow", "neat", "nice shot" that I feel not only waste the photographers time, but also insult his intelligence AND show my ignorance. OK, that being the case I shall endeavor to dive right in and learn something. What a novel idea :)

[margaret_s.]

I joined this site so I could improve my photography, learn and be inspired. I also enjoy offering insight, to the extent of my abilities, on photos that prompt me to do so. As has been mentioned, ratings are only good to propel one to the top pages improving visibility and thus increasing one's chances to receive comments and more ratings but if you're not too popular or your images are just average, then you lose. I've experienced both ends of the spectrum. It's ironic because it's those photos (which never make it to the top 5-6 pages) that could use more comments so the photographer can improve. I personally would rather receive more comments and in particular <i>constructive criticism or insight</i> rather than drive-by ratings. It's a shame however that the system is set up in such a way that many images go by unnoticed. I have often to my great dismay come across some outstanding photos that never made it past 10 ratings. A real pity. <P>

Perhaps ratings of 3 and below should <i>require</i> a comment to go along with it and limited to paying members only, or members who have an active portfolio. After all, a "below average" photo merits an explanation or better yet, a suggestion to improve it. Certainly not a fool-proof system, but may discourage drive-by low ratings. I don't base myself on ratings, rather I enjoy when people suggest ways that I can improve my photos. I think many folks would too if only they had more visibility. In the meantime, I'll just keep shooting and hope that I keep getting comments so I can improve :-)

[WJT]

Margaret, there is great merit in what you have said. As you know, the rating sytem has been the subject of virtually countless threads. The discussion is to the point where The Brian would like to prohibit any furhter commentary on that subject.

 

As I understand, the problem with requiring a comment in order to give a rating is that the rater could concievably leave nothing more than a word or two, and then be allowed to rate low. That is why the requirement, which we did have at one time, was abolished. However, your idea of combining that requirement AND paid subscribtion sounds feasible, at least to me. I myself do not have a problem with the system. It is not quite Nirvana, but it does work.

 

Unfortunately, all of my above comment, and yours too Margaret, is off the subject of Mr Lucas's original posting. I hope we don't get flamed to severely. As far as addressing Mr Lucas's post... I do not, nor ever will, subscribe to the practice of "witch hunting". Regards.

[leanne_newton]

Well, Mark, I noticed blatant retaliation yesterday, very open too,

and the whole group openly discussing it as well.

Don`t know if we are thinking of the same people here.

All I can say is that although attempts

have been made to change things, it is all a political

game. You canvass for rates and comments,

you punish honest ratings if they are low,

or comments if they are not soothing,

you campaign to eliminate the competition

and voila, you are on the TRP by default.

That is how it works.

[sammm]

Always interesting to see these discussions. Carl's points deserve special attention here, because he is, in my view, the single individual whose portfolio I have reviewed who has the best poorly rated photos (there should be an award...). Look at his rust shots sometime, everyone.

 

OK, how many people here think that if you had everyone at an artist's exhibition in 1905 rate the art, Picasso would have come out on top? I do not think the ratings here will ever be a good measure of the quality of the photographs. And even if you could assemble a qualified judges panel to review every photo that came through here, there would be lots of gems that slipped by them.

 

All the ratings do is serve as a filter, and the system here has been good enough to let us filter them in many ways. If I had to suggest one way to change things, it wouldn't be a change to the ratings, which the powers-that-be have been good enough to change periodically in one way or another, always shaking things up a bit and moving some new shots or photographers to the fore. I would instead change the default filter periodically, so maybe one week highest aestetics come up, one week curators ratings, one week highest sum of ratings. Every now and then stick up the long term ratings for a day, or have a sort that is not ratings based. (And, just for fun, let's have it sort the lowest rated pictures first at some point).

 

On individual ratings, well, this is a community and will always show the flaws and foibles of a community. We go looking for our friends, we look at what interests us, we avoid what we dislike. We have to accept some level of imperfection.

[tony bell]

If a person wants to be more visible on this sight one of the easiest ways to acheive this is to leave comments and critiques on the photos they view. There are so very many people on this site yet there are a core of people whose names I recognize, whose folders I've looked at simply because they make observations critiquing and I am driven to see their work. You want high visibility, leave comments.

[jarrydbekker]

I feel that these photographers that are moaning about low ratings are expecting to receive constant praise! How can they post their photo's ( with the intention of having them judged ) and moan every time a bad rating is given? That is sad...

 

I do however think that maybe the rating system should be changed such that when a rating of 3 or less is given, a comment on why the rating was given should be compulsory.

[mark lucas]

Jarryd, I completely agree with you - I just wish this thread could have stayed with the original post!

[mike werkhoven]

ratings yeh, is as interesting as the people who are dooing the rating. if someone rates me very well or very down i go for his/her page to see the work in there own portefolio. so i can understand there ratings. a rating does not only tell the quality of your work but also telling you something about the intelligence and artistic schooling of the person who is giving the ratings. i am a photographer who`s intersted in content "what is it all about" more then for instance aesthetics, this seems no item on this site. i think that is a pity. aestatics is just taste, superfacial and originality as allready was explaind is very occasional. beside "content" there should also be a mark for "integrity", a lot imiges seem to be stolen ideas even if they seem original, there was an nice example of the ladies ass or puting an nude on the attic or old factory hall. everybody like to see that again and again so it is the perfect cliche, still it get a skyhigh score, that makes ratings in this systeem for what it seems. So don`t be disapointed by people who does not understand your work. i see this as a platform where i can show my work rather than i can see or people are compleet enough to understand my work. but i must be ohnest sometimes i am surprised. i posted this answer before on an other question but it seems to fill this question aswell. sorry about my povre english but i am a duthman. yours , mike

[andrew_grant2]

I think a big problem here is that there's a wide range of reasons people have for being on this site.

 

For example. I am here to learn... sure I could post photos that have been published or won competitions, but what good would that be? As I see it this is a great place to post a photo that might have been an experiment or an attmept at something different... I can (hopefully) receive feedback that I might be able to think about next time I try to compose a similar shot and ultimately improve my photography.

 

For other people, a primary objective is exposure. I must admit, I love the idea that 1100 people or whatever looked at x photo this week. It's nice to be noticed. There is value in showcasing one's work.

 

For others this appears to be a competetition, at least that's how it appears with people who persist in drive-by low ratings without stopping to give thought to what the photographer was thinking and don't leave constructive criticism.

 

So I think the etiquette says bring on the bad marks so long as you're prepared to help the photographer learn and don't be afraid to give slightly higher marks if you can see what the photographer was trying to achieve... from personal experience, there are a lot of exceptional photographers on this site and it can be intimidating to those of us who don't have as greater depth of experience and encouragement works wonders in convincing people they CAN participate.