Jump to content

is this critic abuse


wayne_willis2

Recommended Posts

Even I thought so. Same applies to "7" ratings. But then, if you click on a photograph, go to Ratings and then rate, you can rate whatever without commenting. This means 1,2 and 7. Seems to be a bug that needs to be brought to the notice of the moderators.

 

Btw, as mentioned above, care less about ratings and more about critical comments. If I quote the old cliche - "It takes all sorts to make this world" - it is quite unlikely everybody would like a particular photograph. The important part is, whether you like it or not. The emotions behind a photograph and the efforts that go behind it cannot always be appreciated by everybody. So care less about ratings and casual remarks. Should you feel somebody has provided some constructive criticism, thank him for his views. That's how one improves. Remember, if you are good, you would know it sooner or later. These 1,2s doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wayne, this happens a lot on photo.net. But think about it. If this critic has given a 1/1 and no comment it just means he/she dislikes your picture but is not articulate enough to explain why. Don't allow it to bother you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, there is a mechanism at photo.net for reporting rating abuse; it is to email abuse@photo.net with your suspected abuse data. Second, it is no longer a requirement at photo.net to provide a comment in order to rate with 1, 2, or 7. This is not a mistake. It is an alteration in policy, since most of the comments required under the earlier policy were such gems as: "fantastic", "best ever", "ugh", "...", "ugly", and so forth -- not providing any more information than the ratings themselves.

 

Finally, I have looked at ratings by this user, and I see no clear evidence of abuse. My opinion is that the 1/1 this user gave your photo is lower than it deserves, but that is MY opinion, and the 1/1 is Cakir's opinion, worth exactly as much as mine here at photo.net. I examined his/her rating pattern, and it seems low, but not outrageously so, and with no pattern of attack. I do not see any evidence of abuse, so the ratings stand until and unless I see abuse.

 

By the way, you probably do yourself no service by calling someone a coward etc. with so little data to go on. Pictures uploaded to photo.net are available for rating; you have to accept the ratings you get. If you are not prepared to do that, maybe you should not upload photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to say that people who sign up and immediately start

rating are of little value to the individual photographers who receive

those rates. There's an obvious way to reduce the number of people

who start rating from day one. Do you think it would be a benefit to

the site if more newbies understood the site better before they

started rating? .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having looked at Wayne's pictures I am surprised that someone would rate them low. On the other hand, without knowing exactly which picture he's complaining about it's hard to form an opinion. On the gripping hand, the rater has a perfect right to say 1/1 if that's what he feels.

 

As has been said often, if you're not prepared to take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wayne, you don't tell us what the picture is... But since he hasn't uploaded anything and nothing he has seen has rated a 6/6 or better we can't tell what he likes. He's rated 40 pictures since joining, at an average below 3, but he's been a member for just a few days. So either that's a newbie mistake, or he's someone using a new account or he's mean. Have you tried a polite e-mail to him to find out ?

But get a grip! No one likes low ratings, but if you can't keep your feet on the ground when you get better or worse than you desrve then you need to take your photos somewhere else where everyone is known, fair and predictable.

Wayne and Saikat Pathak, the requirement to comment for a 1,2 or 7 went a few weeks ago. I wish it would be put back.

It's created a two tier system where anyone used to the new system won't give out 1s and 2s unless the feel the picture is really plumbing the depths, (I reckon that 2 in every 100 deserve a 1 or a 7 and about 15% deserve a 2 or 6, and about 2/3 (the remaining 66%) should get 3,4,or 5); people who have just joined seem to give out new scores with abandon. They're the only ones to have given me 1s or 2s and polite enquiries have returned polite responses, but none has said "I really hated everything about that picture", which would be my criteria for a 1 or 2.

I've been pulling more scores into a database and analysing ... well Anal is the first part of Analyse ;-) I have queries called "the fan club" and "the knockers" who are those who rate higher and lower than others on a consistent basis. I know how to treat scores from these people - a high score from a knocker, or a low score from the fan club makes me sit up and take notice and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wayne, I'm trying to understand why, (if I'm interpreting your post correctly) that you would consider low ratings with out comment abuse? If the same person left a more flattering rating, without a comment would that be OK?

 

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 10 months later...

I don't see a parallel at all between no comments for a 7/7 and no comments on a 1/1. Can we not presume that sumitters think their photo is good when they submit? Is it essential then that a rater comment to signify that they basically agree with them (7/7 being the ultimate expression of agreement?) Although nice to have, how can anyone say that such feedback is of tantamount importance to the feedback from a person that rates your photo as "very bad" (when you as the submitter most likely feel the photo is "very good.")

 

As long as ratings drive exposure, they are important - because more exposure means the ultimate objective - more comments. A 1/1 means nothing to me from an ego perspective (at least nothing that I act on, I hope,) but the fact that it probably denies me useful feedback I otherwise might have had is the main rub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...