Rating raters

[mg]

Before anything else, I'd like to think that you are on to something interesting here, Bob, imo. Nevertheless the exact details of how you would implement something like this (IF...) would prove to be very important.

<p>

I have to agree with Nestor Botta regarding the usage of critique ratings on Psig, i.e it is true that SOME people retaliate, and even in a massive way, on critique ratings over there. Nevertheless, I participated for about 3 months on Psig at a rate similar to the rate of critiquing I had on photo.net, and DESPITE all the retaliations and agenda-motivated critique ratings, it may be worth noting that I accumulated there a huge number of critique points, which means that Photosig's system to rate critiques STILL WORKS.

<p>

Neertheless, Carl Root wrote: "Consider the recent experience of the 'balance brigade'. Who decides whether or not their 'constructive critcism' was useful, correct, objective, etc.? You end up having to find a group of people whose judgement you trust to make that determination. Surely poeple like Marc, Doug, Bob Hixon, Trevor, and many others who have been less active recently have put a lot of thought in their comments and rates, but if a popular vote determines whether or not their activity gets elevated to some higher status, then they will get voted out."

<p>

He may be right here as far as photo.net is concerned, but there are easy ways to make sure that a critique rating system doesn't get abused.

<p>

NOW...

<p>

I also feel that critiques are critiques and that the count (if any count is performed) of critique ratings should be separated absolutely from photos ratings - which is the case on Usefilm, I believe.

<p>

Rating critiques would have a lot of advantages imo, and so would Nikos's RP system with some revisions, or something similar. I also like some of Kevin Young's ideas in this thread.

<p>

Finally, I like the general idea that not all opinions are worth the same. I'm sure many people think otherwise, but when I got a few days back a rating of 1/1 with no comment from somebody who rated 100 shots on the site and wrote 3 silly comments, I think it is just plain obvious that some people are less equal to others than others (pardon the pun). Of course, in the name of democracy and subjective tastes, one can always refuse to see that the sun is brighter than a night sky, but we have seen what too much democracy on photo.net: it means more abusive behaviours of all sorts - so much so that I more or less took my ball and finally went home.

<p>

I've written half a million words on this site, and I've show good will in my critiques. Bogus accounts HAVE NOT, and yet their ratings and lack of comment count as much on this site as anything I could post. I feel there's something wrong with that, and too bad if I sound like the pompous ass I am. I talk about myself here, but there are of course many more people who have contributed a great deal to this site, namely: Carl Root, Scott Bulger, Doug Burgess, Bob Hixon, Kelly Loverud, Geraldine Allen, Mary Ball, Trevor Hopkins, Nestor Botta, and many more. Most of them got discouraged along the way from participating on the site, simply because their opinions received the expected bashing Carl was talking about. After a while, one just gets tired of being insulted for his constructive efforts - the same happened to me.

<p>

So, in conclusion: you have in this thread as many votes for and against your proposal, and this might need some fine-tuning, but the old idea of having curators on the site and this new idea to rate critiques or at least to feature some critics in one way or another both deserve consideration imo, as possible means to reward constructive criticism vs. all the abusive behaviours we know. I dare say that the site has done very little till today to encourage those who actually used the site constructively - as it was originally intended. So, it may be time to think of something like what you propose here, before this place becomes a rating site instead of a critique site. Thanks for this thread, Bob. Cheers.

[rich815]

<i>"If I want to know who's saying what, I go to theirs folders, and take a look to their own works..."</i><p>In my local newspaper there is a movie critic who I think is brilliant. His reviews are very insightful, he knows a lot about movies and I really find his comments and critiques very interesting and helpful in deciding which movies I see. Funny thing, he never made a movie in his life!<p>Why people think that those without images on the site somehow have no right to give critiques, or should have their critiques have less weight is beyond me.<p>I used to post many images here and I enjoyed all the comments and critques. Then the rating system came along. Fewer and fewer insightful or intelligent comments came anymore. Yet I continued my comments when and where I could. And I tried to be helpful, considerate and so forth. Then came the "revenge" raters. Immature and insecure people who did not like hearing that their basic snaps were not masterpieces. So I decided not to give them the satisfaction and I removed all my images (except one which I cannot remove). Nonetheless people know how to find my images if they want. And then they email me personally or comment on the sites where I do post my images. Shame it can't still be done here with any kind of integrity anymore.

[n m]

"Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?"

 

(old proverb to become the new motto for photo.net "feedback")

[40mm]

If we rate the raters, who will rate the ratings raters?

[nomade]

<i>Why people think that those without images on the site somehow have no right to give critiques, or should have their critiques have less weight is beyond me.</i><p>

 

You're citing me completly out of context and then getting a whole wrong idea. I never mend to say that a good critiquer not necessarily have to be a good photographer. Almost everybody with two eyes can see the difference between a good, a regular and a bad photo, allthough many cannot make any of the first kind.<p>

 

That is the reason I said after your cited line, that I look "mainly, what they rate high". I mean, for me is very significative the way they rate high. If they rate high common, trite, non-first-class (according to my own standards), then his/her low/high doesn't make sense to me. That's it.<p>

 

BUT you have to admit: to receive a high or low rate from a good photographer, is much more meaningfull, cause I know much better who's saying what. And that's what -I understood- Bob is propossing.

[john falkenstine]

When I "exposed" myself on Photo.net I expected a wide variety of rating feedback, some of which was useful and some of which was not. In the same vein, others probably see my ratings or feedback the same way. During the small time period I have been rating, I got one polite letter asking me the explanation for a low rating I had given and I wrote a reply, which was accepted. 2 other parties that I rated are now fully engaged in the revenge rating game, and regularly fall into the trap of counter-rating my pictures, one party even seeking out pictures in my folder. Its OK with me, part of the environment. I find the discussion on the ratings pointless for the most part, closely resembling the setting of restrictive standards often found in Quality Assurance departments in Industrial/Operational environment, "because quality standards are neccessary" (Real BS for control freaks) The photographic environment is a mix of subjective/objective/psycholigical normal/abnormal behavior, consisting of folks who have the maturity level of a 3-year old to those who appear to be close to 100 years old...The bit with revenge rating is to turn them over to the Sysop and let him or her deal with it.