Critique abuse

[christian deichert]

Wanted to bring up a loophooe in the system that's been increasingly

abused lately on the photo critique forum.<p>

 

The initial screen of the critique forum is the <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1481">newest

critique request</a> page, which shows the last 16 photos submitted

for critique. I try to visit this page a few times a day to see new

photos. Back in the day, I'd never see the same photo on this page

twice unless the photo itself had been deleted from photo.net and

uploaded again.<p>

 

Lately, I keep seeing the same photos over and over. I know they're

the same photo because the same user comments are still there every

time. For instance, today at lunch I saw a photo and commented on

it. By coincidence, while writing this post, I opened up the

critique forum and the same photo is there again less than 12 hours

later. (I know it's the same photo beause it's still got my earlier

comment on it.)<p>

 

The effect is that, instead of getting one critique request, certain

people keep re-submitting the same photo for critique and end up

dominating the critique forum. It would appear that these people

want to max out their ratings (I've seen at least one photo re-

submitted at least 5 times, and it's become a "top rated" photo as a

result). They end up pushing other photos off the main critique

forum page before these other photos have a chance to be seen. Not

too many folks know that you can just keep deleting and re-submitting

photos to make sure that they are seen, so a lot of people end up

getting 0 ratings and 0 critiques and then complaining about it.<p>

 

If it's possible to close this loophole, I'd ask that it be fixed.

I'm tired of seeing the same damn photos every time and would like

the chance to see new, original work when I hit the critique forum.

Thanks.<p>

 

I haven't named any names because I don't want to be that guy, but if

the "elves" need specific exampless, they can email me.

[nomade]

You're right, if the shot is posted for critique, it should not be able to send it to the critique rotation again, simply because some pnetters are abussing of it. I would keep the possibility to delete the request for critique, though.

[wingell]

A related question: I've noticed a recent photo critique submission of mine (a holiday street scene that's adequate but nothing spectacular) has been viewed more than 2800 times and it never received more than a 5 rating. I haven't resubmitted any image (once is enough for any viewer!). How do viewers find the images once they sink into the vast neverneverland of the photo.net archive? I don't believe my other posted photos are drawing new viewers to the holiday image.

[root]

This problem is solved by eliminating the possibility of deleting a

critique request which is a necessary first step to the pattern you

describe. I wonder why we have that option?

[james_oneill]

I noticed that one culprit was banned for a week for doing just this. He must have gone round the loop 50 times with one photo. (although he is still doing it).

[christian deichert]

I don't have a problem with being able to delete a critique request, but if you do, you shouldn't be able to re-submit again and again and again.

[anthony_m1]

Today I have seen a picture go thru at lease 4 times. And another go thru 2 or 3 times. Give me a break. If your picture is that good, you will get exposure. Stop shoving it down everyones throat.

[lightwriter2]

I posted a similar comment to this months ago, but nobody had anything to say about it. The number of times that a photo should have a critique request on it, is once. There should also be a time limit that a photo should be listed in the request for critiques. I'd suggest about 3 months. If you click the "list" link beside a category such as fine art, the number of photos where photographers have requested a critique is huge, and takes a while to load. Some of the photos in the list have been there for years, and some photographers have dozens and dozens of photos that they've requested critiques on.

[christian deichert]

I like the time limit idea as well. I'm guilty of leaving mine up for critique, I suppose, because I've never deleted any of my critique requests. However, I can't say that this omission has made any differences in the amount of critiques I've received. It certainly isn't a ploy -- just laziness, really.

[alberto pastorelli]

Where is the "abuse" ? Sorry, but frankly, I don't understand the compliant. Re-submitting photos is not prohibited... like is not prohibithed re-touching with Photoshop... and I really would like to know which of the two is really not ethical..

 

Second,resubmitting does'nt force the people to vote for it. Resubmitting a photo in the critique, allows it only more visibility, but if the members don't like it they simply don't vote...

 

The real problem, is in the "rotation" of photos in the gallery, meaning that the new photos uploaded are really visible, going to be like "invisible" after some days. I think all of us have experienced that a new upload will receive votes, comments and views in the 2 or 3 following days and after becomes ..ignored. (the exceptions are the "fun clubs"...obviously... maybe realy not so ethical) So, I know that my images will be seen and judged ONLY (with rare exception) by who is online in these two days and the others (those for ex. that are working or sleeping in the other part of the world)will never comment on it. Now, do you find this situation acceptable ?

 

So, before to eliminate the possibility to resubmit, it would be better to reconsider the way the photos are showed in the gallery.

 

regards

[john falkenstine]

You are right, this IS A PROBLEM. See the link below where a party is cycling his pictures..

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2055326

[alberto pastorelli]

Sorry, but I must ask to the moderator of this forum to delete the last post. Since there's no new regulament about repeated critique request, this last post is not correct.

 

Other members before, expressed the same concepts without named someone.

It is, frankly, an excess without reason.

[john falkenstine]

I think Christian Deichert has a very valid point. I just found another party doing the same thing...In bidding this is called "shilling" I call it cheating. In the link above I questioned the party and he essentially admitted that he was doing it...This is an item that needs attention. It is a "hole" in the software that needs attention. Now there is no specific rule forbidding the practice, but basically folks know its wrong..don't need a rule to tell them that. To rationalize that its OK because there's no rule is really not an excuse...I know plenty of behavior patterns that have no rules, but you know just the same that its not acceptable.