Brian - a reply to your comments

[john_stark]

My "replies" are after the ***'s

 

Brian Wrote:

Brian Mottershead , feb 15, 2004; 07:21 p.m.

The rate random photos feature does send people to the photos for

which critiques have been requested, so you have to submit your photo

for critique in order to be in the list for "rate recent". That

doesn't stop anybody from writing critiques.

 

There is no requirement for a comment on high or low ratings because

we have learned from experience that people will circumvent this

requirement by writing one word "Ugh" and "Nice" comments that just

fill up the comments sections of photos with crud. What is next?

Counting words?

 

*** Instead of eliminating the requirement for comments on high & low

ratings, eliminate those that don't leave appropriate comments, make

it so those people are not allowed to rate photos. The system is

already set up to allow only a certain number of ratings by certain

people, adding a script that eliminates abusers from rating and

commenting shouldn't be that much more. ***

 

 

The only preference in the system for paid members is that their

photos are sorted before non-subscribers' in the "rate recent" list,

which means that subscribers' photos are more likely to get ratings.

This is particularly an advantage when the photo has no ratings

because there are lot of photos in that group and being a subscriber

gets the ball rolling quicker. Once a photo starts getting ratings, it

starts moving to the head of the rating queue, and subscriber status

is less of an advantage. All photos drop down in the list after they

have 10, 15, 20, etc ratings, subscribers and non-subscribers alike..

 

*** Yeah, and what you didn't say is that non paid drop immediatly at

10. It seems there are a very few "priveledged" though who get 20, so

how do these same few consistantly get more than that? From what I

have seen there are some pretty lousy pictures that have gotten 60 -

70 ratings. But hey, I guess it's just "how you play the game".***

 

Anyway, if you think subscribers get a lot of advantages or more

consideration, you are wrong. If we were giving subscribers more

advantages, we would say so, in order to give people an incentive to

subscribe. What would be the point of doing it on the sly? But if you

don't believe me, it only costs $25.00 to find out. While there are

some photographers for whom $25.00 is too much money to spend, many

pleas of poverty are hard to credit when one considers the cost of

film, processing, camera equipment, computers, scanners, ISP accounts,

etc -- expenses which photographers on photo.net mostly afford.

 

*** Well I can tell you I CAN NOT afford it. Quick now go look at my

equipment, hmmm a Canon 1D, several lenses, including a new one last

week (saved you the trouble of looking it up). Ok, my family bought

the camera and lenses, a regular customer pays my ISP bill and gets

pictures in return. I live on a disability check and a little from the

local newspaper. The disabilty check pays my rent, food and vehicle

insurance. What I get from the paper pays my gas, repairs and if

anything is left, heat. I have gone for many days this winter with no

heat.

Besides that, yes, paid members do have many advantages, besides the

added ratings and more posts etc. ***

 

Jeremy Stein and I don't even pay attention to who is a subscriber or

not when looking at abuse claims. Most such complaints result in no

action because people don't bother to present any evidence of abuse,

especially when it comes to ratings. People seem to think a low rating

when other ratings are high ought to be considered prime facie

evidence of abuse. We don't.. In any case, suscribers and

non-subscribers are ignored equally when they make empty claims of

abuse, or not, if they have valid claims, as the case may be.

 

*** Well I can vouch for the ignored part of your statement, but that

is the only part of it I believe at this point. As stated in my last

post in the other thread I had reported an earlier incident as well

and was completly ignored, no response period, yet the offender

admitted it was retaliation. He was offended by the fact I gave him a

4 or 3 and commented something about the over use of Photoshop, he

retaliated by giving two of my posts 1's and left snotty remarks.

Again Jeremy or whoever did nothing, and again it was a paid member.

Then the recent incident, and again a paid member. What other

conclusion do you expect me to come up with? ***

[macgregor_anderson]

John. I am a paid member. I received a 1/1 on a photo that was a b/w version of a photo I had submitted earlier in the day in color. The original rater was a non member with no posted photos. That rater had given me a 3/5 on the color version. I suspected other motives for the 1/1. In this case I figured the rater didn't like the same photo being resubmitted. This was NOT a case of the reposting of the same photo to gain total ratings and climb to the front pages. I was curious about the image in b/w...whether it worked better.

 

I sent a mail to abuse@photo.net, not because I cared so much about the ratings, but because I've been encouraged to do that in reading this forum. I explained why I thought this was abuse.

 

The response I received was blunt bordering on rude. It stated in addition to finding no case for abuse that the rater just didn't like the photo.

 

The next day I received a very thoughtful email back from the rater, explaining that it was a case of frustration at the reposting. She said also said she looked at landscapes all day in her gallery and got bored with them. She said she'd like to go back and rate it a 4/4, and that the other should have been a 4/5 (the color version).

 

I think it's fair to say that except in extreme cases the abuse@photo.net isn't much recourse. I thought Jeremy's attitude in his response was condescending.

 

I really like this site. But it is a commercial enterprise from what I can tell. And I think it isn't all that carefully run. Photographers have a reputation for being cranky and arrogant. Don't assume that behaviour is reserved for interaction with non-members only.

 

Mac

[tholte]

John, you don't get it. Improve your work and the comments and ratings will come. The site is not out to keep you down. You are keeping yourself down because you are raging against the machine when you should be pounding the pavement with camera in hand. Macgregor, the abuse department is short with people like you because they are tired of all the prima-donna's that complain about a single low rate. They are concerned with patterns of abuse, which is as it should be. Settle things with the rater privately via e-mail if you are bothered and if that does not work, forget about it and post some more images.

[Jeremy Stein]

For the record, the following is the reply I sent to Macgregor with his message included:

 

I see no abuse here; she just doesn't like or think much of the picture. Her

lack of uploaded photos in no way prevents her or is supposed to prevent her

from rating. Don't take any one rating too seriously. The overall average of

ratings is a much better indication of how your picture is regarded.

 

Sincerely,

Jeremy Stein, for photo.net

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <Macgregoranderso@aol.com>

To: <abuse@photo.net>

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 10:28 PM

Subject: 1/1 rating

 

 

> I received a 1/1 rating without explanation from a non subscriber with no

photos posted.

>

> In this case, my photo was a b/w version of a photo I had posted earlier

in the same day. I mentioned this in the b/w posting. I spent considerable

time converting the image in channel mixer, with additional adjustment

layers and masks. I was interested in learning more about when to use black

and white. I'm assuming this got me the 1/1 rating...the "resubmission."

>

> I sent an email to this person and got no response.

>

> Can you look at this one for me?

>

> http://www.photo.net/photo/2128687

>

> that is the b/w version.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Mac

>

 

I agree that my message was short and to the point, but I don't think it was rude. I certainly don't think it was condescending.

 

Finally, one low rating is not proof of rating abuse, nor will I ever decide that it is without additional information. I have said this before, time and again, but I'll say it again: I will not take action against any member for rating abuse without very good reason to believe it truly is abuse. Hurt feelings or perceived injustice is not an adequate reason.

[mottershead]

Jeremy does a fantastic job with the abuse mail. A lot of people seem to think that a message to abuse@photo.net is a kind of a "delete this low rating" button, and they blame Jeremy if it doesn't work. That isn't what the abuse mailbox is all about. If complaints seem to be ignored in actual cases of abuse, it is because of lack of evidence, or it may be because Jeremy is a volunteer and is busy with, like, his life.

 

As for John's claim that subscribers are preferred on photo.net, yes they are, but only in the manner which I have described. All photos, subscriber or not, are dropped down in the list at 10, 15, and 20 ratings. With so very few advantages to motivate people to subscribe, it would be stupid to have "secret" advantages. There would be nothing wrong with having the advantage you describe, and if we had it, we would say so. But we don't.

 

John, if you can't afford $25.00 to become a subscriber, that is unfortunate for you. But don't get all bitter and twisted about the fact that others have contributed and you can't.

 

By the way, please don't start new threads to post your responses to comments in other threads.

[macgregor_anderson]

Fair enough, a pattern of abuse is required for anything to be done. I didn't know that, my mistake. While you rejected my (accurate as it turned out) assumption that the rating was based on something other than the quality of the image, you made an assumption on your own that she didn't like or think much of the picture. I can understand the "not enough evidence" thing completely. You should leave it at that. Telling me why I got a 1/1 was rude, and wrong. The advice to not pay too much attention to one rating was also uncalled for. The department is there specifically to address unfair ratings. I didn't know it had to be more than one. I should read more archives I guess.

 

My point was that you made an assumption that was entirely inaccurate and that I am a member. I was letting John know it wasn't a member/non-member thing while airing a bit of frustration that I think was completely justified.

 

As for the primadonna bit...give me a break. I had a legitimate issue, got a lousy response, and I'm a little annoyed by it. If others routinely gripe publicly about ratings then maybe they deserve the title. In fact, I'm really encouraged by the response I've had so far here. This is only a hobby for me, and not even my first or second love (fly fishing and cooking would take those spots). I'm pleased as punch at the kind and helpful responses I've received, and recognize in most of the 3/3s and such that those people like different stuff or have very high standards.

 

I won't complain again unless I see a pattern.

 

Mac

[john_stark]

Brian,

I will have a reply for you when I return tonight, but now I have to go take some pictures for a customer.

[macgregor_anderson]

And Jeremy...that last line in your forum response about hurt feelings and perceived injustice. That's the kind of tone I'm talking about. This was neither. I have an email from the rater explaining that clearly. By the way, in her response to me via email, she offered to go back in and change both ratings upwards. I thanked her and told her it was not necessary.

 

I gave you as much info as I could to build my case. The non-subscriber no posted photos is certainly not a reason in itself to dismiss a rating, but taken in context, it adds to the likelyhood of abuse. The rating on the same photo in color of a 3/5 (or whatever it was) was also evidence that something else was going on. Finally, the image itself. I don't think anyone can reasonably suggest that this image deserves a 1/1 any more than it would a 7/7, not by photonet standards. That's a lot to work with Jeremy. If you need "hard" evidence, or more instances of very questionable ratings before you act, that's your call. I'm happy with whatever threshold you set. But don't take a snipe at me about hurt feelings and perceived injustice when this case is not about that at all.

 

Remember, you got this one wrong, and that's no big deal. But I had every right to question that rating, I supplied as much information as I could, and I deserved a more reasonable response. The injustice, though very slight in life's big picture, was 100% real, and your department is there specifically to deal with such minor injustices in the world.

 

(I look forward to a handful of 1/1s in the future after this discussion :)

[vincetylor]

(Reference to deleted post edited)

 

MacGregor,

 

You actually were able to handle this situation on your own...which is good to hear. I cannot see your point that "Jeremy got it wrong". In certain cases, you need to give it a bit of time to let the abuser show their true colors. Sometimes a bit of patience helps...or even better, you were able to resolve it on your own. I'd suggest just learning from all of this and go back to what you enjoy...taking more pictures!! Aloha.

[macgregor_anderson]

"I see no abuse here; she just doesn't like or think much of the picture"

 

Vincent, that was what I meant when I said he got it wrong. In fact, she responded negatively to the fact that the photo was reposted in b/w. In her later email, she said she now understood that I was trying to learn about what makes a good b/w candidate, and that she wished she hadn't rated it as she had. I made that assumption in my mail to Jeremy. Instead of a response explaining the need for a pattern of abuse, I got that line above. He guessed that she didn't like or think much of the picture. That was wrong. And pretty obvious, frankly, from the info I provided.

 

I'll take your advice and go work on my photography. It's a rainy day here and I think I have some 120 tmax to develop.

 

mac

[mottershead]

I think you are all missing the point of Jeremy's comment speculating that the rater "just might not have liked the picture".

 

Abuse in rating is making a rating which does not reflect an honest assessment of the photo, but is made for some other purpose. Anything other than an honest appraisal of the photo is abuse, but the point is that there is seldom any way to determine this from a single rating.

 

We have a 1 to 7 scale and none of the values are forbidden. None of the values is prime facie "abuse". Many people take a low rating to be "abuse" if all the other ratings are high. That is not the case, since people are entitled to their honest opinions, even when they are in a minority, and even when that minority has one member.

 

That is the reasoning behind the speculation that there is (usually) no way to tell if a low rating represents abuse; it might simply be that the person didn't like the picture. Nobody is obliged to like your pictures, and they are not prevented from rating them just because they don't like them. A comment or an email message might show a single rating to be dishonest, but normally a pattern of ratings is needed to discern abuse: somebody who rates everything low, who doesn't seem to like anything, can be assumed to be malicious rather than honest, since it doesn't make sense that a person would spend significant amount of time "honestly" letting a lot of people know how bad their photographs are. Other examples are people who only rate a few friends high, or who retaliate for low ratings.

 

One last point: being new on the site, not being a subscriber, and not having any photos uploaded, don't enter into a decision as to whether ratings are abusive or not.

[joshroot]

God this just doesn't quit does it? I wonder how long it will be before Brian doesn't ever have to write anything new on the issue. He can just copy and paste his previous replies when a new person brings up the same tired old complaints.