PETITION: Go back to a comments before ratings system

[gerald_widen]

Just went over the first two pages of "top rated"again. Make that 50%

[root]

Néstor, Your comment suggests that you disagree with Brian, not Louis. You're saying that since you get no comments, then you should look for meaning in the rates. Brian says you shouldn't. You ask what would you be looking for in the site by posting photos if there was no feedback of either kind that you could use, and the answer for many photographers, both novice and advanced, is . . . nothing.

 

You refer to the idea of begging for comments, so maybe there should be more discussion about how to change the system to encourage those who are able and willing to provide them.

 

 

Bob Atkins, "If you're going to have some way of selecting images for presentation you have to have some sort of numerical rating system."

 

Not true. It is only necessary if you want to put them in some sort of short term order, rather than 'those deserving of discussion' vs 'those that are not.'

 

"You can't sort images by comments."

 

Yes you can. You can define gibberish as abuse and treat it accordingly. You can give privileges to those whose content is considered valid vs those who use it primarily as social currency. That distinction is used to select the current group of elves which could easily be expanded. The question is not whether or not it could work, the question is whether or not you feel that acting as though everyone's contribution is of equal value in order to maximize annual membership contributions is going to be what drives the site.

 

"Ratings are for photographers too, since they provide a way to find the better images and give the photographer some rough feedback on how well the images are liked by the general site audience."

 

Please don't say 'better' if you mean 'popular'. Brian at least admits that much. He also recognizes that everyone uses their own interpretation of the scale. Add motives for rating and the difficulty in measuring the above, and you'll soon see how little they matter . . except, as you say, to promote an image under the current system.

 

"Comments ARE for the photographers since there's no way the site can use them to select images for display. They may benefit the site by attracting users, but they are of no practical use to the site in structuring the content or designing ways to present images."

 

Again, they can, but it would require a reexamination of what the purpose of the photo critique forum is for. It is the promise of them that attracts users, not the actual practice.

 

It's all about whether you want good images or popular ones. The 'fairness' issue doesn't fly; it's as though the students get to put together their own syllabus.

 

This is popphoto.net and will remain so until the site decides to make the forum more attractive to advanced photographers. Quality or equality - you can't have both.

[bobatkins]

I give up. Please carry on the discussion without me.

 

This is worse than discussing politics and religion.

[robidooo]

If you are not happy, what are you all doing here complaining? Find something else to do... Do you even know how hard it must be to maintain this site? I do some database management where I work and it is not easy all the time. Yes, all your suggestion would be feasible but it require time. Also, you are a few complaining compared to hundreds who use the site without. And you are all frustrated because the managers of the site don't agree with you.

 

For me, the way it works is just fine. I realise there is "gangs" on Photo.net who rate each other picture high so they all get on "Top Photo". Look at those pictures...often they are just average, being the same old thing they are always doing. Is Photo.net really helpful to them? I doubt. All they want is being told that they are good at photography. Well, listen...you are good. Now please stop those "rating clubs" and please be honnest so the best photo gets to be on the "Top Photo", both on "rating" and "average score".

 

This site is of great help to a lot of photographer...amateurs to experts I'm sure. Of course there could always be something to improve but why don't you use the site like it is. It is working great most of the time. What is the point of needing comments so badly? A lack of self confidence about what you are doing? For myself, all the photo I post here are photo that I'm proud of. And I just want to see how other people are seing it. If I get 10 persons telling me it is worth a 4/4 on photo.net scale, then this is it. I do not need to know why one of those 10 persons rated me 5/5 and another 3/3... If they want to leave me a comments, then fine, I will be more than happy to read it and learn for it. But if they don't feel leaving one, so be it. As I told, the most important is that I am personnaly happy about the picture.

 

As often mentionned, if you want more specific comments about a picture, e-mail people who are doing the same kind of photo as you do and ask them for advice. A lot would be happy to guide you I think. But PLEASE, STOP COMPLAINING ALL THE TIME ABOUT THIS SITE. Again, if it does not meets what you want, find another website about photography or start one by yourself.

 

Final word, this is a photography site...photography, as any other mean of expression, is not liked at the same degree by everybody...just keep that in mind and enjoy the wonderful tool we have here to try to get better at what we like. And if you think it is not worth it, quit this site...I will just get more exposure!!!! ;o)

[Sandeha Lynch]

Bob, Bob, come back. If you say "give up" like that it's like holding up a placard saying "This site will never change." If that were truly the case then I'd have to agree with Stephane and scurry off elsewhere. But that, I suspect, is not the case. This site was begun by a photographer and still continues to serve many of the interests of photographers as individuals, (and not only the vocal few.) The site must be self-supporting but that does not mean that the site serves itself alone, (Now I hear the voice of HAL for real ... "I don't think you should do that, David.")

<p>

There has been some confusion in past threads over the meaning of ratings and the function of rating. I think here we are talking about function and a few of the drawbacks, some of which could be reduced, or perhaps completely obviated, by redesigning the interface.

<p>

Yes, interface design is work, of course, but as always, planning comes first. And planning does not begin with the expression, "give up."

[bobatkins]

I have nothing at all to do with the design and operation of the gallery. Brian does all the work there. If I stop reading this thread it won't make one iota of difference as to what happens with the gallery! Brian is 100% in control and I have confidence that he will do whatever is best for the overall good of the website and its users.

[louis1]

Such a mature attitude from some posters here.

 

Free speech forget it ! I wonder which nation the shut up and/or go away

people are from.

 

Bob " I'm not Talking to you" Atkins why tell us. Surely we would have noticed

your silence without being told in advance?

 

The only point in these threads is to let off some steam and find out if you are

totally out of step with others.

 

The one thing we all know is that the only comments we wil get from "the

management" is "why we ain't changing".

 

It would be a breath of fresh air to just once hear " yes we like that or we agree

with your sentiments but........" . I can't remember EVER seeing a suggestion

welcomed and followed up by implementation.

 

Sad but true and I'm talking about all comments made by anyone in this

forum. If you know of a case where this actually happened please point it out.

[n_p]

<b><i>The one thing we all know is that the only comments we wil get from "the management" is "why we ain't changing".</i></b><p>

Louis, you obviously haven't read <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Ro0"> this thread. </a>Photo.net administration is working to <i>improve</i> this site whenever possible.<br>

[pawel1]

What I find intriguing is the observation that a number of the posters in this thread are suggesting, either implicitly or explicitly, that many mediocre photos are rising to the top of the queue, whereas many good photos are getting buried. My question is this - how is it that the posters to this thread arethe final arbiter in which photos are good and which are mediocre? Since they "get it", and obviously all of the raters posting scores don't, should we just select a small group of people to tell us which ones are good and which aren't? Of course, their own personal taste would not get in the way of their subjectivity (oops - meant to say objectivity!)

 

I suspect that if the 20 or so responders to this thread rated the same 50 photos, there would not be a very good correlation. Would that make have the responders to this thread correct and the other half idiots? I agree that it would be nice to get comments from raters, but it cannot be mandated. But I do NOT want anyone else telling me what is a good photo and what isn't.... that is the beauty of free choice and free expression, and like it or not, the ratings are telling us what others out there genuinely think about the photos, whether we like it or not. It is incorrect to assume that if someone rates your photo poorly, that they have a malicious intent; Occam's razor would suggest the simple interpretation that perhaps you posted a bad photograph.

[louis1]

" Photo.net administration is

working to improve this site whenever possible. "

 

What changes are being thought about or made that are mentioned in this

thread or any other?

(Based on members comment here in the forums).

 

I do not see any 'improvements" just explanations of how the site is and why it

ain't changing!

 

I am NOT saying that keeping this sort of site up and running is not a big effort

just that no one is listened too ie continual ".... explanations of how the site is

and why it ain't changing! "

 

I also believe that the 'critics' genuinely want the site improved because of

their enthusiasm for the site NOT because they are genetically disposed to

Photonet. There is a lot of time and thought has gone into suggestions by a

large body of people over the last 2 years I have been here. The sourness

which appears from time to time comes from how these suggestions have

been dismissed (never welcomed or positively acknowledged).

 

Perhaps not what I want but it is possible to handle criticisms , do nothing and

still leave the critic happy!

 

 

Louis

 

Ps the item you mention is a facility which was not raised by the poster,

accepted and acted on but one that was decided as a priority by "the

management". It is probably a good move in one respect but I would question

why a subscriber wanted to upload a lot of images at once. This is not

webshots pbase etc.

 

Personally I would be happy to have the quanties on the site reduced

dramatically.

 

How many images a week do you produce that you feel are really good.

 

Me - perhaps 1 or 2 and many others would not agree that they are in fact

very good and overtime I would probably agree but I do look forward to

comments pointing out the weaknesse etc. in the image.

[gerald_widen]

I thought the Critics Circle was a good idea. It gave me a chance to see what other people thought was their idea of good photography. Since nobody can spend their entire time on PN I got to see a lot of photos I would have otherwise missed. The people are still listed but for some reason it hasn't been kept up to date. I thought it offered a good alternative to the Top Photos. Maybe we can find a small group of people with differing tastes and either keep them permanent or have a rotating group.

[nomade]

I agree with Stephane, about people complaining all the time about the site´s performance and design, and whatever... More or less, that's what I said before about Jean-Philippe, that he is going through the normal phases for most of the newcomers. He (and others posters here that in every thread are always saying that this or that should be changed according to their unique but egocentric ideas), should accept things like they're, try to participate in other ways, and understand the "backstage" work, wich is not easy.

 

I would invite (like I do most of the time I participate in these kind of threads) all of them to spent theirs time in a more constructively way. And forget about trying to control whatever's around you, it's not healthy.

 

Something that I will do after writting this lines... ciao!!

[root]

You have no uploads and have only fifty ratings and comments, so your participation and exposure to this forum is limited. I also wonder how many of these threads you've read which would give you some idea how many people agree with Gerald's 50% assessment. Brian says that images and even whole genres that are not particularly popular get left out in this process, and although he implies that this is unfortunate, he's saying that it's an unavoidable byproduct of this process. We're saying that it's the very definition of a failed system. I'm assuming people come here to see both images they like and understand, and images that are new to them that would help them grow as photographers.

 

All opinions are not equally important in selecting images. As we grow in our appreciation of photography, our focus changes. Our appreciation of light, composition, and subject matter changes . . . but not without some direction and guidance. The reason I stay on this site is because I know that the human resources for that growth are here in abundance. It's just a matter of designing a forum that will encourage them to participate.

 

Bob, I know you're reading this. I see a pattern where you jump in as a site authority, then duck out whenever you're asked to discuss the underlying assumptions of the forum. Brian's last comment on the content of the top pages was that he thought they looked very good. Gerald thinks half of them don't belong there. What do you think?

[mottershead]

Louis, there has been a lot of discussion on the rating system in this forum despite the fact that I have pretty openly said on several occasions that we are basically satisfied with the way it works, that there are many things which are a higher priority for us than tinkering with it, and that while we don't actually ignore input about it, we aren't planning on doing any major changes to it in the near future. I think I have been fairly blunt about this, at one point suggesting that the forum name be changed to "Site Feedback (Except for the Rating System) Forum". I recall in one thread where I said that submitting suggestions for changing the rating system is basically a waste of time.

[root]

Does this include refusing to make the rating interfaces clearer to let newbies know that they're picking images for the top pages?

 

Does this preclude putting limits on the number of images per time period that can be considered for inclusion in the TRP so that a broader membership base can be included?

 

I know you're wedded to the idea of precise ordering, but isn't it blatantly obvious that at least half of the images that appear on TRP are there due to the effects of social currency?

[pawel1]

Carl,

You make a fair observation - I have only recently reconnected with photo.net, after a several year absence (I last participated frequently in the 97-99 timeframe). It is interesting to note that many of the issues then are issues still..... With respect to not having any uploads of my own work, that is because I am a bit of an anachronism, i.e. I do not have PS, nor any digital capabilities for that matter; all my cameras are completely manual (MF, LF, and even 35 mm). In addition, I don't necessarily see uploading my own images as a prerequisite for commenting on other photographs. For feedback on my work, I share with other local photographers.

 

 

It strikes me that the problem is a volume issue - there are hundreds of images posted everyday, representing a myriad of tastes, subject, styles, etc. In addition, there are hundreds of raters, not all of whom see all the images... I suspect any statistician would tell you that a rating system will regress to the norm in such a situation, and the challenge is that the most creative, interesting stuff is several standard deviations away from the norm. Perhaps taking better advantage of categories would deal with the volume issue, and the best work within a category could rise to the top. If there is a mechanism to view most cited work within a category, that might help (if this functionality already exists, I have not yet run across it).

[louis1]

I think you missed the point. I am not looking for ratings reform.

 

I said the "request for critique" was for me about commenting but it is used for

the rating system and I have no other alternative. People rate my image and I

get dropped very low on the list and get few comments.

 

Ridiculous as it may seem I tried putting "PLease do not rate this image "

when requesting a critique but this is not shown when the viewer looks at the

image in the recent posts list.

 

You have not bothered to acknowledge that the critique by category has not

worked for months and also that the process of commenting on photos in the

top photos gallery requires far too many clicks.

 

You HAVE NOT done anything to improve the ease with which one can

comment .

 

You cannot defend the indefensible so you ignore it.

 

Commenting is for the photographer and you have tinkered with other things

but ignored and downgraded this major element of the site.

 

You still deserve our thanks for keeping the site going but chasing volume is

wrong unless you are doing it to try to impress advertisers with site size. That

unfortunately is the tail wagging the dog.

Louis

[bobatkins]

<em>Bob, I know you're reading this. I see a pattern where you jump in as a site authority, then duck out whenever you're asked to discuss the underlying assumptions of the forum. Brian's last comment on the content of the top pages was that he thought they looked very good. Gerald thinks half of them don't belong there. What do you think?</em>

<p>

I'm not a site authority. I work for Brian in the context of developing static content for the site and doing some work with the forums. On the topic of what goes into the static content articles and how they are arranged I do speak with some authority and on the subject of the forums I speak with somewhat less (but still some) authority, but on the subject of the gallery or overall site policy I speak with no authority at all. Brian and I don't discuss it and I don't offer suggestions.

<p>

I think the gallery serves its intended function for the vast majority of users. I know there is a small group of people who don't like the way it works and continuously point out all the "defects" in the system because they'd rather it worked differently, but as I've said before you can't please all of the people all of the time and you just have to accept that whatever you do, people will complain.

<p>

 

Complaints about the gallery are fast becoming a sort of low-level background noise that you have to tune out if you want to stay sane!

 

<p>

 

There's an old Gary Larson "Far Side" cartoon about communication. The drawing consists of two identical panels depicting a man addressing his dog, Ginger.

<p>

The first panel is entitled "What We Say," and in it we can see what the man is saying: "Bad Ginger, you shouldn't do that, Ginger, that was very naughty, Ginger, bad dog!"

<p>

The second panel is entitled "What Dogs Hear," and in this image the man is saying "blah GINGER, blah blah blah blah, GINGER, blah blah blah blah GINGER, blah blah."

<p>

This forum is becoming a bit like that. What you say is "The gallery isn't working, you should adjust the ratings and make people give comments". What I'm starting to hear is "GALLERY blah blah blah RATINGS blah blah blah COMMENTS blah blah blah.

<p>

I'm not suggesting this is a good thing, quite the reverse in fact.

<p>

If you want my totally personal, totally non-authoritative comment on the gallery, my wish would be for it to be split from the rest of the site and run on a seperate server (say as gallery.photo.net), so that when it crashed or hung up or hogged all the bandwidth, it didn't take the other parts of the site down with it. However the tight integration of the gallery with the rest of the system and other hardware/software issues don't make this a particularly practical suggestion. The gallery is a vital and essential part of photo.net, but it does seem to give rise to a disporoportionate amount of trouble in terms of both social and technical problems!

<p>

Once again, these are my personal, totally non-authoritative, comments. They carry just as much or as little weight as yours do. I am NOT speaking for photo.net. Only Brian can do that. I support whatever decisions he makes since he's the only one in a position to see the whole picture.

[ajpn]

This is for Bob Atkins. <br /><br />

 

I would like to point something out. I am sure quite a few photos condemned to oblivion by the first 11 raters, probably deserve more attention than they receive accordingly. If you think about it, this concludes something of a flaw in your system. Many of the people critiquing photos are relatively new visitors to the site, and their ratings tend to be somewhat based. <br /><br />

 

I am not making any suggestions, or complaining. Just stating things the way I see them. My opinion or the site recently changed (again) when I was on the receiving end of one of the best exchanges of critique and suggestion I�ve seen on this site, by several of the more prominent figures on this site. This by my good fortune to receive a comment from one of the more notorious members here, as it was an image with only 12 ratings in the first 3 days. <br /><br />

 

PS- just to get this posted I spent probably 30 minutes. Thicker than molasses around here. <i>Too bad you couldn�t have members only during rush hours.</i>

[bobatkins]

<em>This is for Bob Atkins.

<p>

I would like to point something out. I am sure quite a few photos condemned to oblivion by the first 11 raters, probably deserve more attention than they receive accordingly. If you think about it, this concludes something of a flaw in your system</em>

<p>

No, it's NOT for me. It's for Brian. This isn't MY system. I have nothing to do with the gallery, the rating schemes or the software. Brian does all that. All I do is edit and write the static content (articles) for photo.net.

[louis1]

In another thread Mike Ellison said:-

 

"Actually, I'd like 24 hour and 3 day views that are strictly in order of submission and

not sorted by any other factor, that way I wouldn't have to trawl through a bunch of

rated pictures that I've already seen to find out if there are any new ones hidden

there."

 

 

I think this is a great idea.

 

Get rid of rating by 24hour and 3 days.

 

 

Surely if the 3 day gallery was sorted by submission date/time it would stop those

who hog the current top pages in their tracks.

 

There would also be no need for the 24 hour gallery and the load on the system

would be lightened as there would be no resorting of 24/3day galleries every hour.

 

 

We could move back from the most recent image until we get to one we have seen

before and stop.

 

 

Sounds very even handed to me and gives the less popular genres a fighting chance

of being seen.

 

 

Thanks for the idea. It is a pity it will never be acknowledged by the management.

Louis

[mottershead]

After a photo has 10 ratings, it is of course still possible to rate it.

 

It is only that after 10 ratings it loses its place at the front of the list, SO THAT OTHER PHOTOS CAN GET RATINGS IN THIS VENUE. It is called taking turns, a rather standard feature of social interaction which is well within the understanding of four-year-olds.

 

After 10 ratings, the photo is on its own. The site doesn't stick it any more in front of the noses of raters to be rated. People have to find it on their own, and whether they do will be determined in part by the ratings of the people who rate it initially, since high-rated photos will be displayed in many of the Top Photos rankings, and low-rated photos will not be. THAT IS THE SYSTEM.

 

There are only so many raters using the "Rate Recent Photos" feature and they rate only so many photos. A system that ensured some photos would hog the slots near the front of the list longer would also ensure that other photos never got to the front of the list and never got any ratings. For every photo that got more ratings as a result of changing this, there would a photo that got less. People shouldn't be so confident about the group in which their photos would be.

[louis1]

A moment of self analysis.

Ask yourself

 

Have I given my thoughts on the pros and cons of ANY suggestions?

Why do I just restate my opinions again and again?

 

Ignoring us might be better for us, you ignore all the points and just frustrate us by

doing so (not

one point is of any value I

presume as you ignore them all), there is no true purpose to your presence here

and it would be better for you because you could chill out or work on the system.

 

Leave us to gripe or better still change the subject and tell us all the improvements

coming over the next 3/6/9/12 months.

 

Louis

[ajpn]

If that's the case Brian, then why do I see photos that say 11 ratings - average n/n, your rating n/n - after I rate them? Don't bother answering, its obvious enough for a 4 year old to figure out.

 

Talk about bad attitudes.

 

My apologies to Bob, I thought you were the one who mentioned how the rating system worked above.

[root]

Taking turns is excatly what it's all about. So is fairness.

 

So why do you empower the mate raters by including their names and inflated rates with the images on the TRP? And most important, why do insist on ordering them according to the whims of fans who follow the mate raters rather than randomly as I've suggested.

 

So an image gets ten rates. If it can somehow get another five, then it gets put into a group with all the other 15+ images in the time period. Then change the display randomly on the hour.

 

Stop facilitating the pop culture. If this were a truly objective selection process, half the images would be gone.