Low rating No lives!

[christianrevolution]

I am having a hell of a time trying to upload photos, and have not yet been successful.

[advancedphoto]

When we put ourselves "out there" be it in a relationship, circle of friends or simply on the "net" in a forum we open ourselves up to the scrutiny of others.

 

Some use comments or rating simply to be hateful or lash out. Think of the first time your child said "I hate you" and the fealing that welled up inside. As an adult you did not return the comment, instead you probably embraced your child with the warm arms of love that you had always used (while tearing up inside, and remembering when you had said "THAT" to you mother/father).

 

If someone (with a body of work or without) offers a low rating simply realize that is their opinion at that moment. Breathe and remember what made you create the image in smile inward.

 

There will always be a bully in the school yard, a menace at the office, etc. And above all a heart (yours) that can embrace them all.

 

For all of the 2's our photo's recieve there will be a 7. Perhaps that picture brought a tear of a positve memory to a persons eye. I'll take 2's all day long if that is the case.

[starshine]

Photo.net hosts an enormous number of photos. Finding the "best pictures" we need some help from the system. Ratings could help us except that they won't mainly because we are too lazy or simply do not take the time to rate each other's photos (e.g. some of my photos had > 20000 views but less than 20 ratings) and not because of the low-raters. I mustn't mind the low ratings: as they mean that somebody found my picture worth rating:), but I do mind the low ratings because low-raters are more industrious than the majority of us and the ordering of the photos on the gallery pages are based on the number/average of the ratings

But what I really miss here are the critiques. But no restrictions on the ratings could help. E.g. If the system allowed only ratings accompanied by critiques then the number of ratings would decrease even more.

Then what can the maintainers do to make the rating system better? What about a change in the method the average of the rating is calculated? Drop one of the lowest and one of the highest ratings and use the remaining ratings only. This way the occasional low (or high) raters are elliminated.

[d47]

The ratings system is too simple. We need a longer checklist where we can click on many items such as beauty, technical ability, artistic ability, emotional response, documentary value, historical value, composition, color, creativity, et cetera. A real critic would write and make constructive comments. Any fool can click inanely and indiscriminately on "Aesthetics" and "Originality". Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words.

[peepeyephotography]

Michael Demers' idea would certainly add complexity to the rating system. I believe that all of the complex elements of the photo being viewed is processed differently in each individual viewer's mind, i.e. why it is good or bad, the emotion it evokes & much more. I myself wouldn't mind the rating system being broken down to one rating on a 1 to 10 scale. Also, I tend to agree with the previous suggestion by someone to restrict members with no uploaded photos from rating or from rating without comment. It would certainly weed out a lot of wannabe critics and "menaces" in this photographer based community.

 

It does suck to have fourteen 6/6's and the one rater that leaves the 1/1. It seems that there really isn't too much photography on Photo.net that is truely worthy of a 1/1 is there? I guess we all need to take the good with the bad & shrug it off.

[mike dixon]

<i>I am just saying the whole "Request for Critique" is not an invitation for someone's idea of self amusement.</i><P>

Actually, that's exactly what it is. People on photo.net give ratings and critiques because it amuses them to do so. No one gets paid, earns credit toward a degree, or receives any other substantive benefit from assigning a couple of numbers to a picture or saying what they think of it.

[harnstrom1]

It is obviously that some people gives very low rates in intention to harm the photographer. If you need evidence you are in the wrong place, you should go to a court outside PN.

I think it is very sad that the system cover these abusing persons, letting them rate other people anonymous.

If you got 10-15 persons rating your pictures with 4-5-6 or higher and one person gives you 1-2, you do not even know his name. Are we in Kreml in the former USSR?

 

I think most people show their pictures because they are looking forwards to high rates and cheering comments.

And most of us do not look at, rate or comment pictures that we do not like or are not interested in.

And we accept low rates if not anonymous, and even better if the rates are followed by a comment. Constructiv criticism are welcome and often appreciated even if it hurts a little bit.

[nils_andriessen]

Well, does anyone know why Photo.net makes it so hard to know who gave which rating? Why should rating be anonymous? Is it really so hard to, not make a list and names, but a list whit names + rating behind it??

[krash]

For me it's simple, if you give a low rating you should back it up with a critique. If you can't be bothered with giving a reason why, don't bother leaving the rating.

 

Other than that rate away!!

[mrhaydon]

Like yourself Haleh I am curious about the rating system. I have learned that it is simplistic and that it is a lazy way to contribute a critique to someone elses work/photo and there are those who are newcomers who don't have a clear idea of what they are doing, but it would help if a written critique even if short is given with a rating. One thing is for sure, good photos will always sell themselves and will get noticed, whether people rate them high or low. Don't panic, If you are happy with your photos share them, after all PN is a public site, there are all kinds.... Best regards Michael.

[haleh b]

I was caught in the hype back then! I could care less for the ratings now and in fact I have been exclusively commenting. As I have mentioned before, my love for photography is much bigger than the small stuff.

[dimitris]

<p>

In my last trip to Japan I met an old wise guy. He was a great fun of photography. One day he told me:

"Dimitris, I give you this reed. It's a valuable tool. Use it every time you want to look at the sky. Don't believe the known proverb...

It's a trick we use here to fool the tourists!"

</p>

<p>

Anyway, I followed his advise. One day, 22 August 2005, I was looking at the sky with my precious

gift, and to my surprise I saw <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3660166">a little dark image</a> in the sky...

I went closer and found two buttons. One called "rate", another called "contribute a critique". "Contribute" is a word a like a lot,

so I couldn't resist the temptation to use both buttons! (4/5 rate) I got some complaints here...

</p>

<p>

My reed is a great viewfinder you know. It let me discover

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3655736">this one</a> too.

I used the buttons again! (7/7 rate) No complaints at all this time...

</p>

<p>

A little history.

</p>

<p>

<i>Amar Khoday, August 22, 2005; 09:59 P.M.</i>

<br/>

Comment says image is good.

<br/>

<i>Haleh Bryan, August 23, 2005; 10:46 P.M.</i>

<br/>

"I wanted the background to resemble lava. I am glad you mentioned it because <b>now I know it worked</b>! Lava represents the moral misconceptions!"

<br/>

<i>Dimitris Tzoumpas, August 24, 2005; 12:01 A.M.</i>

<br/>

"<b>I don't think underexposure works</b> for this image. I like the pose."

<br/>

Rate 4/5. Means aesthetically is an average (not bad) photo, but has some

originality.

<br/>

<i>Haleh Bryan, August 24, 2005; 04:19 P.M.</i>

<br/>

"<b>I wish you have explianed why</b> because I am deaf to numbers!"

<p/>

<p>

Exactly the same time in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3665685">this photo</a>:

<br/>

<i>Haleh Bryan, August 24, 2005; 04:19 P.M.</i>

<br/>

<b>A small-minded man looks at the sky through a reed.</b>

</p>

</p>

Kinda offensive this one... I noticed it after my next comment. That comment was the only reason I post such a long comment.

Maybe it's a waste of time, but I dislike hipocrisy as much as photos with half of the spectrum cut off.

</p>

<p>

<i>Dimitris Tzoumpas, August 24, 2005; 08:36 P.M.</i>

<br/>

To me underexposure is saying it all. But I explain with more words.

<br/>

<i>Haleh Bryan, August 25, 2005</i>

<br/>

"<b>This image was never asked to be rated nor commented upon.</b>"

</p>

<p>

Haleh's bio says:

<br/>

"I would like to thank all of you who visit my portfolio and <b>share your thoughts</b>. I do not value numbers a great deal but words I cherrish!"

</p>

<p>

Wow!!! TWO big lies! Dear Haleh, EVERY photo posted in this site is open to comments and ratings by definition.

It is stated clearly in the FAQ and forums many times by the admins of the site. Also the admins say you

can rate a photo without any comment. I have never done this and every rating is direct not anonymous.

It is not necessary to be in the critique request forum. Also you have rated yourself images that

are not in the critique forum. This is inconsistent you know. I think you really like numbers, but

not all, just the high ones. <b>I found your portfolio in TRP, many others too, so numbers are not that bad</b>.

I have your name in my interesting list. That means I like your work a lot. I thought you would appreciate

an honest critique. Later I found that was not the case...

</p>

<p>

What I have done is I shared my thoughts. I haven't read the bio before I made my first comment.

I wouldn't have rated, just comment upon it. After you replied, I tried to be polite and said I could delete my comment

if you find it offensive (sure it wasn't, it was just my opinion). I got a cold reply "<b>This image was never asked to be rated nor commented upon.</b>".

That's too much Haleh. You have a private site, if you don't like comments post your images only there and be sure

to remove the feature about the comments in your site.

</p>

[haleh b]

Thank you! I always wanted to bring one of my photo discussion threads with my lack of interest for ratings to a public forum. Although this is a very old thread but I know the rating issue is hot for some people around here and it will never get old!

<BR>

Actually I think the example you have brought here is a good example. I personally would like to thank Amar for his support of my work. I always look forward to read your comments and interpretations of my ideas.

[larsmith]

Good photos are like good music and like good chocolate ... and comedy shows. One can become saturated by "too much of a good thing" to the point where what once impacts us powerfully ... photos which would have once moved us ... become "common place". Photos we would once have rated highly become so common place that they end up, in our eyes, as only being average. It gets to the point where it takes something "out of the ordinary" to impress us. It is not the fault of the photo. It's not a failing either in the photo or the photographer. There are some aesthetically pure and completely original photos here which therefore rate "average" in the eyes of the beholder, not because they lack quality or validity but because the viewer has had their senses / perspective "hardened" / shifted ( for lack of better words ). It comes with the territory with anything which appeals to the senses. For example, GREAT sex eventually gets a "good sex" ... or "mediocre sex" in time. It's not the sex that changed but the persons perception / perspective which has changed as "great sex" becomes "common place" ... and where something new / adventurous / creative / daring is needed to bump the person's perception of that sex back into the "Great" rating.

 

No, I don't like "mediocre" ratings either. It rubs my vanity the wrong way ... but I've grown to expect it. It has helped me be more careful about what shots I post and I continue to be more creative and thoughtful of the shots I take, in the hopes that I might just post the photo at a time when qualified people are actually online & happen to see my work.