g2imaging Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Not to belabor the point but there has to be a way to monitor or control peoples ratings. I am not moaning because someone doesn't like an image or two of mine. My concern is when an individual's average for both Asthetics and Originality are substantially above, or below "4". The word average means just that, for every image that gets a 3, one should get a 5. Every 2, one should get a 6... I am seeing such deviations on some of my images it is a joke. One person rates an Image a 1 for originality, another a 6. See http://www.photo.net/photo/2139424 I contend that the highest rating and the lowest rating (average) should be thrown out when figuring out the images average. It would also be nice if the combined score was displayed with the image's score (my math is somewhat suspect). Any comments? Thanks all (and Brian).<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 "I contend that the highest rating and the lowest rating (average) should be thrown out when figuring out the images average."<p>That's an idea that has been suggested many times, even by Bob Atkins if I'm not mistaken. No so long ago, I was still absolutely in favor of this as well. Later on, the ratings culture changed on the site, and now I'm affraid it would no longer work as well as it could have worked at some point in time. Why? Well, if you go to almost any of these images rated super-high and which don't seem absolutely awesome at first glance, you will notice many 6/7s and 7/7s ratings. So many that it would change nothing at all to the average if you were to take away the 2 highest ratings. Then, looking at the lowest ratings on the same ratings breakdown, you'll find very few low grades, perhaps just one, or two, three being generally the most on such pages. These ratings may be 4s or 3s or 2s, depending, but they are not necessarily abusive at all; often enough, they are in fact the most honest ratings in the entire breakdown. Sometimes these low ratings aren't backed by a comment, and sometimes they are backed by a clear-cut explanation that makes perfect sense. Why eliminate these last few honest ratings posted on fluff pages? It will do more bad than good to the calculation of average imo.<p>On a different note now, you say that for each 6 submitted, a rater should submit a 2, etc. Certainly there could be a rule to force people to rate weak images, but I don't think it should be to drastic or people will say that life is too short to rate weak images.<p>You may want to have a look at a propsal of reform I'll be posting shortly in a separate thread.<p>The easiest way being to create an area where there would be no ratings at all - only comments -, which I would really appreciate personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_morgan1 Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 What you should look at is how the person who gave you a 1 rates other photos. If he averages 4, then I don't see anything wrong. Likewise for the person who gave you a 6. If he gives an average rating of 4, then I don't see anything wrong. If the person who gave you a 6 gives an average rating of 5, then you should consider his rating in that contect. You didn't think the ratings were objective, did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie_vigue Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Well, I don't know anything really, but when I abuse my ignorance and actually rate something it's generally something that I noticed, generally for the good. Why bother picking apart something I don't like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 One of the problems with mate-rating behavior is that people can rate all their buddies high then run around the site and rate everyone else low. If so, there's not a good way to fix it. You might also consider what "Average" means. Does it mean the average of all photos put up for critique? Or average of all photos ever taken? There is quite a difference between those two definitions. By the second definition, posted photos would generally rank above average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g2imaging Posted March 6, 2004 Author Share Posted March 6, 2004 When I rate an image, I generally rate it in comparison to other images on this site...most of which are far superior then your average persons vacation shots (Which if posted on this site would probably get a 1 or 2 from me). I do agree that comments are the key evaluator, not just a number. I have however noticed that the most photo.net participants average ratings are above 4 (including mine). I try to keep it close and evaluate all images based on an even playing field for the subject matter. Landscapes are pretty common unless one steps out and really pushes the creative envelope. Like figure skating in the olympics, I still believe that high and low ratings should be dropped. On a positive note, I enjoy and learn from looking at all of the images... the good, bad, and the ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_p Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Pardon the pun, but my assumption is that most of us post images in this place to get some sort of exposure. Good images will hopefully attract either enough ratings or comments - or both - to rise to the top pages of the gallery. Either way, I don't care about the deviations in the numbers. Everybody looks at images with different eyes. When you come across half a dozen or more 6/6, 6/7 or 7/7 in a row I often have to question the impartiality of the rater.<br>Like Greg, I enjoy looking at most images and mostly appreciate the interaction with other photographers. Remember to enjoy your valuable time spent here. Otherwise I suggest that you actually wasted that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry_yap Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Like N.P says, everybody looks at a picture with different eyes. I am a beginner but I like rating because it gives me the oppotunity to guage myself. Most of the time when i rate a picture, i find that the ratings i gave are quite similar to the rating others have given. But once in a while, i rate a picture and find that i have either over or under rated it then it forces me to relook at the shot and try to see what i have missed.To those that i have under rated, my sincere apologies for my ignorance, my point is, there is no intentional under or over rating, and i think i speak not only for myself. Bottomline is again, one man's meat may be another man's poison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_p Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 <i>"Bottomline is again, one man's meat may be another man's poison."</i><br> Whilst I agree with that observation because it supports my sentiments voiced above, over time, I think that you will change your mind about that, Henry.<br><i> "my point is, there is no intentional under or over rating, and i think i speak not only for myself."</i><br> I beg to differ. There are a lot of vindictive in this place. This is unfortunate, but a fact of life at photonet. You've been here since January, just give it some time and you'll find out what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_p Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 A lot of vindictive <i>"people"</i>, of course. Fingers not keeping up with thought process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peggy_jones Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 people cannot and should not be "forced" to rate or not rate, or how to rate, in any manner, shape, or form whatsoever. participation in the site is entirely voluntary as to people's leisurely investment of time. and time in one's life is wholly precious and not to be trifled or manipulated, most particularly online. messing around with people's leisure time is akin to playing with fire, and a sure fire way to drive people from the site in droves. that said, an option to upload a photo strictly (and only) for comments (e.g., for how to fix it critiques) would be win-win. one can also upload the same (another copy of) photo for rates and submit for critique either simultaneously or at a later time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g2imaging Posted March 7, 2004 Author Share Posted March 7, 2004 The French judge is taking a kickback... let's have two gold metal winners. I am happy to get a 1, 2, 3, or 4 when I deserve it. There ARE vindictive people here and it hurts to see your average killed when you have 10 ratings of substantial value and one schmuck who gives you a 1,1, This is why I still (3rd time) contend whe throw out the low and high judges.... Or I can just take some better pictures and have 50 ratings.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max zappa Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Consider this ! There is I would say some justification in a person rating an image say 1/1 and similarly 1/7. What is "originality", surely an image is either original or not original. To then ask individuals to measure originality on a scale of 1 to 7 is inherently problematic. For example I may be justified in giving your image above, a mere 1 for originality, and I would be quite right in doing so, because there is absolutely nothing about the conception of the image that is original, its just another portrait. Would I give it a 1 ? No I would not, because it is no less original than any other regular portrait, so I would give it no less than a 4. A portrait is a portrait is a portrait. Then how might one justify giving a score of 7 for a portrait. Well I think you ask yourself such questions as , what quality does this portrait have that sets it apart from all the other portraits, what is different or special about this particular image. And by the way I have myself suffered the odd 2/2, amongst the 6's and 7's, so I know it hurts, lol. Ok now onto your image again. I would give it no less than a 4 for originality for reasons explained above. Now onto AESTHETICS, do I find the image pleasing or not pleasing ? Again this is as difficult as before, how pleasing do I find the image on a scale of 1 to 7. Ermmm, well its quite pleasing, but its a man looking at the lens with a hat on, its nicely exposed, but could be sharper. Its pleasing , but not particularly pleasing to my eye, its a good sort of basic pleasing, nicely exposed, well focused, depth of field maybe handled better, naturally lit, fellow with a hat on. Mmmm this really is difficult, its a just above average sort of pleasing, then I reckon its a score of 5. There ya have it mate, my final score 4/5. A little bit tongue in cheek the above, but guess what my wife here sat besides me thinks that fellow there, is a good looking chap, and she really goes for a man with a cowboy hat on, she just reckoned your image is a sure 7 for aesthetics. She knows sweet FA about photography and thinks the image is quite original, mmmm, she reckons probaly a 6 for orginality. Way to go man, a 7 and a 6, whoppeeee. Forgive me for being flippant, but thats the reality, we all want a 7/7 dont we, I do for sure. I have had my quota of 2/2 and 3/3 too, so as much as I sympathise with you, the simple basics of the ratings system here on photo.net is that is is not perfect. Take my advice, look at your ratings, remove every 1/1/ or 2/2 and then remove a 6/6 or a 7/7, you will then determine a more realistic average rating, without the extremes. Max Zappa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max zappa Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Constructive comments are far more valuable than ratings. Max Zappa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Why keep bringing this up over and over again? First of all, it doesn't make sense and would make no difference on your posted pictures anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g2imaging Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 How do you figure it won't make any difference? Are you telling me that if you played a game of basketball and didn't count the teams best players performance and the games worst players performance it would make no difference. They certainly practice this principle in gymnastics, skating, diving and other olympic sports. It does make a difference. My solution.... Do my own math and throw out the high and low, then at least I have a more realistic idea of how the image rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I'm glad you're not the stress analyst in my Engineering Shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peggy_jones Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 or, you can delete the photo (and those nasty 1/2 rates!), upload it afresh, and enjoy all new rates. that's called a 'do-over' and (unlike the olympics) is acceptable in PN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I think it's "acceptable" only because photo.net has not yet figured out a way to stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afs760bf Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Well, I'm not sure what average means, but I must have missed something. For a while there, if you wanted to leave a rating lower than a 3, I think it was, you had to leave a comment. Now I realize it didn't have to be a meaningful comment, but you had to work a little to leave a comment lower than a three. I guess that is no longer the case, since my latest submission got all 4s, 5s, and 6s until someone gave it a 1/1 with no comment. I'm not really an egotist when it comes to photography. I've been a bad photographer for a long time and I don't have to make my living at it. But neither do I appreciate being blasted without an explanation. A critique is supposed to be a critique, I think. So maybe Mark's idea is a good one. Personally, I exercised the option Peggy suggested and deleted the photo. Why bother? hmmmm. I think I may have stumbled on something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 <i> someone gave it a 1/1 with no comment. </i><p> Mandatory comments were removed because people were just typing in "Great" or Excellent" when giving 7/7s and "Ugh" or "No thanks" for 2/2s. It caused clutter and didn't stop high or low ratings. <p> <i> A critique is supposed to be a critique, I think. </i><p> Knowing the difference between a critique and a rating: priceless. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peggy_jones Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 "<i>I think it's "acceptable" only because photo.net has not yet figured out a way to stop it.</i>" <p>why should anyone figure out a way to stop it? the workspace interface permits a member to "manage your portfolio" and to "delete" a photo (or an entire folder with photos in it). a portfolio is a very personal matter to a photographer, and she should manage her portfolio as she sees fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now