What is abuse?

[bobatkins]

I don't see any evidence of any abuse.

 

Someone rates your images. You delete your images. The same person (and we can all guess who) rates them again (along with probably 2000 others that week) and gives slighly different numbers. I doubt he knows who you are or remembers your previous images.

 

Abuse? Come on, get real.

 

I like the idea of having a monkey give scores to images though. Didn't someone once compare a stock picks made by a monkey thowing darts at a newspaper with those made by a stockbroker. The monkey's picks performed better. Simians Rule!

[root]

You don't see evidence of abuse because you have a very limited definition of the term.

 

Do you really think the numbers are valid enough to use as a precise sort of the TRP?

[bobatkins]

Now there you go again... you have it wrong. YOU see evidence of abuse everywhere because YOUR defination of abuse is much too broad.

<p>

The numbers are good enough. Nobody's life depends on the TRP ranking (at least not anyone who actually <em>has</em> a life).

[tomhallphotographycom]

i will restrain myself in the future on commenting as within 15 minutes after I posted myself something about abuse the photo i was talking about was visited by people who always give low ratings (at least mine) (people who didn't get an email to rate the photograph, as it was posted yesterday) funnily enough 2 of them had low ratings given by me but at least with an explanation. So to stay on the safe side I will not complain, not mention etc etc any of the ratings that are clearly out of line with what I posted and what other people (above 7-8 individual ratngs) seemed to enjoy (also I check all high ratings with the work of those people to get an idea if the ratings match their mmm experience). Last couple of cents from me on this subject. For comments I am now posting on photoshots, at least the system works different and I can live with that. Still photo.net is still my fav...

[keith_laban]

<i>�I like the idea of having a monkey giving scores to images though�</i><p>Bob, believe me it already happens on a daily basis. My cat loves to sit with me at the computer and stares intently at the screen as I go from page to page. Whenever I visit the TRP pages her eyes nearly pop out of her head. She can spot a potential TRP image a mile away. I always solicit her opinion before uploading to photo.net. I�m seriously considering opening an account in her name and rating images based on her reaction.

[beepy]

Welcome to the Internet. Welcome to photo.net.

<p>

I think Brian summed up reality concisely and crisply. (Thanks Brian).

<p>

Funny, I met someone recently who tried to go "professional" in photography. They

stopped - because because people didn't buy their work. Hmmmm...

People react differently to "art" - develop a thick skin.

[jhenry]

Agree with you Beepy... Brian made an adult and valid point.

[sprouty]

I see abuse. I see a person who deletes and image because they don't like the ratings someone gave them. And then reposts the image, essentially saying that unless you conform to "my" opinion of my image I'll remove it.

 

Gabriel, you're not going to survive around here with skin this thin.

[james_oneill]

Hang on. Is Gabriel saying that someone put the same score on all the photos ? That's abuse. If someone drops by and slaps a 7/7 on everything I've done, it's nice for my ego but it is abuse. Someone went through a portfolio and said "It's all average", that too is abuse, because for a portfolio of any size you can't have a standard deviation of zero. Some must be better and some worse than average. `

[bobatkins]

The standard deviation isn't zero. "4" is everything from 3.501 to 4.499. It only looks like zero because we have integer scores. All "4" images are not equal. Some are just fractionally better than a "3", some are almost, but not quite a "5". You can easily have a portfolio of images of different subjective quality, but still give them all a "4".

 

Clearly what we need is scoring to three decimal places. Brian, could you work on that one next?

[peter_daalder]

Excerpt from "The Relativity of Wrong", by Isaac Asimov.<p><i>

 

[...] My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." <p>

 

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.<br>

 

However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so. <br>

 

...When my friend the English literature expert tells me that in every century scientists think they have worked out the universe and are always wrong, what I want to know is how wrong are they? Are they always wrong to the same degree? Let's take an example.<p>

 

In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of "That's how it looks," because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on. <p>

 

Of course there are plains where, over limited areas, the earth's surface does look fairly flat. One of those plains is in the Tigris-Euphrates area, where the first historical civilization (one with writing) developed, that of the Sumerians<br>

 

Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days. <p>

 

Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile. <p>

 

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long. <br>

 

There were reasons, to be sure, to find the flat-earth theory unsatisfactory and, about 350 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle summarized them. First, certain stars disappeared beyond the Southern Hemisphere as one traveled north, and beyond the Northern Hemisphere as one traveled south. Second, the earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse was always the arc of a circle. Third, here on the earth itself, ships disappeared beyond the horizon hull-first in whatever direction they were traveling. <p>

 

All three observations could not be reasonably explained if the earth's surface were flat, but could be explained by assuming the earth to be a sphere.

 

What's more, Aristotle believed that all solid matter tended to move toward a common center, and if solid matter did this, it would end up as a sphere. A given volume of matter is, on the average, closer to a common center if it is a sphere than if it is any other shape whatever.

 

About a century after Aristotle, the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes noted that the sun cast a shadow of different lengths at different latitudes (all the shadows would be the same length if the earth's surface were flat). From the difference in shadow length, he calculated the size of the earthly sphere and it turned out to be 25,000 miles in circumference. <p>

 

The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile, as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat earth to the spherical earth.

 

Mind you, even a tiny difference, such as that between 0 and 0.000126, can be extremely important. That difference mounts up. The earth cannot be mapped over large areas with any accuracy at all if the difference isn't taken into account and if the earth isn't considered a sphere rather than a flat surface. Long ocean voyages can't be undertaken with any reasonable way of locating one's own position in the ocean unless the earth is considered spherical rather than flat. <p>

 

Furthermore, the flat earth presupposes the possibility of an infinite earth, or of the existence of an "end" to the surface. The spherical earth, however, postulates an earth that is both endless and yet finite, and it is the latter postulate that is consistent with all later findings.

 

So, although the flat-earth theory is only slightly wrong and is a credit to its inventors, all things considered, it is wrong enough to be discarded in favor of the spherical-earth theory.

 

And yet is the earth a sphere? <p>

 

No, it is not a sphere; not in the strict mathematical sense. A sphere has certain mathematical properties&emdash;for instance, all diameters (that is, all straight lines that pass from one point on its surface, through the center, to another point on its surface) have the same length.

 

That, however, is not true of the earth. Various diameters of the earth differ in length.

 

What gave people the notion the earth wasn't a true sphere? To begin with, the sun and the moon have outlines that are perfect circles within the limits of measurement in the early days of the telescope. This is consistent with the supposition that the sun and the moon are perfectly spherical in shape. <p>

 

However, when Jupiter and Saturn were observed by the first telescopic observers, it became quickly apparent that the outlines of those planets were not circles, but distinct eclipses. That meant that Jupiter and Saturn were not true spheres.

 

Isaac Newton, toward the end of the seventeenth century, showed that a massive body would form a sphere under the pull of gravitational forces (exactly as Aristotle had argued), but only if it were not rotating. If it were rotating, a centrifugal effect would be set up that would lift the body's substance against gravity, and this effect would be greater the closer to the equator you progressed. The effect would also be greater the more rapidly a spherical object rotated, and Jupiter and Saturn rotated very rapidly indeed.

 

The earth rotated much more slowly than Jupiter or Saturn so the effect should be smaller, but it should still be there. Actual measurements of the curvature of the earth were carried out in the eighteenth century and Newton was proved correct. <p>

 

The earth has an equatorial bulge, in other words. It is flattened at the poles. It is an "oblate spheroid" rather than a sphere. This means that the various diameters of the earth differ in length. The longest diameters are any of those that stretch from one point on the equator to an opposite point on the equator. This "equatorial diameter" is 12,755 kilometers (7,927 miles). The shortest diameter is from the North Pole to the South Pole and this "polar diameter" is 12,711 kilometers (7,900 miles).

 

The difference between the longest and shortest diameters is 44 kilometers (27 miles), and that means that the "oblateness" of the earth (its departure from true sphericity) is 44/12755, or 0.0034. This amounts to l/3 of 1 percent. <p>

 

To put it another way, on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile.

 

The correction in going from spherical to oblate spheroidal is much smaller than going from flat to spherical. Therefore, although the notion of the earth as a sphere is wrong, strictly speaking, it is not as wrong as the notion of the earth as flat. </i>

 

[peter_daalder]

Sorry about the long quotation above. The decimal places argument made me do it...<br>Anyone interested to read the full essay, go <a href="http://www.answersinscience.org/RelativityofWrong.htm"> here.</a>

[gabrielma]

Peter, you have wonderfully taken a step back from the ink blot and declared it an ink blot, not a pipe smoking a butterfly. Evidently, your thought process goes beyond bumper stickers, and that's great. That said, err, aren't copyright issues at stake with your quote?<BR><BR>

<i>"essentially saying that unless you conform to "my" opinion of my image I'll remove it."</i><BR>

Since I'm being acused by you of abuse, <i>and</i> assuming something contrary to what I have said so far, at least I know what it is that you would do to make a rating comform to your view. I had been removing pictures because the way I had reprocessed them and their actual size had changed significantly, I had to do it; many I didn't repost because I didn't think they were worth reposting. Then Mr. Nameless (.[. Z) re-rated, and I didn't care for his so-called input, and as he has publicly expressed that if his ratings don't help, then so be it; they didn't help, looked like harassment, and I removed them, for he has dozens of thousands of others anyway, so a few shouldn't hurt him/her/it. And then they were rated again. It was in the middle of this that what I reported happened.<BR><BR>

That Bob didn't care about my complaint and answered <i>"Just because someone doesn't like your work doesn't make it abuse"</i> which would have made sense if my question had been something like "why does somebody rate lower than I would like to be rated?", derailed this into a discussion about ratings themselves, was not my doing.<BR><BR>

But I believe my question has been answered by others who tend to think, and not act on the impulse of their arrogance or annoyance.

[mottershead]

If you are committed to the idea that the ratings should be distibuted normally, and that is in fact how our guidelines say you should rate, then the average should be 4, and 70 to 80% of the ratings of all photos should be 3, 4, or 5, with 4 being much more common than 3 or 5.

 

Somebody whose work was basically unexceptional to a rater's eye would likely end up with every rating from that rater in the 3 to 5 range.

I can easily see somebody routinely rating every photo 4/4, waiting for a photo that varied significantly, high or low, from average (in his view), and not encountering one. That person is basically saying: I rate every photo; the default rating is 4; and this portfolio isn't giving me any reason to vary.

[bobatkins]

Mr "Z" rates everything. I hardly think he singled you out for his critical revue. He rates so much that there's a good statistical probablility that he'll randomly come across any new images you post (or repost).

 

I think it's probably a a little egocentric to think he's picking on you. He probably doesn't even remember your name or recognize that you reposted images. Last time I looked I think he'd racked up 250,000 visists to photo.net. At that rate, he's going to rate just about everyone!

 

While you may not be complaining about the numbers, I somehow doubt that we would have seen your post if he'd given your reposted images ratings of "6".

[sprouty]

From your first post:

<I>�I recently got the rest of my folder blind-rated by a certain user. I deleted pictures that were both not worth reposting, and others that I wanted refreshed.�</I>

<P>

From your second post:

<I>��I reposted four; he went on to re-rate with 4/4s in the next couple of hours; I redeleted one and posted it again, the one you see with 6/6s.

The ones that he had already rated he couldn't do anything about it, the ones that he hadn't seen he went with 3/3, 4/4 or a few 4/5; deleted them, and re-rated; to me that's very suspicious.�</I>

<P>

From your fourth (or maybe fifth) post:

<I> "I reposted them, the main person in question re-rated. And that is the question: is this persistent, harassing behaviour abuse?</I>

<P>

Later:

<I>�I am discussing the harassing nature of some people��</I>

<P>

He rates your images, you delete some of them, he rates them again, you keep deleting, he keeps rating, you get mad. You weren�t asking if this was abuse, you had already made your mind up.

<P>

The point you seem to be missing here is that he has every right to rate your images. No matter how many times you delete and repost them. You attach significance to the fact that he may have rated some lower and go on to call this abuse. I say given the number of images he rates he probably just couldn�t remember exactly what he gave you last time. Do you really think he made a special trip to your portfolio and realized his ratings were missing? Bailey rates a LOT of images. Your reposting put them back in the �recent photo�s� loop and that�s why they came up again.

<P>

For the record I don�t rate images, I find the whole system faulted beyond repair. It doesn�t increase the likelihood of anyone seeing the images I find interesting and it certainly doesn�t help me to find anything truly outside of mass-market appeal (ok so that�s a bit of hyperbole, but only to make a point).

<P>

There is only one option: ignore ratings.

[peter_daalder]

<i>People are completely missing the point.</i><p>

 

Gabriel, you may be correct about the copyright issue. I don't know... Unsure about any legal implications and that is why I made sure to provide the source. If there is a problem, I'm sure the moderator will remove my quote.<br> I'm sorry that I am still missing your point...<p> I had a look at your portfolio (waiting for all 57 images to load up on my screen took five minutes - but that is my fault for being on a dial-up connection). However, you have some nice images. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2241026"> This </a> is one I liked best of all, but that just goes to show that we all have different likes and dislikes. Oh, it was some time ago that I decided to never waste another forum posting on the "r" subject. This will be my last comment. There is much more fun and learning to be found elsewhere on PN...

[root]

"You weren?t asking if this was abuse, you had already made your mind up."

 

Take him at his word. It's the repeat visits that defined harassment much more than the rates themselves.

 

"Do you really think he made a special trip to your portfolio and realized his ratings were missing?"

 

Yes. People report his pattern on this forum over and over again, but it's ignored because it seems so bizarre. Bob says he rates everyone and implies that visits are random. That's wishful thinking on his part and can be checked against the logs that connect forum altercations to subsequent visits.

 

Have you ever wondered why he doesn't rate all the TRP images?

 

"I find the whole system faulted beyond repair."

 

And yet you defend it. Why not become part of the solution?

 

"There is only one option: ignore ratings."

 

An awful lot of intelligent people have suggested another option: consider another way to sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

The problem with Bailey is that he diverts attention from the myriad other 'abuses' of the system which discourage so many people from participating, as you've noted.

[sprouty]

Carl, I would love to �take him at his word� but I really have my doubts. Why? Because no matter how hard you search all the ratings abuse postings, and there must be thousands and thousands, you never find anyone who complains about someone harassing them with <I>high</I> ratings. Besides, Gabriel defined Bailey�s rating as �harassment� in the same sentence he was �asking� if it was abuse. Talk about a leading question.

<P>

<I>�Have you ever wondered why he doesn't rate all the TRP images?�</I>

<P>

I assume because he rates images by selecting the �Rate Recent Photos� link on the homepage. I really think what happened was that when they got resubmitted they popped back up for ratings and he rated them again. But I guess only Bailey can answer this, I suppose we could ask him?

<P>

<I>�And yet you defend it. Why not become part of the solution?�</I>

<P>

I don�t defend it, I was merely explaining to Gabriel that Bailey�s action of rating his images is completely within the guidelines of the Photo.net policy. The rating system is a �blunt tool� that does more harm than good. And I recognized that almost from the day I joined the site. Take a look at my personal page, I�ve never rated a single image. All because of the reasons I stated above.

<P>

<I>An awful lot of intelligent people have suggested another option: consider another way to sort the wheat from the chaff. </I>

<P>

My �solution� is to find people who I respect as photographers and people whose opinion I respect and to mark them as interesting. I look to them for advice and listen to their constructive criticism. This is how I learn on this site. I also comment on images I find exceptional and I point them out when ever the opportunity arises. That is how I share.

<P>

<I>�The problem with Bailey is that he diverts attention from the myriad other 'abuses' of the system which discourage so many people from participating, as you've noted.</I>

<P>

He diverts the attention of people who mainly don�t like hearing from someone else that there image is just average. For the record, I mostly agree with Bailey�s ratings�

[keith_laban]

Ever seen the game show where the contestants make judgements on paintings by giving scores? �Fingers on your buttons now and first up is Self Portrait by Van Gogh�..sorry Vince would�ve given you a 6/6 but you seem to have forgotten an ear�.<p>OK, I�m sorry, I admit that this is perhaps flippant on my part, but isn�t this what people are doing by rating images on photo.net. I suppose it really wouldn�t matter at all if it weren�t for the fact that the results from this game determine what is visible and therefore what is perceived to be the best on the site.<p>photo.net. is by nature and probably necessarily schizophrenic, ranging from the hugely valuable knowledge base and resource of the Forums to the hugely popular Ratings Game, confusion is almost bound to ensue.

[root]

"you never find anyone who complains about someone harassing them with high ratings."

 

That's because it doesn't happen. No one has Bailey's tenacity except mate raters and that's a completely different situation. Now if a 'fan' is a regular visitor and can explain the success of the image to other visitors, then that's a benefit to the site, just as describing an images shortcomings is useful.

 

"I assume because he rates images by selecting the ?Rate Recent Photos? link on the homepage."

 

You assume wrong. Gabriel reported a portfolio visit, as have dozens of others. He rates images where there is no RFC.

 

"My ?solution? is to find people who I respect as photographers and people whose opinion I respect and to mark them as interesting."

 

How will you feel about this process when most of them get disgusted with abuses and leave the site?

 

" . . . people who mainly don?t like hearing from someone else that there image is just average. For the record, I mostly agree with Bailey?s ratings?"

 

I know you do. You only have two images with more than ten rates and the few rates from others are in line with his.

 

I don't know if you have received feedback on your work from other sources to put rates in perspective. I have . . . and so has Kieth. Check out his portfolio ratings, then come back and tell me it's not a genre preference issue.

[akochanowski]

\Mon`o*ma"ni*a\, n. [Mono- + mania.]

Derangement of the mind in regard of a single subject only;

also, such a concentration of interest upon one particular

subject or train of ideas to show mental derangement.

 

Syn: Insanity; madness; alienation; aberration; derangement;

mania. See {Insanity}.

[sprouty]

Carl, we can agree to disagree on Gabriel�s motivation, besides neither of us actually knows what he was thinking and it probably isn�t important anyway. The real topic is how can this site be set-up to help people learn and still keep it interesting, or better yet, entertaining.

<P>

The �solution� I mentioned about finding people who I respect as photographers and people whose opinion I respect and then marking them as interesting seems to be working for me. None of them has been very vocal about the ratings system and no one has gotten disgusted and left the site. Now I know you�ll tell me that other people have left and that these other people have been valuable contributors. I don�t dispute this, I�ve read the blow-outs here and on the other forums but I have to tell you, I just don�t understand it. Mate rating, gang rating, purposefully dropping a low rating just to make a point, sure I can see that upsetting some people. But what is the big issue if every one of the ratings I receive on an image is 6 or higher and someone comes along and drops a 3 or 4 on it? Now what if they do that to my whole portfolio? It just doesn�t matter, not statistically, not to me personally, not in any way I can think of. How has a single person rating a lot of images hurt anyone other than in their ego?

<P>

I said I mostly agree with Bailey�s and you replied that I don�t have many images with a high number of ratings and his are in line with the one I do have. I agree with respect to my own images, but my comment was actually in reference to the ratings he applies to other people�s images.

<P>

<I>�I don't know if you have received feedback on your work from other sources to

put rates in perspective�</I>

<P>

If you mean from sources outside this site then yes I have, and what I�ve found out is that friends and relatives are generally bad to ask for critiques. I also have many friends who happen to be photographers and artists and their input tends to be support and only lightly critical. Let�s face it it�s tough to tell someone to their face that even with technical issues aside, their stuff is just flat-out uninteresting. Never mind phrasing that thought into something palatable and constructive.

<P>

If you're still with me, let me ask you one final thing, and you�ll have to accept me at my word that I�m being serious, what is it that you think people should do to make the ratings system better?

[stevemarcus]

Unfortunately, we have to live with it.

[pawel_czapiewski1]

I'll just quote my own words here:

 

"Here is my 2c about Mr%Z�s rating habits.

 

%Z has been asked by several members of PN not to rate their folders yet he keeps doing it for his enjoyment, he also has a habit of revenge rating of entire folders of those who express opinions he doesn�t like.

 

 

I must say that I don�t follow forums so my opinion is based only on %Z�s comments on individual images. So far I have only seen %Z demonstrating basic knowledge of software adjustments. He advocates using Levels which is nothing more than knowing where the auto adjust button is and he knows about sharpening with the third party plugins which don�t work for the web images too well. That�s it.

 

 

It is hardly surprising that %Z is being chased by people who demonstrated their skills with actual images but felt offended by his behavior."

 

 

My best regards,

 

 

Pawel