What is abuse?

[bartbies]

I know photo website where to to give comment or valuation it was one should have however than 4 photo in own portfolio.

If someone has nick razor oracle and it is vandal ratings ......

[sallymckay-lepage]

I think you are dead right Keith. I would add.....the perception is VALID but

you can choose NOT to buy into it. The system is set up to offer the maximum

attraction to the maximum number of people.....not necessarily the best judge

of what is good image making.

 

What motivates people to post images? I would hope it is not only a desire to

gain feedback on the work but also a fundamental need of all creators to

share their vision with others in the hope that some connection on some level

can be made. Ratings and exposure are only as important as you make them.

If your work is truely good it will prevail regardless of ratings.

 

Sally

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

My Lord: If you commented on every picture you rated at PN then we'd really be hearing it from the people who never get any ratings! That would take forever.

 

<P> Instead of complaining about those average ratings your getting- why not use your great photographer eyes and look at the photo and try and see why so and so (wether it be AZ or someone else) thought it was average. It's amazing what you see when you're not to busy being blinded by your own perceived greatness.

[root]

I must respectfully disagree. There are quite a few long time members who are established photographers who won't come near this gallery because the overall level of sophistication of the average rater hasn't caught up to their level. MAny others tried and gave up because it was very clear to them that their work wasn't attractive to popular tastes.

 

I also disagree that the system is designed to maximize exposure to the greatest number of people. There are no limits to the number of uploads in the short term, nor to the number of mate rates permitted. Some folks come by their visibility honestly, but some don't.

[root]

I must disagree with you, too. :-)

 

No one can compain of abuse if their work is ignored. That's precisely how the system should be run. It either gets picked as an image worth discussing or it doesn't. Comments on the side should also be permitted, of course, assuming you've asked for them.

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

Carl, I didn't mean that people who don't get any rates report it as abuse; but they do complain about it.

 

I don't agree that the gallery raters are ill equipped to rate pictures. They may not understand the concept behind a picture at some times; especially if it's something the photographer has adapted herself. However; even in those situations I think most honest *looked at and thought about the photo * rates are pretty close to the mark. To have such contempt for your average layperson is; to me an ego thing.

 

I could be wrong.

[sprouty]

Instead of dancing around the issue Carl with all this respectful disagreement, why don't you just lay out your plan to fix the mess and be done with it? Answer the only question worth answering: what do you want "us" to do?

[root]

Stephen, please go back and reread my posts on this thread. It would take a full page to list the details, but Brian isn't interested.

 

Erin, it's not their egos, it's simply a matter of experience. Accomplished photographers who've sold their work or have received other kinds of recognition have good reason to believe that those sources have more credibility than a few numbers from many of the newbies here. Sorry, but the site's policies that empower everyone equally is partly to blame.

[sprouty]

I actually did read your posts over before my last reply but if there is an <I>easy</I> answer I'm afraid I missed it.

<P>

What I think I read is that you don't like how pictures move to the top of the TRP gallery (which, by default, increase their visibility and likelihood of discussion). You think that there should be a rotating group of images, picked by...well I'm not sure who you think should pick them. And you certainly don't think everyone�s vote should be equal.

<P>

If I�m on target well great, but I still need to see the fine print before I could understand how this would be better for me or anyone else outside of the photographers who clearly know the art and craft.

<P>

By the way there is no great secret to getting high ratings if people want them: <I>any</I> attractive woman with bare breasts, over-saturated sunsets/landscape, or even anything above paint-by-number PS manipulation will pretty much guarantee a bushel of 6's and 7's and string of fawning praise.

[root]

1) You would see a greater variety of images to inspire you. 2) More qualified photographers - the kind who might be inclined to give you some constructive feedback, assuming that's what you want - would be attracted to the gallery.

 

It would essentially eliminate numbers except that if someone really thinks your image is strong enough to be placed in their favorites pages, then it would get some visibility there, even if only one person liked it.

 

Brian thinks that a lot of people are attached to giving and getting numbers. I think it has chased away a fair number of commenters which cuts back on what people really want.

 

Incidentally, he is planning on placing some sort of limits on the flood of rates by first time visitors, if I recall correctly. If we're not going to use an expanded elf/POW model which I prefer, at least make it clear to people what the consequences of rates are and that virtually everyone would prefer a comment.

[jhenry]

Stephen I quite agree with your various comments...<p> the problem (at least for those people) is that many members want their own pictures visible (either to be commented, to be acclaimed or get famed or both) and the best way currently to get visible: is to be on the top gallery, and to be there you need many and high ratings... that's it.... another way to get visited is to critic many picture, gives many good rates or post in every single forum ...LOL! ... and don't tell me I am wrong I observe this little theater (seems to be the only real life for some people) of humanities since few years now...<p> so what is abuse?: putting an additional rating brings you in a better position for Top pages, but in another hand getting an average rating (3-4-5) too early dig you down for higher number of rating in the next step...catch 21! again some here want high rating or nothing (please rate my picture 6-7 or nothing!)... <p> my advice: first get a life will help you to get a skin, second rate-comment-post when/how/if/who you want and three respect others' opinion as yours might be totally arguable as well <p>after all it's a public place and people come here voluntary and this is only my opinion... but I share it :o))!

[sprouty]

<I>"It would essentially eliminate numbers except that if someone really thinks your image is strong enough to be placed in their favorites pages...</I>

<P>

Carl, this I would support 100%.

[sprouty]

<I>"...I observe this little theater"</I>

<P>

That's exactly what it is.

[tony bell]

I can agree that what Gabriel asks about is ABUSE, provided the person in question purposely returned to Gabriel's folder to rate the re-posted photos.

 

But deleting and reposting his work simply because he didn't like his ratings is ALSO ABUSE.

[sallymckay-lepage]

I agree with you Carl on this issue. But what I said was, " The system is set up

to offer the maximum 'attraction' to the maximum number of people.....

Meaning, the system is set up to attract as many people as possible,

inevitably resulting in some catering to the lowest common denominator. I

suppose the various levels and degrees of experience of the participants are

what causes the quality of the overall product to sometimes suffer. And

perhaps not everyone is able to attain what it is they desire from the

experience . But isn't that precisely the dynamic of the real world? I'm not sure

much would be accomplished from changing the rating system . Those who

abuse will find other ways to do so.

 

Sally

[root]

Why do we want people to come here and intereact in the gallery? To enter a competition? To pass judgement of images in the form of numbers? To form small mutual admiration societies? . . . . . or is it to display a wide variety of images and generate thoughtful discussion about those images? Given the high visibility of this site, I think it can define itself any way it likes and the people who are attracted to that direction will find out soon enough. So no, I don't think it needs to think of itself as a microcosm of all internet users.

 

 

Competition breeds abuse. So eliminate the game. There are better ways to generate a daily supply of good, interesting images.

[sallymckay-lepage]

Carl, I think the very sucess of Photo Net answers your question .The majority

of the users want ratings, enjoy the game and are somehow sated by the

controversy embroiled within the experience. Is this the best forum it could

be? In my opinion no. But , change the dynamic to better suite one specific

group and change the experience entirerly. I don't think there would be

enough of a vaiety of interaction to support a system such as you are

suggesting. Eliminate the casual , non paying , and untrained member and

risk turning the site into a copy of any number of other "art speak" sites.

While professional opinion and insight is indeed valuable, it can be sought

out and found in other places. I for one enjoy the querkiness and am willing to

put up with the crap that accompanys the fun.

 

Competition, tempered by reason, also promotes excellence.

 

I would suggest, however, dropping the highest and the lowest ratings on any

given image, whereby eliminating the extremes. A small measure but could

serve to promote better use of the system. Just how I see it. :~)

 

Sally

[root]

". . . . the very sucess of Photo Net answers your question .The majority of the users want ratings, enjoy the game and are somehow sated by the controversy embroiled within the experience."

 

You're assuming the success of the site is linked to the ratings game. I doubt it. The forums are considered to be the biggest asset, not the gallery. Are you not aware of how many have left or are still commenting in the gallery but don't rate? Isn't it possible that the fairly high turnover in the gallery, especially with new visitors, is due to disappointment with the lack of real feedback?

 

"I don't think there would be enough of a variety of interaction to support a system such as you are suggesting. Eliminate the casual , non paying , and untrained member and risk turning the site into a copy of any number of other "art speak" sites. While professional opinion and insight is indeed valuable, it can be sought out and found in other places."

 

Really? URLs please. Sounds like they're very narrowly defined, and just the opposite of what I'm proposing.

 

"Competition, tempered by reason, also promotes excellence."

 

That's the biggest problem. A lot of people have no other feedback source and use this venue to determine what a good photograph is. There's much more variety in the images produced by members, but it's not reflected in the TRP. Also some good advice is getting drowned out by fans. That would be less likely to happen if promotion/demotion weren't at stake.

 

"I would suggest, however, dropping the highest and the lowest ratings on any given image, whereby eliminating the extremes."

 

You're assuming the extremes are wrong. . . and how often would you 'correct' the scores? Also very time consuming for no real purpose. It wouldn't change visibility much. This option has been discussed to death along with a whole slew of other tinkerings which are subject to just the kind of abuse that you've mentioned.

[sallymckay-lepage]

The ratings game is precisely what draws the crowd. Remove it and watch the

number of users decrease. I make no value judgements as to the merits of

keeping or cutting the ratings....I'm only suggesting the sites exposure will

drop.

[bobatkins]

<em>You're assuming the success of the site is linked to the ratings game. I doubt it. The forums are considered to be the biggest asset, not the gallery.</em>

<p>

I wouldn't take any bets on that.

[keith_laban]

Sadly I have to agree with Bob and would keep my money in my pocket.

[root]

Well this has taken an interesting turn. . . . . .

 

What then is the difference between this site and photopoints, photosig, usefilm, etc.?

 

I guess we've pretty much dispelled the myth that the ratings are for the site then, haven't we?

[fergus kane]

What an interesting thread....especially for a neuropsychologist (in training) such as myself. I'm new to photo.net and on a couple of occasions, when meant to be working, I have found myself watching my photo's ratings going up and down. I can't claim that my ego is totally immune to this process; it's quite amusing to examine my own reactions.

 

I don't entirely understand the ratings process and definitely do not understand the point of rating a photo after just 5 seconds consideration - really, what is the point? Then again, a ratings scale for originality seems quite strange in itself... what is very bad originality? Surely average originality is as bad as you can get? (not everything is normally distributed). I haven�t given it much thought admittedly, but I would have thought the scale should be �not original� to �very original�, probably in less than seven steps.

 

As for the psychological gaming that takes place on this site��..of which I�m sure I have seen only the proverbial icy tip��..A great thesis in the making for someone, some kind of analysis of the group dynamics would be fascinating, I�m sure the database has all the relevant data.

[tomhallphotographycom]

Hear hear Fergus. I am guilty too. It is a game that we don' all play to well. The fact is PN should be a community that shares knowledge and help people to improve their photographic skills (IMHO) but as in the rest of our society, knobheads are everywhere. Even though some ratings might be valid, I find that if someone rates way below average he or she could at least leave a comment. Rating is easy, commenting is hard. I always check the highest and lowest raters to see what they have to show. I found that most real bad raters have either no work online themselves or maybe feel they are ubergod because their work is above average. Who knows what plays in their minds. Ahh well what can I say, I guess I will play along from now on :).

[MichaelChang]

Fergus, your reflective intellectual approach is refreshing. I think your observation is due in part to the imposed human adaptation to codes, rather than codes adaptively written to accommodate human psychology - at least that's my view.