Critique abuse!

[anthony_m1]

I know this has been brought up before, but it is now archived and

there was really no closure by the PN powers that be.

 

More and more people are finding out that if they delete a critique

request and re-request, they max out the ratings by increasing the

exposure in the newly requested critique forum of about 16 photos.

 

Does it personally bother me? Yes, if I put my photo up for critique,

I want the maximum exposure, but instead I am rushed thru the process

by someone who wants their photo to constantly be on the front page

of that forum.

 

It is unfair and it is clearly abuse of the system.

 

What can be done? Allow deletion of a critique request, but do not

allow re-request.

 

I have directly confronted the abusers and it doesnt seem to phase

them.

 

Thanks for listening...

 

AJM

[johndc]

I have no problem with permitting users to re-request a critique...

 

however i think instituting a waiting period would be a good idea. after deleting a critique request, a user cannot re-request a critique for at least 5 days. this would at least slow the process down a bit, so that "proper" users get a chance in the spotlight and are not hurried off the stage, so to speak.

 

AJ: I think you are well within your rights to be personally offended by this kind of behaviour -- it is dismissive and disrespectful.

[john falkenstine]

I have deleted pictures from the critique request after seeing a)that the picture is a dud. b)that kids (or adults) are vandal-rating. c)that the content or style of the picture is not fully understood and is thusly missing the mark or the norm. Why wait for the pain to continue when there's a tool to stop the process?

But I have not reposted the same picture for critique; Instead I use another picture. This does not increase my ratings, but actually reduces them at times. I'm not particularly concerned about "being on top" since its a moot point anyway.

[root]

This is why we need moderators specifically for the photo critique forum, and why we should ban people who consistently abuse uploading priviledges. Refusing to allow someone to post for a week is obviously not a sufficient deterent, since the perpetrator apparently went right back to work doing the same thing. I have no idea how many people are doing this or how we should respond when we notice this being done.

 

I also see no reason at all why a critique request should be able to be deleted.

[john falkenstine]

I have experienced quite a number of pictures that I wanted to rate, but they seemed familiar. When I posted the rating, it turned out that the picture had already been submitted before and my rating was rejected.

[jhenry]

I found out recently that you could re-request a critic on the same uploaded witout any blocking factor... I think it very ok to be able to delete a critic request but I think you should not be able to repost again and again without limitation... <p>

If the request list was easy to browse this would be of less importance though!

[james_oneill]

I think the "Delete critique request" should be removed, which is very easy to do. (Change a template and make a script unavailable).

 

You can delete and re-upload the picture if you like. That has the effect of erasing scores and comments, and if you really want those you can save them to your PC. Alternatively if you to keep the ones you have recieved, then you keep your ONE request.

 

This stops someone abusing the feature to increase their ratings count.

[mottershead]

The way critique requests are implemented, there is no way to tell that a photo has already been submitted once and deleted. It is either posted in the Critique Forum or it isn't. How about a different approach: once a photo has 11 ratings it can no longer be submitted for a Critique Request?

[jhenry]

Agreed Brian... anyway 10 ratings seems to be the maximum to hope from Critic forum... the additional ratings are given either by Top Rated Gallery either by acquaintances...IMHO(bservation)

[root]

I agree with both of you. Since images with ten rating fall quite far back on the RFC list, then the only benefit must come from the one page view of thumbnails of the most recent requests.

 

Several people have asked to keep the ability to delete a request, but I have yet to read why.

 

I'd also like to know how to address this and other abuses, such as uploading images not created entirely by the photographer.

[audah]

When the first time I came to the decision to pay my members fee in PN, because I believe that I can learn something from people who already have many experiences in this field through the Critique Request Forum and with that I can improve my photography skill.

 

I personally like to repeat Critique Request to my photos, sometimes I do that twice or three times for one photos, so more people can see that photos and more people make comments about the photos and the important things that I can improve my skill with their comments and suggestion. Isn't that the purpose of Critique Request Forum ? ...not to put your photos on the top...as I don't believe with Rating system in PN (sorry to say that...that PN should put into the consideration that the Rating system is abused by so many unresponsible people).

 

So, as PN still doesn't have any regulations to stop people to repeat their Critique Request (maybe in the future), I think they have RIGHTS to do that, especially the members who pay the contribute to this site!

 

My suggestion for you, don't bother with the photos that you've already rating or made comments, maybe they still need some sugesstions to improve their photos. Like me, I never make comments to photos that I don't find I should make comments (just wasting my times to do that) and I never do Ratings, because I don't feel that I can judge someone's work with my limited experiences and knowledge, It's very unresponsible things if I do that.

 

Sorry about my English, I'm not come from English speaking countries. Thanks

[anthony_m1]

BRIAN MOTTERSHEAD SAID: How about a different approach: once a photo

has 11 ratings it can no longer be submitted for a Critique Request?

 

Sounds good to me.

 

Thanks,

AJM

[gerald_widen]

Not sure once a photo reaches 11 ratings that it can't be submitted for critique is a good idea.But something should be done. Although unusual for a photo to reach 11 ratings without being posted to the critique, sometimes it does happen. It is possible that someone might have a specific questionabout their photo they want opinions on. Maybe however these questions could be answered on one of the forums.

[jhenry]

- when you are a non subscriber (I was once upon a time), you have a limited number of request. SO that, I remember canceling a request to be able to request another one.<p>

- and more basically, people dont like to have much un-necessary locks and constraints. To delete a request you've made is a personel decision and I really dont see why it's bothering you, whatever the reason behind...(unless it is the sole mean to stop the perpetual re-post of a very few of us)... <p>but personally I think other constraints can be more easily understood and set up... for instance on parameters that impact other people directly such as ratings ... constraints which are IMO far too light here - basically inexisting. This encourages [...obliged?] people to rate only what/who they like using immoderatly the 6/7 as if there were no other grades in the scale and makes naturally people angry and frustrated when/if they get a 3, a 4 or even sometimes a 5... don't you think, Carl?!

[root]

Thanks for your response to my question. What I think you're really

asking is "How many critique requests should we allow that will get

people involved in the site, yet encourage people to become patrons so

that they will then be able to upload RFC more often?" The current

limit of four has been set with that in mind, and any effort to get

around that limit is unfair to several hundred other daily uploaders

who would also like responses from the limited number of folks who can

actually give them the kind of feedback they want. .

[jhenry]

You've got a point.

[mattvardy]

I think you have a good, logical point. However, I think that not allowing a re-submission of a critique request AT ALL is ludicrous. Many of us re-submit requests in order to get better feedback. Whether it is because during the first request a photo received poor ratings, or we want more ratings to accurately judge what others think, a re-request can be beneficial, when not abused. I know many people abuse the system, but many use it as a tool to better understand ratings and comments, which is why this option should be modified, NOT omitted. How about placing mandatory, long time durations between critique requests? Thereby forcing the �shared� aspect of the forum. It also forces people to allow others a chance, and forces abusers to wait before resubmitting - hence removing the abuse aspect. All the while allowing honest resubmissions for more understandable feedback.

[christian deichert]

Thanks to A.J. for bringing this issue back up. Hopefully the issue will be resolved.<p>

 

Brian: I'm curious why you responded to A.J.'s request and ignored <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006omn">my earlier post on the same subject</a>. Please let me know why I was ignored; if there's a problem with the way I make my requests, I'd like to fix it so I'm not ignored next time.

[stephenf]

Suggestion: whenever a photo is submitted/resubmitted for critiquing, delete any ratings it already has. If the owner is warned of this before submission, he/she can make a record of existing ratings for his/her own purposes. (I would perhaps retain any comments, though.)

[dougityb]

I do this, resubmit images to the critique request.

 

The reasons are as follows:

 

Sometimes I make a typo in the title or request field.

Sometimes I submit to the wrong category in my haste.

Sometimes the category initially chosen doesn't return the kind of response I feel the picture was worth, so I resubmit it to a different category.

Sometimes I get only ratings, and no comments, so I resubmit it, hoping to spark a comment.

Sometimes I resubmit it after a comment has brought up a particular issue, and I want more feedback.

Sometimes I want to get feedback on an issue other than what was first submitted.

 

I'm not in favor of prohibiting resubmissions under any circumstances because many of my images do better after the 13 or 14th ratings. I think the CR gallery is populated by a disproportionate number of trolls and so I view ratings below 11 as accurate within plus or minus one full point. If I see a picture is in the very high 4's, I'll resubmit it, for any of the reasons stated above, or just to get it more exposure because I believe strongly in my work. Also, what if I wanted to publicize an older image, one that already has plenty of ratings, just because I like it. What's wrong with that?

 

I know this issue has not been openly addressed in CR policy and see no reason why it needs to be changed. Why not just let everyone do it? How is it "abuse" since there are no prohibitions against it? Why impose further limitations? The site is becoming overrun with regulations.

[photos of hans koot]

Made about the same post and noticed same things I suppose. Here's the link.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006xor

[peggy_jones]

A.J.Murphy put it best when he wrote "...if I put my photo up for critique, I want the maximum exposure...". so the solution to the dilemma is quite simple. make the "top photos" default link to "last 3 days or week, by average rating". the current default link is to "last 3 days, by number of ratings" which obviously is the incentive for folks to find ways to max out their exposure via number of ratings. don't you think that most sensible users of this site want to view the best rated photos, and not the most often rated ones?

[peggy_jones]

and, Doug wrote: "Sometimes I get only ratings, and no comments, so I resubmit it, hoping to spark a comment." so, why not temporarily retitle that image "For Comment Only, don't rate!", and very likely more people than you think will be pleased to respect your request.

[dougityb]

Hi Peggy,

 

"Comment only, don't rate" doesnt work that well. try it.

 

If the big issue is that people are overpopulating that first page, the one that shows the 6 or 10 most recent requests, then I agree that there's a problem. Other than that, I don't there needs to be any fix. My practice is to post, wait a few hours, like 5 or 6, or a day, and then re-evaluate. If I think a low response is accurate, I'll withdraw the request. If I think it needs more exposure, I'll either let it ride, or maybe rephrase the CR, or change the category, or whatever.

 

From what AJ is saying, there are people doing this every 10 or 15 minutes. If that is the real issue, that it's this page that's being abused, not the CR, and the limit would have to be on the time between posting, even though Brian says there's no way the system can work this way. Returning to a TRP based on the value of ratings, as it was before, is going backwards.

 

But, honestly, I don't see this a big deal. As long as everyone can do it, and as long as someone's OCCASIONAL reposting doesn't actually knock another image out of the rotation, then why all the fuss? It still boils down to an image is either good or bad and that's what gets to the top because people WANT to rate the good images, and they do. Anyone who notices the kind of abuse that AJ seems to be indicating can write to Abuse and then maybe just that

person's account can be stifled for a few weeks, or something.

 

Whatever is done, people will find a way to work around it, and so the administration might want to consider whether fixing this "problem" will actually spawn worse ones.

[peggy_jones]

face facts. abusers of the critique forum are not looking for high ratings or constructive comments. they're looking for volume ratings to get any pic, preferably of one theirs that will attract volume ratings - good or bad - to get any pic of theirs (plus their name) on to the "top photos" default page (which is by number of ratings in last 3 days). if PN were to change the default page to something like "by average rating in last week" then the abuse will cease because the shameless "exposure" incentive will vanish.