Critique abuse!

[root]

You're new here . . . . . :-)

 

"Listing by highest average" used to be the default here and was changed due to abuse from people who rated each others' "good" images as "very good" or "excellent". Your 4.7/4.7 rating average and the lack of uploads puts you in a very different mindset from what I'm describing.

 

The bottom line is that there is limited space to easily see images and a limited number of people who offer feedback, so you end up with a very competitive situation. You might want to go back over the 'feedback' archives and look for posts on the rating system. It will take you several days of reading nothing else.

[gerald_widen]

I like the idea of having the "top rated" by averages not total ratings. I believe now it only takes 3 ratings to qualify which makes it easy for friendship or whatever you want to call it to happen. Generally the better photos get more ratings so maybe the minimum for top average rated photos should be higher like 8 or 10. ATEOTD I personally don't think all of this discussion is all that important. Brian and the others have more important things to worry about. If someone wants to fool themselves into thinking they are better photographers by resubmitting to the critique area for the sole purpose to get a greater amount of ratings so be it. I'm not talking about Doug, (who IMO is an excellent photographer). While they spend their time resubmitting, I'll be out taking photographs.

[dougityb]

Gerald, the longer a person is a photographer the better they are at making crummy looking stuff appear better. Commercial photographers and portraitists especially are trained at making cheap merchandise look expensive, and mediocre looking people appear glamorous. My work isn't all that good. Most of it is propped up with duct tape, super glue and putty. So, don't look too closely at my photographs or you will see through the smoke and mirrors.

 

Why is promoting your work shameful? I, for one, wouldn't be posting my work here if I didn't believe in it, and so I see no dishonor in getting it seen, not by any means necessary, of course, but by legal interpretation of the policy. I'm willing to accept low scores for some of my images after only 4 or 5 ratings, but when I have what I feel is a good one, one that I think deserves to be seen, I don't have a problem with reposting it. I'm wouldn't call myself the expert on this, but I've noticed that if the image isn't going to be above the low five's, then it won't get past the second or third page. That is, no matter how many times I resubmit it, if it doesn't get to, say 5.2/5.2 by 14 or 15 ratings, then it pretty much sits there until the 3 days are up. Two shots I loaded the other day are doing just that, so I've given up promoting them and they will probably fall into obscurity until I delete them.

 

It still takes a good picture to get to the first two pages of the TRP and that dynamic takes place because people like to rate the really good pictures. They want to be a part of their success. The average shots are mostly rated by the Trolls, those who enjoy the endless conveyor of the critique request rotation, who manage to rate huge numbers of images, leaving terse or invisible comments. A picture can't get past the Trolls unless it is promoted, or is outstanding from the start. Getting my work on the TRP is a struggle, let me tell you.

 

Photography is competitive. I was told this before I got into it, I read it in career choice books at the library, I experienced it in school, and I found it out by becoming one. There's no way anyone is going to devise a ratings system that some earnest photographer is going to figure out where to hold that edge that will get his or her work in front of a viewer. Success in this field is nearly as much about ego and confidence as it is about quality. The excellent work of a timid photographer might be recognized posthumously, but the rest of us have to struggle.

[dougityb]

This is funny. Here's an "image" I posted in the CR as a promotional, but also to get feedback on image selection as I had circled in red the frames I thought would be worth enlargement. It's a contact sheet. It was accompanied by very clear wording that ratings were not desired.

 

Look. It got several ratings. Surprise, surprise.<div></div>

[peggy_jones]

Carl - then perhaps PN could rotate throughout the week the default TP gallery page by utilizing the nearly 100 TP combinations instead of any one combo that might skew or distort user behavior.

 

Doug - have you asked yourself what quality of exposure you believe you are gaining by posting work in the critique request forum? could most of them just be TRP wannabes and others who have no clue as to how to evaluate your photos? have you explored other alternatives such as requesting in-depth comment reviews from specific photographers whose work you respect and/or who produce work similar (or even dissimilar) to yours?

[anthony_m1]

On the same line as Peggy Jones' idea:

Maybe develop a way to send a request to a specific person. There is a way to send a presentation to another member, but I don't think there is a way to forward a single posting thru PN internally without going through our personal e-mail process.

 

I usually will do this: request the persons e-mail address after 20 sec., send them an e-mail asking them to critique my post, cut and paste the hyperlink and await a response. This works fine, but is a bit time consuming.

 

DOUG: I agree with your process and reasoning of re-requesting. I have thought of doing that myself, but fear retaliation for the crusade I have gone on of stopping the re-request abuse. I often want to expose my picture to different audiences to get different reactions. There really is no way to do that other than waiting a week or so and re-requesting, but I have not done that for the reason stated above. Who knows, maybe I will start and if Brian eliminates the critique request after 11 ratings, I could delete the photo all together and request a critique with the other results printed out.

 

I personally would love to dominate a gallery with one of my pictures, but I have been on top of the TRP with only one critique and it really doesnt mean that much to me. Now, if I was on top of the highest average rating page, that's a different story.

[dougityb]

Peggy asks if I have asked myself what quality of exposure I believe I am gaining by posting work in the critique request forum. The answer, if I understand the question, is that I don't need to ask this because of your next phrase, that many ratings coming from the CRF are from members with an agenda other than true critique. I know this because I was one of them. My story is that I went to the CRF to critique images, but found that to offer a "critique" took too much time whereas the CRF was more suited for comments. Also, after offering 10 or so critiques I was exhausted, and heavily obligated by my own conscience to follow up each and every comment to see if there were additional questions, reactions, comments from other members, developing discussions, etc. It got to the point that, for me, the CRF was not a well designed medium for the type of exposure I sought. It's OK for quick fire comments and rating by shotgun, but not too good for thoughtful reflection, which is what I was looking for from my work, since that's what I try to put into it. The story for other members is that some of them join the site with the "I'll show these people what good photography is by finding all the faults in their photographs." This mindset finds its paradise in the CRF because they can quickly devalue many photos in a short amount of time with terse comments to accompany their ratings. I'm sure there are members who evaluate images in the CRF at the rate of 1 every 5 or 10 seconds, most of this time being consumed by clicking the appropriate buttons.

 

The problem is that for my pictures to get the kind of comments and reactions I think they deserve, I would have to get them before as many people as possible before they could attract the small percentage of people that would have an interest in them, that would be willing to spend maybe 20 seconds to a couple of minutes exploring it, and the way it affects their minds before making an evaluation. The CRF is the merely the most efficient mechanism for achieving this level of exposure. I'm not aware of any statistics, but I'm sure the ratio of comments to page views is extreme, probably on the order of 100:1, 200:2 or more in many cases. The CRF is not the primary source of what I'm seeking from photonet, but it's one of the only ways for me to position my work in a place where it will be seen by those I'm hoping to hear from.

 

I shy away from placing colleagues on the spot by presenting them with an image and a request for commentary because, for one reason, I feel that by doing this I've eliminated some of the objectivity I would otherwise receive. A second reason is that by making that request, I obligate myself to reciprocate, and this kills the joy of photonet for me because I'm no longer responding out of an image's impact, but out of a sense of duty and obligation, which I have plenty of at home, trust me. Finally, I already belong to a small but diverse community of members who serve each other in this way, (for the most part, I'm the most selfish among them) but they get weary of my work, or they're busy elsewhere, or mad at me, or whatever, and I get impatient and go whoring after exposure through the CRF. Plus, I post so often that I have a really hard time keeping up with myself, let alone my.

 

Lots of words here, I hope they say something.

 

AJ, if you plan to do it, you'd better hurry. Brian usually is true to his word. I, for one, don't consider it abuse, so I certainly won't be upset. The wind changes a lot, but it never goes anywhere. I just hope that this change, if put forth, is practical and worth the effort.

[peggy_jones]

Doug - you said it all, and to my enlightenment. thank you!

[chuck_porter2]

First, I'm very new to this site and am very interested in participating. I have not been here long enough to really know how to resond to this discussion, but it will probably help if i knew what TRP, CR, CRF, means!. It's probably something I've seen since being here, but it's not registering with me.

[root]

Thanks for your post. Although I disagree with your policy of repeated critique requests on the same image, I certainly understand why you're doing it.

 

There has to be a better way to get discriminating folks to view each others' work. I, for one, am tired of being low rated into oblivion by people who shoot boring subjects, poorly composed, at noon. Like you've said, there are certain kinds of images we can upload that we know will be 'popular', but what do we do with images that fall outside those norms, ie ones that rely on strength of composition and lighting applied to a less than attractive subject?

 

The answer may be to focus on presentations. Assemble a group of critics who would promise to visit everyone's weekly creation . . . something along those lines. It would require that critics make an effort to comment on genres that are not usually something they would seek out. I would be willing to make that effort in hopes that it would be successful enough to avoid the RFC and TRPs altogether.

 

(that's 'request for critque' and 'top rated pages'.)

[dougityb]

CRF-Critique Request Forum<br>

CR-Critique Request

TRP-Top Rated Pages

DTRP-Default Top Rated Page.

 

Carl, "people who shoot boring subjects, poorly composed, at noon" describe me, except I sometimes compose ok. I reposted to CRF since becoming aware of this thread, which was on Monday of this week. I'll wait and see what the verdict is, or what new changes are implemented and go from there. This means I'll be out of the DTRP because I usually have to crawl, claw and scrape my way to even the 3rd or 4th page.

[root]

You know very well the sort of snapshot I'm referring to, and it is

very different from the quality of work that you have to offer.

[dougityb]

Carl, yes, I know, and thanks for the compliment. I was referring to myself in the quote, not to my work, as someone who shoots boring subjects in the middle of the day, which I do quite often, sometimes with success, often without. I was being funny. Or trying to. :-)

[photos of hans koot]

Maybe a formula can be made from amount of ratings x average of ratings? the weight of both can be determined by a test. In this way w might be able to combine the streght's of both worlds. Maybe other value's could be part of it as well, be the consequence is that we have to rate for that part to.

[alberto pastorelli]

I have to repost my thought (in a "corrected" english :-), because we have different threads on the same subject... :

 

Where is the "abuse" ? Sorry, but frankly, I don't understand the compliant. Re-submitting photos is not prohibited... like is not prohibithed re-touching with Photoshop... and I really would like to know which of the two is really not ethical..

 

Second, resubmitting a photo does'nt force the people to vote for it. Resubmitting a photo in the critique, allows it only to have more visibility, but if the members don't like it they simply don't vote...

 

 

The real problem, is in the "rotation" of the photos in the gallery, meaning that the new photos uploaded are really visible for a while, going to be like "invisible" after some days. I think all of us have experienced that a new upload will receive votes, comments and views in the 2 or 3 following days and after becomes ..ignored. (the exceptions are the "fan clubs"...obviously... maybe realy not so ethical) So, I know that my images will be seen and judged ONLY (with rare exception) by who is online in these two days and the others (those for ex. that are working or sleeping in the other part of the world) will never comment on it. Now, do you find this situation acceptable ?

 

 

So, before to eliminate the possibility to resubmit, it would be better to reconsider the way the photos are showed in the gallery.

 

 

regards

[anthony_m1]

<I>Second, resubmitting a photo does'nt force the people to vote for it.

Resubmitting a photo in the critique, allows it only to have more visibility, but if

the members don't like it they simply don't vote...</I><P>The point of my post

was to bring up the fact that the more times you cycle your critique thru the

system, the more you bump out someones picture and length of exposure.

<P>After reconsideration of my <I>critique technique</I>, I have decided that

after a week or so, I will (if desired) run my critique back thru. <P><B>Why?

You ask...</B>, Well, that will introduce my picture to a new audience (maybe)

and also maybe pick up the extra exposure I should have recieved in the first

place. <P>I mean, now I run a pic thru and I get a few ratings (who cares), but

only a couple of comments. <B>Where is the CRITIQUE?</B> There really

isnt critique anymore. It's just oooohs, aaaaawwwws and unecessarily short

stupid remarks! Unless your one of the prodigy, well known photogs, you

really don't have much of a chance of getting a great amount of exposure. So

be it, I can accept that. I look up to those prodigy, well known types. They are

my inspiration and hopefully one day I will be one, but in the meantime, I will

do what I have to in order to get what I am after, and that is critique of my work.

<P>I often ask my peers to critique my work. Is it over the line? <B>Absolutely

not</B> and the feedback you get is about as good as it gets. Unfortunately,

that process is a bit time consuming. I would love a way to contact or send a

post to another member within the walls of PN. Without going thru the hassle

of waiting for their e-mail address, cutting the hyperlink, and pasting into an

email. There must be an easier way?

[photos of hans koot]

I was also thinking of another photo rating system. Not the only one I suppose

 

<More fields, i.e. Composition, light, color use

 

Aesthetics multiplied with number of ratings, composition, light, color use (maybe more?) and then divided by ?

 

 

The lowest and highest ratings should be excluded (above 10 ratings or so)

 

This will give a number witch is you rating, and it�s composed from more elements of interest.

 

In this way you will learn more by reading your ratings, because people don�t always tell you, and if you have a 1 rater it will not bother too much. Also the people are challenged to look at the photo's in a different way and rate.

[alberto pastorelli]

I can only agree with you, regarding the kind of comments that we see everyday, and that "There really isnt critique anymore".

But it's an other story, and it has nothing to do with the habit of resubmitting a request.

 

I also understand your concern about "the more times you cycle your critique thru the system, the more you bump out someones picture and length of exposure"

 

But, please, consider what I've expressed in my previous post, that the problem will remain even if we restrict the rules, because after few hours of visibility, your critique request will be hardly visible anyway... We have too much new upload everyday (every minute?) to allow that your or mine photo will remain visible enough... Maybe it would be better to eliminated the page "Newest Critique Requests" but even if so, when you'll start to browse in a Cathegory, you'll obviously find first the last uploads... I continue to think that the problem of "resubmitting a critique request" is a false problem with a very low impact on the visibility of older request...

 

kind regards

[john falkenstine]

So what is the real solution? Christian has brought up this real problem, in this forum it was brought up as a problem; I brought it up myself and there's at least one other forum, all in less than a 30-day period that have perceived chronic resubmittal as a problem that needs to be addressed. Frankly I'm not buying into the statements such as "looking for more feedback" that are being used as justification..I think the rule field has to be fair and even for everybody. Perhaps, photo.net needs to work on putting together some kind of working group to address the problem. As Christian has noted and I experienced as well, when a party is questioned about the resubmittal, self justification and some anger at being caught appear to be the basic response. For newer folks, and younger people interested in photography, this certainly could be a turnoff to participate, or even just put their camera aside after experiencing an ethically questionable environment.

[photos of hans koot]

I agree with John, I want to add that I also would like to see a date when it is planned.