Photo Rating Suggestions

[beth_creswell]

yeah, ditch the ratings. i see why plenty of people want them, but i

think those have more to do with finding 'good' photos and photogs (a

function of contests) than with learning, sharing, discussing, or

questioning (a function of web communities). i am a huge fan of mark

meyers' suggestion about introducing a feature through which i might

see what shots/photogs another member recommends. i am far more

interested in having shots recommended to me by members whose opinion

i respect than in seeing what the general masses (obviously including

the fakes and jerks) rate highest. maybe you could choose a panel of

respected members or guest judges each week to choose some

particularly good shots or portfolios to serve the function that the

top-rated photogs list serves now. good luck and i look forward to

hearing your decisions. * b

[duolian]

Yeah, Vuk, the "banding" I suggested would definitely be a "quick-and-dirty" version, not up to any real statistician's standards. But as far as the "distributions of scores with everyone clustered near the top and bottom of groups", maybe the scores would <i>be</i> there, but we wouldn't <i>see</i> it -- what I meant to suggest, was that within these rough "bands", there would be <i>only</i> the names - no individual ratings. Thus, John Doe (5.01) and Joe Dirt (5.99) could be listed right next to one another in the 5.00-5.99 "band". All anybody would be able to tell, though, would be that they both had average ratings somewhere in that band.

[peter_langfelder]

I would keep the ratings AND the best-photographers list. Try to get rid of bogus ratings, there are many ways of discerning them. The system will never be perfect, but it can be made to work well enough.

 

I think most of the ratings are sincere and such are better than nothing, which is what most photos would get if the fast-and-easy number rating system was abolished.

 

The "top photographers" list allowed me to see some of the best images here. Also, I found it very usefull to look at the portfolios of people who are ranked near me.

 

I'm in favor of limiting the number of submitted photos to a reasonable number per day per photographer.

 

I would also like to be able to separate newly posted photos into (broad) categories so that when critiquing recent uploads I don't have to go through a lot of photos whose subjects I don't care about and therefore have no desire to critique.

 

One last suggestion - the criteria for the selection of the photocritique image on the main photo.net page should be loosened - I often get an image that I have already seen several times. I wouldn't worry about selecting a low-rated image from time to time.

[discus]

Ratings are useful. Why? Because you then find out whether or not other people like the work you are doing. OK, so it's evidently open to abuse, big deal, so is every system. If you don't like it you don't have to participate. You can opt not to have your images rated.

 

Now comments on the other hand are fantastic - particularly if they give suggestions as to how to improve a picture, what's wrong with a picture etc. Even WHY you like or don't like a picture. I take the time to send a quick e-mail to the user who sends me a comment - just to say thanks for taking the time. I usually also take the time to look through their portfolios as well, even if I don't rate or comment on any of them. Everytime I see a new comment on one of my photos I let out a sub vocal wooohooo and check it out. I even get excited when I come across one of my photos that has actually received a rating. It seems strange to see a photo has been seen 19,000 times and recived only like 10 ratings (not that any of mine have yet reached (or will ever?) such peaks.

 

Is it ridiculous to subject "art" to a rating system? No! But we can't expect everyone's ideas of what is art and what is good art to be the same. It's a subjective thing by its very nature. Photography is not always art - it may "just" be a record. An aesthetically pleasing one at times, but is for example landscape photography "art"? Or is it "just" a record of a beautiful view? What about photojournalism?

 

"Art", although conventionally percieved as so is not necessarily aesthetically pleasing (take much of Damien Hirst's (sp?) work. Rotting meat and flies, cows and sheep cut in half, bottles full of dead fish. Is that art? It's certainly not altogether aesthetically pleasing! Well, it gets displayed in renowned art galleries, and acclaimed by the experts, so I guess it must be.

 

I can't see why someone would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a piece of canvas bigger than most people's houses because it has an arbitrary pattern in the middle of it (like a square in one colour) in the middle of it, a catchy title and because for some reason "art critics" like it. Well, that's the way I see a lot of modern art. =\

 

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=art

 

sorry meandered off topic a bit there =)

 

How do I rate images? I look at the image, decide if I like it and how much I like it. I go on gut feeling. As for originality - have I ever seen anything like it before? Oh, look at that, it's a kid with cake on his face. Originality pretty low =) Originality of my images? Well, pretty low too I guess. Aesthetics? Some of them I rather like =)

 

Now I wouldn't hold any of my photographs up as being great; some of them I personally rather like, but I would never consider myself an artist. A lot of the images in my portfolio I have only uploaded because I want to show others a lot of views of a country I happen to rather like (hence my guide to it). And I'm a rank beginner at this game, having had a camera for a grand total of less than 7 months or so (if we exclude a second hand manual camera I bought when I was 15 for the (to me) staggering price of $60 - it broke irreperably after I put just two rolls of film though it. Topcon was a good brand name for the product!). OK, some of my pictures are far older than 7 months (they were taken with disposable cameras), but they are literally just "snapshots". So I think I might have to create a folder of images I think are good. =)

 

I wish there was a delete all ratings button in the manage your ratings section, as reading the comments above has basically meant I have a better idea of where other people stand and I want to start again. Going to take quite some time over my connection to do that one by one...

 

So, keep ratings yes! Encourage (make compulsory?) comment Yes! (I have been pretty guilty of just rating an moving on - I (and everyone else) know just how much more interesting and useful comments would be). I would rate more photos, but my connection is pathetic - so in a way coming along and giving "karma" points would disadvantage people who lack the time or bandwidth resources to rate a lot.

 

I think it is quite nice to be able to see what other people have rated you, but I think it definitely means if you don't like an image, someone will come along and slate your images, just because they didn't like the fact that you rated their photos lower - it's human nature I guess. This is going to lead to people not rating photos low in the scale (even if they perhaps deserve it).

 

But don't make the ratings anonymous again, as it is nice to be able to go and look at the other people who have looked at your work and reciprocate (positively, folks!) by doing the same for theirs.

 

As for restricting number of uploads, it could work, I guess, but many people would disagree with it. I don't know what the largest number of member uploaded photos is (excluding Mr. Greenspun of course!), but I saw one user in the high 700's the other day... That's only a few rolls of film in the scheme of things. Best way to conquer the critique bloat rather than restricting uploads it to restrict critique numbers.

 

Do I think photo.net is great? Yes! I have learnt a lot by coming here, and look forward to the day when a lot of people (or even a few) decide my work is worth something (i.e. appreciated) - and along the way, having other people help me grow (by criticising photos, giving advice etc.), and if I can, helping others. It's always a shame when really pretty minor things incite huge "riots" - I've seen it happen often online.

 

Can you help photo.net financially? Well, there is a nominal subscription fee you can pay for photocritique alerts - and I paid it to support photo.net. You also get a rather snazzy photo.net alias too =) By buying from the photo.net associated retailers (if only some of them were in this country!), you will support it. But in a way, you will also help it just by being here and contributing your time, knowledge and photos - putting back into a website or any community by giving it something (content) is perhaps the best way to support it. Write articles, read the forums and participate as much as you can. More content = more visitors = (more referrals = more cash) etc.

 

Finally, a brief vote of thanks to the photo.net staff, and all the members, both of which go to make photo.net what it is. =)

(incidentally, I pronounce the dot in "photo dot net" too).

 

Hope someone finds this useful.

James.

[imaginator]

Let me give you an example of why I think the numerical ratings suck: You have just finished having "intimate relations" with your partner... he/she says "I give it a 6 out of 10" without any other comment. Hmmm... kinda leaves ya guessing, and out in the cold. Well, how do you get a higher "score" the next time? Try harder you say? Darn, this time you get a 5... when they finally explain the reason the ratings were low, it's because "you were trying too hard!" Actually, my biggest problem with the numbers game is that it makes it very easy to throw ratings out without explaning, or "backing up" your statements. Critique is a personal thing and requires communication, besides it's very difficult to clarify what the scale means, with each of us having our own idea of what a number represents, both when critiquing, and when being critiqued! Thanks very much for bringing this up.

[matt_jacobs]

it seems people raise two main problems with the rating system.

 

1) its not very instructive, and 2) its rife with abuse, trolls, etc

 

I don't know how to help the first one, but as for the second, how about adopting a google-style ranking system? Google ranks a web page based on how many other pages have links referring to it. Each of those referring links is weighted by the ranking value of the referring page. Similarly, you can weight the ratings people assign a photo with a combination of the rater's own ratings, the number of people who have "marked this person as interesting" etc.

 

A side benefit of this is that all the people who trash others' photos without submitting any photos of their own for critique would have their ratings count less. I'm not sure how well this approach works when only a few people rate each photo, and I don't know how you would transition between the current system and one like this, though.

[matthew robinson]

Vuk said: "Matthew, you've brought up some good suggestions"

 

Thank you -- I shall immediately trawl through your postings desperately searching for something I agree with and lavish it with praise ;-)

 

"but how do you propose we deal with ratings on pictures already uploaded and rated if switching to a new 5-10 system"

 

Don�t know -- seems a shame to just throw them away when, by and large, many people have put in the effort and provided an honest opinion. Possibly just batch convert the old ratings to a static comment on each currently rated photo and switch over to a new system (whatever that might be). Otherwise have the higher rated photos converted to equivalent ratings in the new system with some kind of moderation from the powers that be as required.

 

Tony D. said "I hate to say this, but if the scale is from 5 to 10 then the blitzers will give 5/5s"

 

Granted the malicious could still bring a picture down a few points, but if a 5 is defined as "above average" or "worthy of note" and this is well known then it�s less open to abuse. If one thinks of 1/1 as the equivalent of someone just shouting �Crap� for no apparent reason then the people given to such behaviour would probably be less inclined to do so if the worst they could shout was �Pretty good actually�.

 

My point is that ratings are a blunt instrument but do have certain advantages and uses and can be rewarding and fun (lets not forget that). High ratings might actually, as you rightly pointed out earlier, say little more than �Superb� suffer less from the obvious disadvantages and can be of value for various reasons. Low ratings by contrast are at best unhelpful and often, as we have seen, just cause arguments and bad feeling and comments are a far more appropriate vehicle.

 

BTW If anyone�s interested I run a 1/1 Survivors group that meets on Tuesday�s in the church hall. We have group hugs and burn effigies of DaBomber ;-)

[Jim_Tardio]

It's <b>NOT</b> true that the elves have thrown out all of the 1/1 ratings. I've still got my share of them. And just today, all of my photos were given a 1/1 by someone called the "Pink Evil," which happens to be the same name as a woman I knew briefly in Amsterdam...but that's another story.

<p>

My suggestions. Lower the rating range from 1-10 to 1-5. List everybody in the top photographer list, making it a total list with the higher rated photogs at the top. Throw out the current ratings and start over.

<p>

Or, throw the whole thing out.

[bentleymrk]

Quite a long thread. Just a few observations.<P>Self-rating is pretty lame. Probably should be removed.<P>I like the way we can now see who's been doing the ratings; the anonymity of the previous setup was far too easy to abuse. I <b>especially</b> like the way it came without warning.<P>I think the most ratings I've had on a photograph is about 35. To me, that rounds down to zero. For that matter, 150 ratings rounds down to zero as well. The only photos that have any degree of statistical accuracy, in my mind, are those that are rated by a number well outside the bell curve. I've used the sorter a number of times, and invariably when I ask for high numbers and LOTS of ratings, I get a selection of damn good photographs. And as for the "top-rated" photographer list, I probably haven't looked below #10. Again, I see no signs of tampering there: Tony Dummett's work is the kind of stuff that makes me want to sell all my gear on eBay tonight; the difference between ranking 655 and 656 is meaningless to me.<P>I don't think Photo.net can regulate or legislate maturity. Unless you limit ratings to those who pay for the web site, you're going to get shills and trolls. I'll confess it bugged me the first time I found a troller. I shoot <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=149684">some sports on occasion</a>, which I understand is not everybody's cup of tea. Nor, for that matter, am I by any means a professional sports photographer (I shoot from the stands at pro football games for chrissakes). So why did one fellow meticulously come along and give me a 1/1 on every sports photo? Who knows. Who cares. Maybe he's a Cowboys fan. But at least I know have the knowledge that he's a troll, and will, if I see some recommendation from him in the forums, or a product for sale from him in the swap shop, know to approach him with some caution. <P>Someone else mentioned opting in (or out) of the ratings game. That's fine with me as well. Let's tweak the process, not kill it. And I like the idea of a third rating for content as well.

[maderik]

If the elves think that a "rate the comments" mechanism would get out of hand and lower the tone of discourse, it can be simply reduced to a single yes/no: Was this comment helpful? Record the "yes" and ignore the "no". When you lookup a user you might see s/he has made 100 comments, and 30 were noted as helpful. That tells you positive information while leaving any lack of feedback ambiguous. If someone has 100 comments and none were noted as helpful you can deduce either that either this person never has anything useful to say or s/he only comments on photos of users who do not care enough to give feedback.

[raghu]

I think I remember hearing that in beauty contests they weed out the top and bottom rating from the judges to remove the bias factor. Is that a good idea? Please dont get all hot on me for comparing

photography to a beauty contest. I am just suggesting one algorithm for reducing skewed ratings.

 

Also, DEFINITELY drop the possibility of self-rating. That is plain silly. I am surprised it was even allowed in the first place.

 

I became a member several months ago and I visit this site pretty much daily. I uploaded my first picture a few weeks ago and was thrilled - THRILLED - when someone wrote a comment and rated it.

Since then I have tried to request a photo critique - almost daily - and ask for comments and faithfully tried to follow-up to see if anyone left comments. My hope was to break into the top-rated 1000+ or so - so that I'd atleast know for sure that I did not suck big-time. Ok maybe I still suck but I hope not too badly. When I did break in ( at some 600+ ) I was really satisfied. Now I want to buy a 80-200/L lens for 500-1000 bucks but am I really going to be able to take good photos? If all I will do is take bitingly sharp lousy photos, then I might as well stay with my 28-80 EF for now. The rating system tells me - even if a bit inaccurately - if I have any talent for photography.

 

 

I like the top member rated photos page. I like the way Heller and Dummet and Bayer rotate around the top 10. Sort of like those Edberg-Becker Wimbledon years.

 

I also want to react to some other suggestions :

 

1. Pay up some $ before you can rate? Bad idea. What about people who cant afford it from other parts of the world? Or, like in India, where the govt is very reluctant to give out foreign exchange? Also what prevents me from investing $75 and getting 5 fake@hotmail.com accounts and then screwing the folks I dont like with five 1/1s or 2/2s on all their photos? Nothing. So : drop the idea. I bet Greenspun opposes it.

2. Only people with uploaded photos can rate others' photos. Is that a good idea? Sure, people in glass houses... etc etc but what about the goal of an online community and its resemblance to a fair democracy? Can only those who have been/stood for class president vote for the President of the US? No.

 

In any free society/free online community there will be a fair number of bozos/malicious people. I think the solution is not to kill an abused system but to use some intelligent programming to correct obvious imbalances. My ideas :

1. Use the beauty-contest idea of removing the highest and lowest rating(s).

2. Disallow self ratings. Delete all such current entries.

3. Try to allow only valid email IDs but I am not sure how you can do that effectively.

4. Weed out junk users if you can effectively identify them.

5. If you folks are running out of space then allow only x uploads a day per person. Maybe even restrict critique requests to once in x days. You decide what x is. If my photo is any good at all, then people will come to my portfolio and see the rest of my efforts.

 

You cant want people from 50 countries see your photo the same night but at the same time be protected from Joe Schmuck who rates you 1/1 because he couldn't get it up. For the big boys - say Dan Heller - one or two bad ratings cant really affect them. For me - what if I am #600 or #650. Makes little difference. No set of rules will plug all possible abuse but hey folks - lighten up a little! This is not your credit history or your criminal record. If you are rated very very low it does not materially affect your life. Get over it! As long as there are more 'good' people in photo.net than 'bad', we are ok with some smart programming.

 

Rajeev/PhilG et al - Superb site. Sincere thanks!

[hal_bissinger]

<b>Get rid of the rating system completely. It's become the armpit of photo.net. </b><p>

I've read the posts from people above who think they are useful. The purpose of photo.net is to improve your photographic technique, not to showcase your work or make you feel warm and fuzzy. There is no way ratings by a bunch of random people with unknown qualifications can mean much. You might as well stand on a street corner and ask people to rate your work. The only way you are going to get useful feedback is when it is from somebody who knows what they are talking about. <p>

As for the competitive nature of this system, it seems to have attracted the dregs of the world who think nothing of cheating, sending viruses and sabotaging the ratings of others. And, indeed, it does spill over onto the other forums. This is a serious problem that can only be eliminated by eliminating the ratings system itself. <p>

Photo.net, at least in my mind, has become alot less respectible than it once was because of these people.

[glenbarrington]

As a new user (about a month - maybe a month and a half) I may be a part of the problem to which many of you refer. I didn't realize until I read this thread, that the ratings were related to some sort of "top dog" contest. (That helps explain a comment Mr. Photoconscience attached to one of my lesser photos.)

 

I think that sort of competitive "Top Dog" nonsense is a horrible thing to to to people who are trying to produce art. The next thing you know, there will be some sort of dopey Photonet awards show on cable TV.

 

On the other hand, as a photographer, I appreciate the numerical ratings - particularly the very high and the very low ratings. When I see someone has rated my photo in the extreme, I go their portfolio and study THEIR photos. Sometimes you can learn a lot from people who REALLY hate your work(or love it, I guess - I get more hate than love)

 

I have given 1,1 ratings and I have given 10,10 ratings. And I for sure have recieved 1,1's Mostly, I guess, I give ratings in the middle. But always, they are a reflection of my genuine regard for the photo. The solution to this controversy is simple, allow photos to be rated, but QUIT KEEPING SCORE on the photographers! let each individual photo stand or fall on its own merits.

 

You know, there are many technically excellent photos that are aesthetic duds. And MANY original, creative ideas that could be lifted from the quagmire of mediocrity with the application of better technique. If you are going to rate aesthetics and originality, you need a technique rating as well.

[John G.]

Compare Photo.net to Photocritique.net.

 

1. Photo.net is a lot more fun! More ways to interact with fellow participants, the ratings are a prime avenue for that.

 

2. The Web is uncivilized. You can't expect complete integrity even if you could define it. Sorry.

[seven]

I'm new as a contributor but have checked in to photo dot net for

years now. I'll be brief :

 

1. Keep the ratings please, many find these useful.

2. NO rating panel - e.g. studio-only photographers trying to

appreciate the intricacies of landscape lighting or vice versa!

Photographic purists rating DMI specialists would be like

Classicists rating Cubists! Prudes having a roll in the hay with

nudity? Let's stick with democracy.

3. Only contributors can rate. Define contributor - preferably 5 or

more images but also those who give so generously to

discussion forums. If that's impossible, then at least permit

non-image contributors to comment.

4. NO mandatory comment for rating - aaaaaaaaggggh222@@3

is a perfectly logical comment to a computer.

5. Membership fee - good idea, just make sure non-US citizens

can remit. I can't get PayPal to accept the funds I've tried

submitting over the past week. With a fee, p.net could then

become credit card merchants and this problem overcome.

PayPal is not such a pal in my experience.

6. Up top member rated entry from 7 to 8 points, and maybe 4

images to qualify.

7. Introduce a maximum upload per week - a thumbsuck, 5.

8. What's with the hotmailism? Thousands use it and would be

unable to participate if hotmail addresses were barred.

9. Self-rating : I haven't as yet but appreciate that it's a way of

correcting an unjustified 1/1. Let it be, fun in a way - and makes

little difference in the long run.

10. Portfolio ceiling - introduce one, and each photo gets to hang

no longer than 6-12 months. Maximum 50 or so images. This

might keep photographers on their toes, encouraging them to

submit the new, and to experiment.

11. Worrying about rating (being popular) has a detrimental

effect upon one's creativity. We oughtn't to lop off an ear just

because no one rates/buys our work. Be mature, be humble, live

and let live.

12. REPORT A CHEAT hotline to the elves - YES! Excellent idea.

 

No disrespect to current (p.net) high performers, but some of our

most imaginative photographers aren't even in the top 100 - so

treat the "league" as a guideline only, and don't take it personally

if you're not rubbing shoulders with the POPULAR - this might be

a good thing. History proves that many great artists go

unappreciated during their lifetime.

 

Apologies, I wasn't that brief after all!

[william_baguhn1]

1) drop the numbers.

 

2) enforce valuable comments (i.e. longer than "asdf", not the same cut-and paste answer that have been posted for the last seventeen photos)

 

3) add a "I would recrop it like this". This would be more complicated to implement (java :( ), and possibly a big server hit (server side image map clicks). :( But, it should be very useful. I often find myself (when hanging out in the darkroom with friends) reprinting their last neg with a few changes that they may not have seen (and usually having them agree that it's better for it).

 

3.a) if several people recrop it similarly (suggesting a good improvement), offer an automatically generated crop of the picture to others who want to suggest a different crop. (i.e. many respected people have looked at this photo, seen potential, but wanted to enhance, and more than 10% picked a crop that was similar within 5% (of the other people selecting "enhanced crops"), so when Joe Blow looks to add his $.02, he sees that others have already said "this is how many of us think it should look", and he can either agree or disagree with them.)

 

The uploader should be able to disable various parts of this (no, don't show other people versions of the photo that aren't mine is the biggest that comes to mind).

 

4) there needs to be a way to downgrade the significance of bad advice. If someone says something that's just plain wrong, there needs to be a way for people more knowledgeable to slow the spread of this information. (i.e. "You should have used 800 speed Max film because it gives you the best pictures" could be countermanded by enough people saying "no, 100 speed film generally delivers better color and can show finer detail...". "corrections" should be emailed to the poster of the wrong/bad information. That is, comments should be rateable as "agree", "disagree" (and should be forced to say why, so that the information is actually useful...).

 

(Let me clarify there: there should be 2 types of comments, as someone else mentioned, technical and artistic; wrong technical information should be stopped and corrected; wrong artistic information should just be disagreed with but allowed to propagate. I've seen more people get 'riled up' and ready to add their insight when trying to correct something wrong than would offer advice on something that isn't interesting. Turn people's flaming instincts to good. :) )

 

I hope the situation works itself out. I'd love to post pictures, but... I just don't feel that it'll do me any good right now.

[kasigi]

It would be nice to have a search engine to display an actual list what sections I've posted to. I am somewhat befuddled at times and often forget what sections I have posted to so I can't always look to see if there are any new comments.

[bentleymrk]

<I>what prevents me from investing $75 and getting 5 fake@hotmail.com accounts and then screwing the folks I dont like with five 1/1s or 2/2s on all their photos? Nothing. </I><P>Well, nothing other than $75, a little time, and a real axe to grind. Will the trolls spend money in order to try and have an effect on people? Some will... but I think very, very few will. As it is, with unlimited potential accounts and basically no checking, it's far too easy.<P>But once again, I think the number of trolls is insignificant versus the number of honest participants. And even the ones who aren't so honest have, I believe, a right to be here. <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=200903">Here is an interesting example</a>. I happen to like some of this fellow's work. What's disturbing is that he rates all his own photos 10/10 or 9/9, and I've never see him rate anyone else's work above 1/1. Hence the low averages. While this sort of behavior probably gets social workers all excited, I simply shrug it off as sad and move on to the next person. The point is, should photo.net spend resouces developing some kind of aritifial intelligence system to keep ratings fair, or simply let the fringe mentality types, who are, once again, a statistical anomaly, excercise their right to be jerks? I guess I'm a Libertarian, as I favor the latter. <P>The "report abuse" button is a good idea. If the elves delete an account that has no photos, has never made a comment, but has only ranked folks 1/1 (or, conversely, has ranked one and only one photographer 10/10), then it is their right to delete it without explanation. OTOH, the example I used above is, I think, a perfectly "valid" member. He's made comments, uploaded many photos, and has (IMHO) some talent. He's just not particularly mature, which is his right. I would protest vehemently his removal from photo.net. I think before we start making suggestions about how to improve the software, we get some consensus about what the problems are. A lot of what I see being complained about on this thread are not problems at all, to me, but just the way the web works.

[mottershead]

I would be more than willing to pay a subscription fee to upload photos for rating and to participate in the rating system, which I basically like.

 

Regarding the Top Photographers list:

(1) being on the list should be based on 5-10 photographs, not 3.

(2) the ranking should be based on the member's top 5 photos, not all, even though all qualifying photographs should be shown when you click on a particular photographer. The rankings currently have as much to do with how the photographer manages his portfolio on photo.net as how good a photographer he or she is. For example, if I winnowed down to my highest-rated 3, I would currently be about 100 places higher.

 

Regarding the ratings:

(1) Just have one rating number. Don't label it "originality" or "aesthetics". Just rate how "good" you think the photograph is.

(2) Provide some guidance on how the ratings should be calibrated.

Should 10% of the photos be rated 1 (or 10)? Or is only 1 photo out of a thousand that bad (or good)? Show the distribution of all the ratings somewhere on the site.

 

Regarding the rating system: document the method for submitting a photo so that it will be rated.

 

Regarding the search by rating feature: Remove the limit of 30, perhaps let people page through them N thumbnails at a time, with N not more than 30. Allow search also by how many times a photograph has been "viewed". Let people classify their photograph by one or more pre-defined keywords (Nature, Street, Portrait, Nude, Landscape, Architecture, Child, Pet, Wildlife, Macro, etc.) and include this as an attribute in the search.

 

Other ideas:

(1) There should be a top-ranked Folders feature.

(2) Let people pick their "Most Interesting/Best" photographers/folders/photos, and provide site-wide search features based on this data. Who is on the "most interesting" list of the most people? Provide access to these lists. Who does Tony Dummett think are the most interesting photographers (if he dares to say).

(3) Let each member have his own Photograph of the Week, Folder of the Week, etc and provide access to this. Use this data to put photographs on the front page of the gallery.

(4) The idea of generating rankings/ratings by asking people to randomly indicate which of 2 photos they prefer is fascinating. It would probably require a lot of comparisons, but the results would be much more accurate.

[james___]

I come here to look at images. I know many others who do just the same. I like the numerical ratings system. I like the discussion and critique systems better. But how else besides a numerical ratings system can you cull the good images from the myriad bad images? If their are people here who rate their own highly, then after a while you get to know who is doing it. Sometimes when looking at an image it is easier to just rate it high or low depending on what you think of it. My high rating of an image may be a low rating for someone who doesn't like the subject matter. That's what critiquing is all about. Opinions. That's all. But I would recommend limitng posters of images to a couple a day or something. I get tired of seeing someones travelog or evening at the fireworks show. I don't like the idea of limiting someone just because they use a free server. I use a hotmail account because it is free and I can't have a paid account due to my computer being owned by my employer. If some idiot wants to go through the trouble of setting up ficticious accounts to give themselves a better score, well that's that. No big. We ain't in this for the money. What I would like to see is all the images to be critiqued on a thumbnail page so you could go directly to the images that appeal to you and skip the snapshots all together. 12 images per page? It would make it a lot easier to find what you like. Those images that don't get looked at would be dropped. Again, I like the numerical system. PSA, PPA, most other salons use this system and it works except for the purists among you. But most purists don't produce good images anyway. They're to pure. James

[nejattalas]

I got bored of this conversation...here's a part of a comment queue in one of my photos that I had to remove it because of this stupid conversation...

I hope someone will understand surely...

thanx

 

To Photonet Conscience

You are right.I felt ashamed of being at no:4 , being over many guys that are surely better than me...but I can frankly say that and you can check them,only 2 guys rate me high Aslan Oguz and Haluk OZOZLU(Turkiye);they surely are my friends. I don't mind and know the others...

And as the "Photonet Conscience" if you care these things! why don't you try to ask the ones rating people 1/1 all the time? and many times maybe with the clones you mean. Got what I meant? Wanna do something for that?

 

Now thanx for you deep interest especially on me and please take me down to wherever I belong to for You.I really want that. And ignore the others...

 

But please do something for the "1/1 raters". Personally I think there is no photo that belongs to 1/1. Even 2/3 might be acceptable if you hate it..

 

If you can do it clear!! but surely!!! I can take off all my portfolio as a promise and log off Photo.net . It's your turn now. OK? Are you in? thanx again

 

-- Nejat E. (edit your comment)

 

 

 

Consciences reply

Thanks for your answer, first of all you are not my enemy as I'm not yours. This is a war I declared on misusers of photo.net rating system. 1/1 raters will also have my replies sooner.

You get my attention as you were at the top of the list with 14+ rating points. "Oh my god" I said to myself and I want to see your photos again. First thing I decided in the ones that rate your photos was, they joined photo.net community at the same day they give the votes and they give similar rates (more then 7 points) one after the other, and they visit your all photos. Here are some names of that kind, may be you know them; Paul Kesser, Mandy Lawsonn, Glenn T.W., Frank JULGER, Tuna Reeves, T-Rex, Brett Adams. And kosta stepanovic and Zeynep Erdem may be your friends too. Yes you may worth such big points as all photo.net photographers do, I'll do my best for preventing such bad usages from now on.

 

One more thing about the names you given; Aslan Oguz, Haluk OZOZLU(Turkiye); they have also some suspicious raters in their photos, but before talking on that or taking action on them I need to make a deep observation. And we have so many other people needs inspection before them.

 

My last words; I want you to be in photo.net with all of your portfolio as you have different creative ideas, as some other photographers who deserve more rates and top places then you.

 

-- photonet conscience

 

 

 

To Photonet Conscience 2

To tell the truth...I was shocked to see myself on the top.The clone rates (if they are so) really bothered me so...The reason of my second entrance to photo.net was; when the rating breakdown system was on I noticed the ratings were not so usual or normal for me and other users... I had so many 10/9s and 1/1s. I checked out the raters' infos and realised that they had joined the community on that day(both 10s and 1s)...That seemed quite stupid and so many people had these rates even the ones on the top and the others.Then I decided to delete my folders...The other day I had some mails from friends that I should join back the community whatever happens...Here I am...The truth is I had some quick climb...But I don't feel good enough even with these rates...I rated 3-4 of my photos because they were my favourites...but not as good as 10/10 (you can see that) you know that I could rate all of them 10/10.But that was not fair.also you can see some people rating themselves 10/10.And there are still 1/1 raters altough "rating breakdown show"... There are some photos that I rated 10/9 or 10/10 just because I loved them. That's all.

A.Oguz and H.OZOZLU were just examples...Many members have also 1/1 raters joined on the same day...and unfortunately real 1/1 raters/users still that dunno the breakdown system :-)

 

To come to end..you are right.this is not a war but there is surely something you must fix out. My suggestion might be that to rate someone the user should have at least some photos or users can only rate with their comments...

 

I am really tired of this conversation on me...I am really busy enough with my job (but even for 5 minutes I try to look up for comments). And the worst; this is really breaking down my photolove.

 

thanx.......

 

-- Nejat E. (edit your comment)

 

 

 

To Mr Aslan Oguz and other peoples still interasted in this discussion

First of all I am NOT a worker or REPRESANTATIVE of PHOTO.NET. For that reason I choose "photonet" in my name field without the dot (not photo.net). I DONT have any relation with "Evil Princess of Domm". I'm here acting myself as "Photonet Conscience".

After I write my reply to Nejat E. a man named himself "Michael O'brein " come and voted all of Nejats photos with 10/10. This may be nornmal if he feels the photo worths this, but as you decide I may be like the "crazy people" as you said you see in your everyday clinical practice (its not a good thing a pyschology professor to call his patients as crazy people) and I have some feelings forced me to do a little research who is "Michael O'brein ", the one who writes his name wrong without the Capital "B" letter after "O'". I find he rated Osman Gagavuz's photo (http://www.photo.net/photo/295084 - the image still couldnt seen when I'm writing this), technically which is not appearing at the time he rated. Osman Gagavuz renamed himself like this but we know him as "Sadi Can Oguz(turkey)", yes he is Mr.Aslan Oguz's son. I afraid this case will grow bigger and bigger that I cant take care of it with my little time.

 

I also want to write about some other people who rates Mr.Aslan Oguz's photos named: Mustafa Karacagil, Fadil fidil, Fabio Souza, Valeria Souza, cem oguz, nilgun oguz, osman gagavuz and yes the "Michael O'brien" again. I am sorry to write this much but this was what I called suspicious ratings. I am sure you are Aslan Oguz the photographer of that great photographs.

 

One more thing I want to say that: yes Nejat E. and Haluk OZOZLU (Turkiye) may be good photographers and yes they may worth to be at top ten of the list (may be the top two person LOL) but all I want to see is honest rates. I am sorry that I give 1/1 to this photos as I think they worth at least 4 - 6 points, but this is just for taking your attention on this subject.

 

Regards!

 

-- photonet conscience

 

 

 

My comment on the photo

The camera position of this photo must be a little down from where it was, to have the perspective feeling much stronger. But the creative idea in this photo is good. Technically the DOF is a problem for me as it doesnt help us to percieve the hand is a photo in a photo. I love such discussions more then the one above and dont want to write both in the same box. This is why I write a second comment.

 

-- photonet conscience

 

 

to Mr Aslan Oguz

more then 2000 visitors doesnt mean all of them see the photo, this is just meaning they click the link to that page. I know the best photo is the one which is not grabbed yet, should it be Sadi Can get this mystical photo? LOL

And I will not use my identity in this job of conscience, just like a firemen, doctor or soldier whose name is not important then his/her aim.

 

And I wish you and your family a happy browsing in photo.net. Of course Mr. Karacagil too, but one thing he must take attention to do not give two ratings with the same name for a photo (like in: http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=289359 )

 

I am sorry for filling this page with long comments Nejat, but I know you prefer comments then ratings ;)

 

regards

 

-- photonet conscience

 

 

 

Have fun dear LOL

I am okay with myself...the problem is that I don't wanna be marked as something that you wanna mean...try not to disturb my visitors with your comments...I am okay anyway :-)

 

-- Nejat E. (edit your comment)

 

 

Last words for Mr.Aslan Oguz

Its pitty that you think my comments are stupid. I really dont deal with what you think because you are not thinking healthy.

Think once more; can anyone believe this photo of Nejat have 1448 visitors for 5 days total and Sadi Cans invisible photos have over 2000 only for yesterday? 2000 visitors per day is really outstanding! and its ok for me until someone rates this invisible images with 10/10 and spoil the game.

 

Everyone is invited to (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=178858 and http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=294058) for seeing I am not the only one thinking about Mr.Oguz and companies (who hates 1/1 for their photos) jobs in photo.net. I am sure this is a bad smelling thing and you can find more untill you stop digging.

 

I cant wait to see rating breakdown in community member pages, I am wondering why so many people give high rates and only to 13 - 11 photos (they are at least 10 photos belongs to Nejats). You can look at " http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=375310 " where it says "This member has rated 13 photos on this site, with average ratings of 10 for originality and 10 for aesthetics."

 

I'll not write you from here Mr.Oguz, I dont want to disturb Nejat's visitors anymore with the problems about you. Anyone who is interested in you and my conversation can visit http://www.photo.net/photo/287369 .

 

And Nejat: what do you think about my comments on your photo?

 

-- photonet conscience

 

 

 

This must be what they call "fostering discussion". :) I do like this photo by the way.

 

-- Dennis Keizer

 

 

to photonet conscience and Randy's comments...

thanx for your comment of course...it's a photo in photo as you say...it was the most suitable camera position for me...It was a photo in a magazine and I had some other photos around that one...you already can see a piece at the top and I did not want to see them so the position was okay for me...You know I don't prefer so much DOF at least in my macros...Mention this if I had a DOF problem I would have it in some of my photos...But check that I don't have so much DOF in all of my portfolio.So doesn't this seem to you a kind of style or choice?

 

-- Nejat E. (edit your comment)

 

 

to Vadim Makarov

I did not understand your problem...you must have been rated me before I delete all my folders...sorry but I wonder why 1/1 this time?

 

-- Nejat E. (edit your comment)

 

 

 

Haluk Ozozlu (Turkiye) and his old/best friend 1973 VW

 

As Mr.Aslan Oguz deleted his stuff your and my last words disappeared, so I want to write them here because I dont want to be rude, by giving no answer to kind men like you and Mr.Ozozlu. I wish to see Mr.Oguz's and Gagavuzs photos here again soon, As I have so many words for them to improve their photos.

 

This is your words for me:

hi this my last message I hope to you and I am on my way again...

1- I use a greek mail.That's right.I am Greek but I live in istanbul. So nothing is more normal than a Greek's using a Greek mail.. Okay?

2- Nejat E. and Haluk Ozozlu enters the critique forum at the same time...Right! H.Ozozlu is a photo journalist as seen and he has to travel the country for his job.So someone has to manage his photos..And It's me. As you say, whenewer I have time to post a new critique I call him and say "what's next sir?" that's why we have them at the same time...And also we like to see them together...Or some weekends we meet and do this as now :) But, the rates and comments of H.Ozozlu are real... He generally sends me a mail or phones me to do that...Because his english is not so good and he cannot use the computer well...He just tours around and writes down his notes...Translation and practice is my works for H.Ozozlu. Now..why do I do this? I like this and he is the one made me start shooting photos. Is Haluk a real person? if you think of this check out www.sihirlitur.com and discover his works...maybe it helps you to realise -if he has time to work on photo.net- or not... Haluk Ozozlu (the person next to me now) wants me to translate this.. "If you are bothered by Nejat's helps to me, we can quit it.I am busy enough with travelling the country and someone has to do it for me."

 

So...everyone may know that Nejat E. manages H.Ozozlu's portfolio like, translating and entering the photos critique section, and translate back the comments they have.

 

to come to end...H.Ozozlu sends you his VW that has made 500.000 km's for touring all Turkey. and surely his best regards.......

 

And My reply to you:

 

Thank you for your kind reply and make something clear for the community. I have no problem with you or Mr Ozozlu or Mr Oguz and Mr Gagavuz personally. I think you understand why I feel uncomfortable in this situation. Visible four guys enter the community and all the ratings changed (by the invisible suspects) all the thing gone out of order. And I have no problem with anyones nationality until he/she uses for this to make supporters from his nation. This is a thing I cant afford as this place is not a war area, this is the place for improving ourselves. I dont want to be in your place, I'm (my own ID I mean) is still under 700th place, and I know I have a very much way to go, so please do not take my words as jealousy.

 

Its ok that you write for Mr Ozozlu, but one more thing I cant understand is your problem with Emmese Gaal. You think she gives 1/1 to you and Mr.Ozozlu writes extra good things on her photos (may be you are joking on her as Mr.Ozozlu?, if so its also a bad thing as Mr so called O'brien do).

 

You said "But, the rates and comments of H.Ozozlu are real... He generally sends me a mail or phones me to do that..." and this happened to me think about it, he can send emails but he cant give rates? or he phones and tells you to vote a photo he didnt even see? Again I dont want to know the answer, so please do not write an answer. Every answer makes my paranoia go deeper, and I dont want to be Mr. Oguz's crazy patient one day, just for getting some honesty in this forum.

 

Greetings to MrOzozlu and his lovely VW.

 

Bytheway why he is not sitting inside of the car? isnt it his car ... LOL ... paranoiaaaaaaaaa.....

 

-- photonet conscience

 

 

 

huh you are a real paranoia man...LOL H.Ozozlu is new to computers.Really.I alost laugh at him for this but that's the truth...Sorry I have no other explanation for that...The thing with Emese Gaal is he realised Emese giving him 1/1 and he said "let's be gentleman and maybe she can be ashamed of herself." that's the point...got it? the other thing is he may really like some of her photos. That's all. Now my dear photonet conscience, my request from you is now to delete your comments from this page...Not because I am afraid of something but my visitors are getting bothered I think and this has been really a nonsesse conversation at least under this photo..If you still have any questions in mind we can continue it somewhere else or my e-mail is available. thanx for your kind understanding...Or I am planning to make this photo "invisible to public" but I know that you are not to do this to me... thanx anyway...

 

-- Nejat E. (edit your comment)

 

 

Thanks

First may I want you to delete the ratings that boosts this and other photos in your folder. I'll give you the names again to make your job easier : Andrew H., Paul Kesser, Mandy Lawsonn, Glenn T.W., Frank JULGER, Tuma Reeves, T-Rex, Brett Adams, Osman Diker (as known as Mr O'brien).

After this I'll remove all my comments and ratings (1/1's I mean) from your photos.

 

I know you are a kind person and you dont want to be in the place you dont deserve.

 

You can get help from Mr.Oguz or his teenager son for reaching the teenagers thay may give the ratings (As Mr.Oguz said).

 

-- photonet conscience

 

 

 

To my watch dog!

I erased my photos because Vuk Vuksonovic (He insulted me more than criticised me, but since he uses his own ID, I will not insult him, I hope he will be sorry because of his behavior)told me as an honest man what I am supposed to do and I did that. But You are still attacking me on this page and you disguise your ID as all filthy people, and I swear you again and again because you deserve this always, whenever yo disguise your ID. About the quality of my photos, so many people saw them, some of them praised and some of them constructively criticised, or did not like at all, but no one nows about the quality of your photos because you disguise youd ID. The quality of my photos is none of your busines. I am a doctor and scientist and I make my living as a doctor. I spend thosunds of US Dollars to photography as a hobby of mine but I did not earn even a penny from photography and I would not lost any think if my photographs are not good enough, like I did not earn anything, when I was on the Top Member-rated list, on the upper or lower ranks, no matter. As you know I am not such a kind man like Nejat, and whenewer you attack me, I can swear you at any time, because that is the language you understand best!

 

-- Aslan Oguz

 

 

photonet conscience

I wish I could if so.. but I can't manage things that don't belong to me...the only person I could reach by mail was Z.Erdem and she accepted to low down her rates... asking someone to lowdownd the rates seems already stupid but I did it :) that's all I could do... I thought you could kindly understand that... but you did not. I will prefer to make this photo invisible... that's really poor for it... also mind that you are starting to damage someones portfolio... I am sorry and that's poor for this photo... thanx

 

-- Nejat E. (edit your comment)

 

 

Nejat

Ignore this filthy man who disguises his ID, please do not take him serious. I will not decrease non of my marks because you and Haluk deserve those and he, even if he he accuses you two, he unconsciously appreciates that you are both great photographers and I will continue to rate your photos as much as I like,

Take care and ignore such "Pucht!" people.

 

And "the watch dog!", please do not site my name on this page, I do not have any relations to Nejat on this matter, apart from we are friends. Please use my e mail, but you can not do that; because of your filthy hiddin name!

 

-- Aslan Oguz

 

 

 

To Nejat

I thank you for your understanding, and as you see I didnt mentioned Zeynep Erdem's name. She has photographs in this community. The names I mentioned are the ones who entered the community, give you and the ones (who didnt want me to write their names here at the message above) high rates, and low rates to the ones who give you low rates then disappeared. They have no real interest in photography, just rate boosters as can be easily seen.

You can simply delete all your photos effected from that virus and resubmit them. I promise me and your actual friends and the comunity can rate your photos more healthy after that.

 

As in my messages before, I want you, Mr. Ozozlu and the other persons who effected from this "rate boosting" virus to be a part of the community. I dont want to damage anyones portfolio, but your portfolio is damaged by the rate boosters.

 

And many thanks to Mr.Oguz (I know he didnt want me to use his name here and write to his e-mail- and sure I will- but I want everyone to know my good wishes and appreciates to him on his behaviour) for acting like an honest man and cleaned the virus from his photos. I'll also want to critisize his photos and will be happy to help him improve his photos. Bytheway I believe I was his motivation during his last weekends photo adventure.

 

Greetings to all photo lovers!

 

-- photonet conscience

 

 

 

 

 

[nejattalas]

Mr. photonet conscience and other members..

these were the last words of mine...

[dennis_keizer]

Reposted from another thread.

 

 

Hello all. I started a thread on this subject last week. Though it had many responses, I think it was too political to make the permanent archives. Some of the individuals mentioned above have rated some of my photos as well. Some of them quite favorably, some not. The problem: It is too easy for people to make multiple names. The 1/1 raters and the people who create multiple names to rate their own photos 10/10 as well as having friends and family members rating their photos are what is destroying the integrity if the ratings system. Among some possible solutions that were suggested was to charge for a subscription. This might work but would discourage participation. I thought my suggestion was better. Here it is again.

 

In order to rate photos, one must have at least 5 (five) uploads AND at least 3 (three) of them rated by more then ten members.

 

If they don't meet this criteria they would still be able to comment and use the rest of the site. This also encourages two -way participation as well as making it more difficult to create bogus names.

It would not be difficult to incorporate this simple code in the server.

I hope photo.net is listening and considers my suggestion. The alternative is to scrap ratings all together because as it is now, they are meaningless. There is too much abuse.

[vadim_makarov]

Congratulations. You've reached the bottom of the longest photo.net thread. Just hate to add comment #155, consuming 236th kilobyte.

[peterbg]

a response i am seeing a lot (see the post before mine) is "the ratings are meaningless so we should get rid of them" well, it's clear that some people get a kick out of being highly rated, and of course searching by highly rated photos is a great way to see excellent stuff. so...keep everything the way it is. if the notion of being numerically rated offends your artistic sensibilities, don't look at your ratings! just because you don't find something useful doesn't mean other people don't. If someone is greedily rating themselves 10/10s ... is it hurting you? Do you feel deeply and profoundly offended about their fake photo ratings on this one website? Live and let live. If you know someone's ratings are wack...don't pay attention. Look at photos, rate them if you like, leave meaningful comments. Improve things for yourself and make your photo dot net time better.