raywei Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Have a suggestion, but I don't if anybody had this already. I think it will help if a comments area is enabled for those who have no uploaded photos. It may help solving one problem: irresponsible low ratings and abusive comments. For now, if they have no photo, you can't reply to their ratings/comments on their pages. It may reduce the work load of the abuse department at PN as well. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Do you mean you cannot "return their favor" by similarly commenting or rating one of THEIR images? (Read: revenge) If you have a comment on a rating or comment they give you then you email them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 You should not be replying to the comments and ratings of people who DO have photos uploaded on those photos. That is an abuse of the comments pages, which are for comments on the photographs, not for bickering or even polite discussion about the person's ratings and comments on other photos. The comments thread on a photo or a portfolio is for discussion of THAT PHOTO or THAT PORTFOLIO -- not for rebukes or even polite discussion about that person's behaviour anywhere else on photo.net, or any other subject. Such discussion is off-topic and will be automatically deleted, no matter how polite. If someone seems to be making abusive comments and ratings on your photos, report them to the abuse moderator at abuse@photo.net. Do not take it unto yourself to rebuke people in their photo discussion threads when you think they are rating your photos too low, or making negative comments. Otherwise, it will be you who ends up being the subject of action by the moderators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raywei Posted June 21, 2004 Author Share Posted June 21, 2004 Maybe I didn't make it clear -- personally, I don't want "get back to them". I have a few of those, and I didn't even bother to say a word. But I have seen many users outraged by the irresponsible ratings. This is not a way of revenge, but it will make the abusers think twice -- because they will be identified and recognized by, let's say, even the friendly discussions on their own pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 The area for reporting abusers is the abuse@photo.net mailbox. It is against our site Terms of Use to use any public posting area to embarass or humiliate any member or to put him on public trial. Vigitilantism exceeds all other forms of abuse on photo.net by far -- people taking it upon themselves to discipline other members who they consider abusive. It also complicates dealing with abuse because by the time the moderator arrives it is often hard to tell who is the abuser and who are the vigilantes. Let the moderators decide what is abusive and let them deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macgregor_anderson Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Why not make the rating system anonymous (except to moderators)? Probably lead to more abuse I guess of the former less severe kind but would eliminate that overwhelming problem of retaliation. If that's not feasible, why not make the ratings system more transparent? Instead of just see this members top rated photos, how about see last 100 photos rated, or something like that. Help a member get an idea of what the rater is up to. Do they only like landscapes and hate photoshop composites? That sort of thing. Finally, why not place the rating tutorial in a more prominent position on the site, and word it a bit more strongly? Especially the bit about photos of french poodles. Either take that bit out, or lay the rules down clearly. I think it could eliminate the root cause of lots of abuse. By the way, I agree strongly with Ray that there should be a public area available for discussion, positive and negative, under each raters name. It would promote a more open dialog. That's assuming you don't just go anonymous instead, which has it's own merits. Any abusive dialog there could be moderated just as it is everywhere else on the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Everyone who leaves comments can easily see if there has been follow up, now that a new feature has been added to everyone's workspace page. The place to respond to a comment on your image is in the comments section of that image. You can't make people read previous comments (as was proved recently in an experiment posted just a couple days ago), nor can you make them participate in a discussion. However the site could do a much better job encouraging discussion rather than simply mentioning the comment option at the end of a long, hard-to-find ratings tutorial. Most 'low' rates and cryptic remarks are not personal. They're simply responding in kind to the style that was played out on their images by previous raters and commenters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raywei Posted June 21, 2004 Author Share Posted June 21, 2004 First off, I thank you all for posting answers here. If we look at those VERY LOW RATERS, how many of them have uploaded photos? Only a few. Then I ask myself, why? Maybe they created new accounts just to low-rate others? I hope not. So let's find out. I agree with MacGregor for listing "last 100 photos rated", because if he/she never rated 6 or above, we are in the dark about the preference of this person, who maybe just not abusive at all. By the way, there was this one guy who posted hundreds negative comments on other's photos. But he has one photo, so people could talk back to him in various manners on his own page. I actually respect this guy -- he believes what he believes and sticks his neck out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macgregor_anderson Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 I'm sure this has been discussed before, but a two page search didn't bring it up and I figured I'd just bring it up since it is somewhat relevant here. Have you considered removing the 1 and 2 ratings from the scale? I'm not sure they serve much purpose at this point since most active members don't use them. Rating a 1 or 2 is of course not abuse by definition. However, the ratings are so rarely used that when they are, it skews things. It's fair to say I think that the majority of 1s and 2s given out fall into the "retaliation" category or come from people disregarding your advice in the tutorial on subject matter. In theory it shouldn't work like that, but in fact it does. A 1 or 2 vote is the equivalent to telling someone their photo is "bad" as a comment, and I don't think that adds anything constructive to the process at all. It can also have a substantial impact on the average, removing the photo from further rounds of critiques. So as an abusive tool it is quite functional. Limiting the low rating to "below average" or something similar might make this a more pleasant environment (clearly important to some members) without realistically damaging the credibility of the ratings process. Just another idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Why does it matter if someone has posted photos? As Brian points out, it wouldn't change anything. It sure wouldn't improve anyone's photos, which should be the objective of all this. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumpster001 Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 got a 1 or 2? so what? got a 6 or 7? so what?? if these superfluous numbers affect your photography or you in any way the problem is elsewhere, not in the rating system. but if you can't live without these ratings, you can always look "highest rated photos by this member" link in the member page of the person who rated you. chances are that 99 percent of the times, you'll end up with a chuckle. if he has a good taste and still rated you low, then that's that. opinions differ, that's what he or she thought of the shot. so move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raywei Posted June 21, 2004 Author Share Posted June 21, 2004 Jeff and Balaji, the point is to have a two way communication, so the photographers can speak to the high/low raters on their pages. Just like the constructive communication we have here. This is not about being pissed off by low ratings. Some of us really don't care. Because the default display is on the number of ratings, I rather have 70 people rated me 1/1 than 10 people rated me 7/7. So I have more people view my photos. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 If the two way communication is about the image, you can just do it on the image. Where else would it be done with people who have images posted? On their images where it makes no sense at all? Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raywei Posted June 21, 2004 Author Share Posted June 21, 2004 Jeff, how would you ensure the rater would come back and see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Ray: The photo.net Gallery is not a chat room and another member's photo pages are not the place to engage him in a two-way conversation on any other topic than those photos. If he cares to revisit YOUR photos and discuss his rating or comments in the comments thread of those photos, that is his prerogative, and that is the only venue for discussion of that photo, unless you are able to engage him in an email exchange. The comments on a photo must be about the photo. They are not a chat room; they are not a convenient place to conscript the photographer into a discussion of something else that you want to discuss; they are not hostages for the good behaviour (by your lights) of the photographer who uploaded them. We don't have moderators regularly patrolling all the photos to enforce this rule, other than the POW; but if somebody complains about your using his photos in this way, your comments will automatically be deleted and if you persist, you will be banned from the Gallery. I hope this is clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumpster001 Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 besides, if the person really cares about having a dialogue, he or she would check on the "follow-up" link from his own page, and you can still leave a question for him on your page. but you're missing the point. if a person cares about giving critiques or inclined to having a discussion or dialogue, he wouldn't be a hit and run with 1/2 in the first place. hell, he wouldn't even rate. and you want to corner such a character into having a debate or chat? no point bothering and not worth it, imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raywei Posted June 21, 2004 Author Share Posted June 21, 2004 Yes, there are hit and run raters. Today, after I posted this message, some guy went on my pages and rated below everage ratings to dozens of my photos. This guy didn't care to say a word and there is no way I can talk to him. What do I do? Post a message on every photo of mine? Besides, if he doesn't have a comment area, how do we politely say to him: please don't rate my photos? I know this is a community and he has rights to rate, but at the same time, we have the same rights to say "Don't rate my photos". Fair enough? This is not an IF, I know people want deny some rators. But they can say it to their face, even politely. There you have a problem. Remember the famous SH*T photo a few days ago? That didn't have to happen. However, again, let me be clear. I welcome ratings -- high or low, with or without comments. Rather, I am thinking a better way to build a better and fair community here. In my opinion, there is no better photo website than Photo.net, let's make it even better. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raywei Posted June 21, 2004 Author Share Posted June 21, 2004 Brian, I understand that this is not a chat room. But for a low/high rater who has a photo uploaded, people can choose to comment on rater's general view page or on the page of the rated images. However, for a low/high rater who doesn't have a photo, people can only have on choice -- on the page where the image was rated. Why the difference? If raters without photos would tend to rate lower, then it just proves my point. If not, let them receive comments on their own pages just like those who have photos. It seems only fair. Cheers again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 I don't think you really understand what constitutes a 'chat room' comment. You have offered 34 comments so far today, two of which provided some useful information. If Bailey had said "it's not really all that great" would you be satisfied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www_raywei.com Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 My 34 comments, useful or not, it's your opinin, and I respect that. You see, you enjoy this fair communication channel, which in principle, is what I promote in the first place. If Bailey had said "it's not really all that great", yes, I would be be satisfied, in a sense that he has the choice to say it. To paraphrase somebody, I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. My point is -- I am getting more clear myself on this during the discussion, so if I wasn't clear before, my bad -- the point is there shouldn't be any difference between the raters who have photos and those who don't have photos in terms of receiving comments. They both should be treated exactly the same in terms receiving comments, or chat, whatever we call it. It's about choice. A photographer who has been rated high/low should have the same choice to communicate to the raters with or without photos. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Far too many people who rate respond in kind - high, low and middle - when given the opportunity. Rating and commenting without regard to history or social considerations has become a rare commodity although less so in smaller groups out of the limelight. People are not rewarded in any way for trying to be objective, whereas the benefits for spending unlimited social currency are there for all to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_fenner Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 Speaking of ratings Ray, could you explain something that puzzles me. Looking through your photos and ratings, you seem to have two personalities - Ray Wei and www.raywei.com. Based on a sample of a dozen, you've rated quite a few of your own photos - and always with 7/7.<p>You also have quite an admirer in Lin Lily, who has rated 18 photos, 17 of which are yours (the other must have been the wrong link!). 10 of those 17 get 7/7, 4 get 6/7, and two get 6/6. You have another fan in Lilacina R.C who has rated 48 shots, 44 of them yours, 29 getting 7/7, nothing getting less than 6/6. Both your split personality and your friends are very nice to you.<p>What was that abuse email again??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_fenner Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 My log-in details are working again. The alter-ego www.raywei.com has rated 31 of your shots, Ray. 18 get 7/7, nothing gets less than 6/6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stefanovandelli Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 It has been estimated that a comment area for .[.Z would be so big to require another server upgrade. Non enough funds for that server size. LOL ;-) In any case, I completely disagree with the idea. No photos = No comments, any other communication IMO should happen through private email. "It may reduce the work load of the abuse department at PN as well. " More likely it would increase it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 Ray, I'm sorry but you need to understand how the Gallery is supposed to work, or else you are going to find yourself being banned. (Unless Jeremy bans you for creating bogus self-rating accounts. It looks like he has decided just to delete those accounts and give you another chance.) There isn't anywhere on photo.net for you to interact with people who comment on your photos unless they voluntarily choose to come back to those photos and interact with you, or they respond to an email. That is by design; it is intentional; it is on purpose. That is what it means when we say that photo.net is not a chat room. It is not a condition of rating and commenting on photos that people provide you with an opportunity to respond. They are not obliged to explain or defend their ratings or expand on their comments. There is no place where you can demand that they do so, other than on the photo in question, and it is not considered a problem that they might never read that demand, and they are not obliged to answer it. There is no asymmetry between people with photos uploaded and those without when it comes to responding to their comments -- because the photos of other people are off-limits for comments unless your intention is to comment on the photo and not any other subject. Get it? You put your photos out there and people rate them and comment upon them. If you don't like the comments or ratings, it is too bad. You have to take it. You don't create bogus accounts to manufacture more ratings that you like. You don't go looking for the photos of low raters so that you can comment on their ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now