ve red

...

When I initially posted this photo it was rated 3-3. Then there were about 8 ratings of 3?s and fours. Then as time progressed the hate raters had done their worse and other legitimate raters started to rate and the rating soared. Since then there have been 9 ratings that average about 6. [update, since then 5 in the high 6's.] I have noticed this pattern of early hate rating on several of my photos. I don?t know what it should be rated nor do I care. However, the ratings do effect how many people get to see images and skews the system of allowing better photographs to have wider circulation. So for those who like to hate rate; you should contemplate which finger is being shown in this photo.

 

amen!

Critique and asking for critique is not the same as fishing for compliments, or asking for praise. I personally don't feel like this is that great of a photo, and would tell you if I felt that...but I would also offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, which many don't. I think that the lighing is interesting, but it's really not saying anything...remember content is everything. It can be beautiful, well lit, but needs to communicate. That's why you're gettting 3's, not because people are haters- some people just have different taste and different quality standards. I must say I appreciate it more than the latest loon eating a fish photo for the 1 billionth time, but that's why I would give it a 4, not a 2.

I'll be honest here, I would give this a 1. Its red, not well photographed technically, and I find it lacking in interest. Complain less, photograph more. Don't try to be artistic in photography when its not needed.

Thanks Sylvie. I find your comments to be candid, thoughtful, interesting and insightful...like your photos. Why would I expect anything different... anywhere you bite an apple it tastes like apple. A red apple of course.

 

Three theories: 1] A few people get off on reviewing all photos and get their jollies by zinging them. 2] A few people want their photos to have more prominance, after all, relative ratings are all that is really important, so they knock down other photos. 3] A few people with some narrow standard of photography and narrow esthetic values and criteria have appointed themself as the esthetic thought police.

 

By the way, I have also seen some lame photographs by certain photographers get disproportionately high ratings. I suspect there is a little funny business here too...my guess is that it is by the same people.

 

As I write this, I realize that I have fallen into a tarpit, worrying about the meaningless ratings. I cant believe I have been suckered into thinking about them and talking about them.

 

To the extent that I talk to people here, that is the last thing in the world I wish to discuss. So if I can help it, this is the last I will mention it.

 

Hmmm...two lovely women who post nude photos of themselves online, like my photos and two guys with obsessional criteria, do not like my pix. As I tally those ratings, I would say this is a perfect score. I have alientated 2 people I would want to alienate and found rapport with two people I would like know better. Photography is about communication and the real trick to communicating is to communicate with the people you really want to communicate with. This is the bottom line. Checkmate. I win, you lose.

 

Jacob Tallman

Hello JR,

 

I just wanted to drop by and say hello. I know exactly what you mean about the progress of the rating system. I tend to get a bit hacked off and pull my images after the hate rating (but I just think of it as misanthropy).

 

Best wishes for the future. And before you ask, no I don't post nude pictures of myself.

 

Pete

Dang!

Your photo was singled out for attention. 3 for aesthetics, 4 for originality.

 

So you think it's an achievement to make friends with women who post nude photos of themselves (as you think)? You really need to get out more often.

As a result of this discussion and the Sylie Lueders well intentioned thread, the administrators apparently removed 284 ratings from my photos with an average rating of 6.03 moving several photos from mid 5s to 3s and discovered a host of nasty people. I guess I have learned about the other side of this website. This tarpit is darker, stickier and stinkier than I had expected. I wonder if I will keep posting here. Either way my opinion of this site has plummeted.

Maybe I'm showing my limitations, but I can not fathom what are you trying to say here. 2/4

Jr,

 

I am inclined to agree with you toally as to what is going on at pnet i am a new member and i find a lot of things that go on with this site not good Point in fact the recent removal of Anna & Barneys work. I am attaching a copy of my attempts to communicate with pnet for all the above to see the problems that have happened to Jr and others are not isolated events. I would strongly urge that others start taking a greater interest in what is going with pnet if you dont then why pay them money to show your individual works. Jrs photo here is being used i think to make a point and i dont belive that it was intended to viewed as a masterpiece take note it is pnet who are at fault here.

 

Jr, all the best

 

St 666

 

Mr Mottershead,

I am constantly sending emails to photo. net and i as yet have not had the courtesy of a response i have also emailed you and had the same response why? I have recently become a member of your site and i am experiencing many strange things one minute my ratings for my work are high then the next they have been removed and no explanation has been given. You have removed other artists work and again no explanation has been given. If this is the way your company conducts its business then you are misleading its members, you should post your reasons for making alterations to peoples accounts and you should have the courtesy to respond to your members and non members emails. At present you seem to be content in taking peoples money and doing what you want with their sites this is abusive, i hope this time you have the courtesy to respond with a full explanation to this email.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

St Anslem

JR you sound a bit paranoid. Taking any medication? The photo.net database engine works the ratings. I doubt if ANY photo.net staffer has the time or interest to "fix" your ratings.

They decided to reduce the rating on this photo a second time.

 

First on 8/23 Photonet reduced it by 26 ratings averaging 5.53.

 

Now, on 9/25 12 ratings removed by Photonet from this photo with an average rating of 6.34. This is among 364 rating removed from my portolio today with an average rating of 6.48 and in addition to 284 ratings removed from my portfolio on 8/23 with an average rating of 6.03. Making a total of 668 rating removed with an average rating of 6.28. These ratings matter because they effect how many people see an image and therefore lowering ratings is a form of censorship.

 

 

Photonet has decided to censor my photos and limit their exposure. From 10's of thousands of hits, I now get hundreds because the photos are removed from critiquing and reviewing. I only have one thing to say to that: Bye.