'Hoodies On the Metro'

I am older.

I recognize and communicate well with those not of my generation as these 18-year-olds and their 16-year old girlfriends soon found out (much to the delight of Metro riders (mostly) who figured out what we were up to.  There were lots of smiles and few looks of disapproval from normally withdrawn Ukrainians -- they tend to withdraw on their Metro but not these guys.

john

John (Crosley)

Thanks for the high compliment!

john

John (Crosley)

Interesting. On my screen until 5 ratings (at least 5 maybe more) there appears a msg "not enough to count average". See attachment. Thereafter, the rating average is posted and the raters names are posted  in alphabetical order but not their respective ratings. I cannot know the sequence of the ratings or raters.  This is the scenerio I see for all posts not just mine on.  So I remain sceptical.

You see no ratings on the photo screen until five rates, but on the folder screen they show up from the first - both rates and views.

I am interested in why you don't ask questions, instead say you're 'skeptical' which is in effect calling me a liar or a man who doesn't understand how things work; its very bad for relationships and is profoundly the cause of what has caused previous difficulties between you and me.

If you had phrased it as a question, no problem, but instead you phrased it as 'I remain skeptical' which is saying you disbelieve me' which is a foolish thing for you to say given then great accuracy you know I go to.

More care Mister goes a long ways to a continuing good relationship. 

I saw what I saw, and it was what I reported, under 'folder view,' not individual photo view.

You went to a lot of wasted effort to try to disprove something when a simple question would quietly resolved all.

john

John (Crosley)

Good. Where/what is the folder screen? Is it a tab? With the ratings I get maybe I don't want to know. Our relationship is always good. It justs seems sometimes to be otherwise.

ah so. Now I see. folder screen -> show details. Never knew that. Now I am not secptical. You know Missouri is the "show me state".

If you 'invented' a fact, distorted it, or somehow got involved in any distortion in any way, you lost your job.

That is the background I can from at my first serious, post-university job, Associated Press.

I carry on that tradition here, though I don't write news here.

If I write something as fact here, you can be pretty sure I don't just pull it out from between my butt cheeks.

You have always known that, so I regard comments that you were 'skeptical'  as taunts.

You have long known that too.

Next time, simply ask a question, please, it's much more polite.

john

John (Crosley)

taunts. not at all.

 My folder screen: A. 4 ratings; no average given B. 5 ratings; averge rating given. C. 2 ratings; no average given. D. 3 ratings; no average given.

I complained to abuses@photo.net about the twin '1' ratings and the '1' average.

Apparently I found a hole in the system, and they plugged it.

The ratings did show after one rate on a certain view, but now no longer.

I found that out today on a post and was surprised.

Now you would be entitle to be skeptical if you had not paid attention before.

So, you have finally been right, but I also was right for the time in which I reported.

john

John (Crosley)

In my black and white, major folder, there's a newly-moved photo that had four ratings only of six or higher, not many ratings but high estimation by the few raters.

So I moved it.

Now on viewing it, the ratings don't show.

The system's been gelded.

(ouch)

This experience and my calling it to their attention has caused the Administration to 'fix' the system's to become more opaque in the one way one could 'see' and 'identify' rating numbers.

Sorry about that, but it served a purpose; the '1' ratings did not count in sorting engine folder views, though they do count in the average on the photo in my portfolio,I think but cannot verify.

john

John (Crosley)

"that which we call a rose by any other name...."

When Shakespeare wrote the above line he was attempting to explain that no matter what the rating, the photo still remains the same.

Despite the above colloquy inspired by the true discovery of back back initial '1' ratiings, today I posted three photos:

1.  A very long horizontal, wider than wide screen, just of blue eyes, four of the. eyes, all of young women, but faces not visible from substantial cropping.

2.  A photo of  very old woman on sidewalk motivating herself with aid of two canes.

3.  Very heavily made up face of middle aged woman, far frame left, tribute to photographer Bruce Gilden, who is famous for his photos of eccentrics, weirdos and very different looking people among life's ordinary people. or picking up that 'odd look' and this photo had what I felt was that 'odd look'.

None was ever expected to get more than ordinary/middling rates, and maybe low rates for the last one.

So what?

I post what I will.

Always have.

I get exercised over twin, initial '1' rates only for a moment, or when I'm called a liar by someone who doesn't do homework, then take more photos and move on.

And I acknowledge truth when pointed out, and even when something appears true to others due to change in Administration handling, as I did here, but I move on quickly and take hundreds more photos - I'm severely backed up, now, and must move on further.

A photo is a photo and a rating is just a number -- the important ratings are from those whose opinion matters, though in some events the totality does count for something, but less and less these days - I know what I like and what my numerous critics like who write their critiques and that's pretty good for me.

PN is awash in pretty darn good photos, and ratings are not getting better; they're getting tougher and worse; some best photographers have fled, inexperienced photographers and newbies without traaning are rating (not critiquing generally) and so it goes -- that's life, but the alternative is not to get one's photos seen, and that's worse.

That's just life.

I'm reconciled.

Frankly, always have been despite the occasional outburst.

john

John (Crosley)

From a 'racial incident statement' and the 'rights of youths without fear to wear hoodies', to the present widespread use of balaclavas, this photo, taken in about 2012 in Kyiv, Ukraine appears now (2014) to have quite another possible meaning.

john

John (Crosley)

Surely you are not connecting low ratings to Trevon Martin?  Like maybe an NRA plot against you? :-)

Ratings, high or low, had no consideration in my comment, next above.

I just made the observation that face covering 'hoodies' have a similarity to the 'in-vogue' balaclavas that are now more prevalent and that 'styles have changed' with this photo presaging a new 'meaning'.

What are you smoking?

john

John (Crosley)

I don't smoke.  You suggested the 1's are plotting and later alluded to Travon who wore a hoodie as a "sad affair".

Glad you were not making a connection.