'Hoodies On the Metro'

Outrageous, spirited hijinks getting on a train and during the ride,

then spying the presence of a camera caused these hoodies to go up and

the face mask to go before these youths allowed their group portrait,

on a recent Metro ride in Kyiv, Ukraine after their school class let

out.. Your ratings, critiques and observations are invited and most

welcome. Alternate caption: 'Hoodies: Where's My Gun?' for those who

listen to USA news. If you rate harshly, very critically or wish to

make a remark, please submit a helpful and constructive comment,

please share your photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! john

First two ratings, '1' scores.

A record.

I pushed someone's buttons with this photo, and that means they really were moved by this photo.

There is absolutely nothing deficient technically about this photo, so the objections must be to the subject matter:  Hoodies and youths with eyeballs looking sinister.  I have NEVER had such an adverse reaction to any photo in eight plus years here. 

Congratulations, both of you '1' raters, you have made my day!

You proved that this photo has enormous impact!

However inadvertently you did so.

You made my day.

Even passengers who saw this photo congratulated me!

As did my subjects.

Moreover, Ukrainians are pretty passive about such things, especially on the Metro, and especially with strangers, which gives their congratulations additional weight.

john

John (Crosley)

Perhaps, since  both '1' scores showed up as first rates, and my average after two rates is '1', there is a '1' rater with two accounts who's upset at this photo?

I never got a known '1' score before in days when raters' identities or rates were known, and a study of averages indicates I probably have not got any since anonymous rating started, but I can't verify that.

Now I got two!

Or maybe a new rater thinks '1' is the best and also has two accounts?

Bot?

;~)))

john

John (Crosley)

lol, oh boy...ive never seen a "1"....you must really suck john, hahaha

PS - I have wondered really...who exactly gets a "1"....I have never given one out, but if I never use it, what is it's purpose....it seems like the only true scale is 3-7....

Think it through.

One mark of a good phooto is 'does it move viewers?

 or

Does it cause them to think or react? 

If so, it may be judged an artistic success.

Technically this photo is far from deficient; focus is excellent for low light and exposure is right on.

Subject matter is timely, considering the incident in the USA with the killing of the young man, a sad affair, in Florida.

Since there are two '1' ratings, it seems likely someone who dislikes this photo or rates it badly either was a bot or a member with two accounts.

What are the chances my first two '1' rates in tens or hundreds of thousands of rates would be one after the other and on a properly exposed photo with timely subject matter, and an interesting photo at that?

I bet that member had two accounts; a doeppleganger account holder --  forbidden under the terms of service.

Since rates determine what photos get on highest viewed lists, this is a form of censorship and forbidden; and as such I have written to abuse@photo.net. 

I'm interested in their answer or if the basement ratings simply disapear (and will I inow if not told?)

I only know because they were the first two rates.

They seem to have scared off other raters; after all what do their rates mean in the face of two'1' rates, when rates are averaged.  Even a pair of '6' rates would yield a minimal average rate; well below par, meaning a pair of '6's would be practically meaningless.

A pair of '1' rates is almost unrecoverable and is the death knell for a photo's being seen, again a form of censorship.

By the way, these spirited guys were great fun, and we all had a good time during a Metro ride, taking this and other, similar photos, and so did other passengers who watched!

That's rare on the Metro, where everyone keeps to themselves.

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

At five ratings, first two were'1's almost immediately, then two 5's per mathematics, and then a six.

Were the '1's really true ratings?

Or an abuse of the system?

I can do math and averages and watched the ratings come in, so there is no doubt about the ratings.

I'm anxious to see how PN handles this.

I'm ready to be instructed, as this seems now to be a form of censorship; with two 5's and a 6, and two 1s, the ratings are 3.6 average with five ratings.

Interesting.

Kind of fun to watch someone try to destroy others' chances to see this photo on highest rated lists. 

A pair of '1's will inevitably keep this photo from getting on those lists which many viewers go to to find worthwihle photos.

This is an interesting form of censorship, and I and this photo appear to be victims.

Could it be that the 'hoodie' and death of the hooded young man in Florida, USA and subsequent debate has someone so invested they'd resort to some sort of underhanded chicanery to prevent more viewers from seeing this photo?

Does the hoodie content of this photo worry someone that badly?

If so  Shame.  Shame.  Shame.

john

John (Crosley)

Two ones

Two fives

two sixes.

average 4.0

After six ratings.

Any good second or third grader could easily do the math if they saw the order the ratings came in as I did so far; this is interesting. 

Usually, I don't care too much, and let the ratings fall where they may.  

This is censorship, now, I'm beginning to think. 

That's different.

john

John (Crosley)

Good Morning John, A very timely image with whats happening in the US. I like the image a lot, it has charm, character and I personally find it hysterical. Great shot from their posture to their eyes. I gotta throw this into my faves. Take care.

Best Regards,

Holger

When I worked with Associated Press at age 22, there were space shots to the moon, and the first two of them I wrote stories that were published world wide, one from San Francisco, my first place of hire, as a  brand new Associated Press reporter based on information from Ames Research Labs, Mountain View, CA and the giant Lick telescope outside San Jose observing lasers bounced off reflectors placed on the moon's surface.

The second time, shortly after I was transferred to Reno, Nev., a scientist at the University of Nevada, Reno, had filmed a controversial moon shot through a thunderstorm that no one thought threatening, but it was possible the moon  rocket had unexpectedly been hit by lightening.

In the university planetarium I got to review that scientist's film with him showing a direct lighting strike on that early Apollo rocket..  No one to that time knew for sure until then.   I had photographic proof; I saw it on film and wrote about; it later appeared late in peer-reviewed scientic journals I understand.

San Francisco, Reno of all places and front page world wide stories about the space shot:  those are places one would never expect to find moon shot stories from a first year reporter for a worldwide wire service with Cape Kennedy (Canaveral and Houston) covered by a phalanx of reporters.

Now there's controversy about 'hoodies', so when these fun youths covered their heads, I took their photos, and realized it was perfect for the controversy in the United States about that poor young man goingfor skittles in the gated community who allegedly 'looked suspicious' to one man, but who under the shooter's most favorable view of the evidence to date didn't deserve to die, whatever the true facts are, and even taking that other guy's story at face value.

These youths, age 18, and their girlfiends, age 16,and I  (and fellow passengers) were having a hoot as the Metro roared between stations most shots ruined because of slow shutter speeds and subject movement this being the ONE of all of them where subjects were perfectly still AND my focus was perfect.

I got the catch lights in the center guy's eyes perfectly; you can see me in them if you magnify enough.

Pretty good for one/thirteenth of a second under dim light at f 3.5, with a cheap lens.

I'm VERY glad you like this one.

Some one (or two) raters didn't and it got two 'one' ratings right at the start, which is why the ratings are so low, as there are a large number of other, high ratings.

;~))

It's been an attempt to censor this photo, I think. It's fun to point the finger at wound-be censors and call them out.

I'm no will-o-the-wisp about such things I believe in.

Ratings?

I got thousands of threes, and so what?

If I wanted a portfolio of hundreds of photos with only 6+ rates after a night of portfolio deletions I could have one of the highest rated portfolios on this service.

It's important to post interesting images, and I felt this filled the bill, no matter what the ratings.

I'm interestd that some unknown person or persons tried to suppress this from making the top-rated lists, so fewer would see it with their twin one-one rates.

Interesting.

Censorship raises its ugly head?

Software glitch?

Bot maybe?

john

John (Crosley)

Oh! I know the boy on the right. He is one of my 'Islamic Jihad' neighbors. Saw him just the other day throwing pipe bombs at school buses right before he got "shot deader than doornails". I don't recognize the other two but I'd not get too close -oops boom.

Meir, I won't scold you for the remark or make fun of anything in your life.

If your neighbors constantly are firing rockets overhead designed to kill and main onto your land and are committed to annihilating your country and you, then you have every right to have some gallows humor.

But these fun-loving young men won't understand, and they know how to find this photo here.

They don't know that you're Jewish, who the Islamic Jihad is, how they resemble them in this photo, or anything like that. 

They're just having fun hiding from my probing camera because their hijinks  were strong enough they didn't want their faces recorded with photos of their activities, however spirited and really harmless in the end.

And that's the words, 'very spirited but harmless and lots of fun'.  I had fun and so did they.  So did the passengers.

I want them (because they may read this) to know that you and your country are under attack by masked cowards that look like them, and on a constant basis. 

Beyond that, any similarity is coincidental.

That being said, however, many Ukrainians are quite anti-Semitic, but ask them why and they draw a blank. 

They may say  something like two bus drivers shouted one night on a snowy mountain top during a rest stop 'I love the world, I love everybody in the world (except the Yids).'

I asked the what was wrong with 'Yids', and they asked if I were a 'Yid' like that was wrong or a bad mark; and I said 'no', but persisted.

They couldn't come up with any reason to dislike the 'Yids' except they were taught that from an early age and lacked education about Jewish culture.

And they were driving from the center of Jewish culture in modern-day Ukraine -- Dnipropetrovsk.

Old attitudes die very hard, and may never die out.

There's lots homophobia but among young people increasing tolerance, so there is hope for other tolerances.

In any case, I doubt these kids ever thought of such things.

May your country have peace some day soon, Meir, and be free from threat of annihilation.

I've been in much of Europe and the Muslim anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli thoughts spoken there are simply amazing and outlandish. 

I'm absolutely astonished at the spoken anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish vitriol which is almost never voiced in the USA in  mixed company that I hear spoken by some of Europe's Muslim population.

john

John (Crosley)

I had an incident a couple of weeks ago where I instantly got a 1 as my first rating on two different images. I assumed someone had it in for me. I deleted the photos for some reason still unknown to me, but I did. I have been skeptical of ratings and am more interested in comments and the number of views an image gets. I have decided not to play the ratings came any more...at least I won't ask for them...will still give them for a 6 or a 7. I actually had someone figure out that I only gave them a 3 last year (don't know how) and they e-mailed me and wanted to know why I ruined their score. I explained I just didn't care for the kind of manipulation he used and promised not to rate his photos in the future.  This is supposed to be fun and helpful.  Anyway John, this is another great image.

No, I do know why I deleted the two images I mentioned above and its one of the reasons I decided not to ask for more ratings.....I didn't want my average ruined !?   How did I get to that point.....  :-)

I could have a portfolio with an average in the 6s just by trimming the lower scorers, but that would mean trimming a lot of interesting stuff away.

To what purpose?

This is not school, and the results are not going to get me in to Harvard Med or Law School.

My only objection to '1' and '1' scores as the first two since I figured almost all the rest are 5s and 6s, is that clearly someone is playing games with the system and/or with me.

In the top-rated list, those 1s I found are ignored, the the rates are much higher than shown in my portfolio, for an anomaly, and this rates well over 5 last I looked, though it's in the 4s when I write this on this page but higher in the top-rated list.

I decided to have some fun with the low raters rather than just steam and call attention to them.

Then I wrote abuse@photo.net and await a response, and think the top-rated averages may show that, which means visibility, my goal.

Other than that,  numbers don't mean so much, though when nobody's *ucking with the system, the rates rates are rather reliable indicators or reltive view worthiness.

I would suggest that you were too hung up on numbers, and hope this is not the harbinger of the future, these '1' ratings.

;~)

john

John (Crosley)

John, the point is I no longer want to care about the ratings on any level; they were becoming a distraction to what makes me happy regarding my own photographs. How I feel is really all that matters as well as whether they sell or not. Even that didn't matter to me that much as long as I got to show my images in a gallery setting every year or so. I do care about selling them more now, because I donate all the profits  from sales to people in need that I meet during my travels. I have two shows coming up in late April and some of the images that I will be showing I am showing because of ratings on PN. I guess I will see if the ratings matter in the real world.

I wouldn't post a photo if I didn't think it had potential. It was the thought that someone might actually be trying to lower a rating because they were annoyed with me that was the finishing touch for me. I had already been feeling like ratings were not that useful even when my scores were much higher. I want suggestions about how I might improve an image, but no longer want the rating to affect my view of my own images. Perhaps one should earn the right to rate a photograph. You must take the time to comment and then you get to rate. That might prove more useful…to me anyway. Make sense? Always fun to read your threads John.

great photo - I love the line of eyes (supported by line in background). Motion blur towards the edges conveys action. And indeed a topcial photo considering what recently happened in the US.

Anyone rating this with "1" either acted in bad faith or was moved by misinterpreting the subject matter.

I'm also rather sceptical about rating systems becuase they support only some - usually boring - mainstream taste. The most interesting photos are probably those where ratings are not following a gaussian distribution but which get either few very high scores, some low scores but no medium scores.

I like Paul's proposal of "earning" a rating.

Best regards, Wolfgang

I understand your feelings entirely.

The rating system is without any guidlines, to speak of.  It's sort of an autodidact sort of thing.

There was a time when Tony T's (you remember him) being signed on, was a sign no member in his right mind would post a photo for rating.

However, he left me alone; he gave me decent/if low, ratings, because I didn't taunt or complain, and at one time even complimented him on giving a proper rating which took some guts for him (other rates were less courageous and more 'personal' or just 'ignorant' I felt).

Others suggested in his portfolio comments maybe he'd be better off having a beer, than rating; his low rates were that feared,, and he never explained anything.

But how do you teach rating?

I knew a crazy new attorney; quite almost out of her mind, who misunderstood most things.  I had a successful insurance, disability, injury, medical practice and like most attorneys couldn't get a referral for such work from the county bar Lawyer's Referrral Service because I had never had a jury trial.

Jury trials in that business were/are exceedingly rarre except in multi-million dollar cases, especially to trial's finish unless an attorney is using a jury trial to build a resume.

This woman had a jury trial witin six months after opening her practice after passing the bar (she was older) and lost it thoroughly and flatly, though it probably was settleable.  She wanted a trial for her resume and got it, client be damned.

She then was considered more 'able' and 'experienced' that I, though I had a huge rating for excellence in my practice from fellow attorneys and judges and got difficult and often such unusual setttlements that NO ONE ELSE COULD EVEN IMAGINE FROM SOME CASES TURNED DOWN BY EVERY ATTORNEY IN TOWN, INCLUDING THE GUY WHO SUED OTHER ATTORNEYS FOR MALPRACTICE.

This oddball, slightly crazy attorney suddently had better credentials for having had a 'jury trial' than I with years of top notch experience and literally thousands of cases finished with results almost in every case that were outstanding and better than achievable with a jury trial. 

Her case never should have been taken, let alone tried.

So, was she qualified?

Is a rater who makes lots of criticisms qualified?

Does doing more, or special things mean better?

In my example, I was considered a top notch attorney, and she was definitely not (at that time for both of us, long ago), but she jumped in and got a credential that really meant nothing for her true worth as an attorney by pushing a loser case through a useless jury trial and lost it soundly -- a waste of time for her client and mainly for her benefit.

So, if we have qualifying for giving ratings by giving criticisms, everyone's going to be giving crappy criticisms, such as 'nice photo' or 'needs more contrast' and that's gonna be that; they'll earn their 'jury trial' credentials (oh, I mean their right to rate on Photo.net (see, there was a Photo.net point to my story.)

I took the good practice of law seriously; she took it as something to advance herself, her client (if she even knew the difference) be damned, and what she did was pretty ugly from a legal standpoint - a total waste of time.

That's how i view your proposal.

There needs to ne tutorials, but Photo.net's big draw is you get to rate right away with no credentials, and I don't think that will change. 

It is a problem to allow '1' ratings; I wrote to abuse@photo.net and note that on the highest lists, the '1' ratings are not figured in, but they are in my portfolio.

In any case, it's stupid, except heretofore the ratings have been a pretty reliable indicator (usually) of the relative viewability of the majority of submitted photos.

It's really quite amazing, just as the collective recall of 12 jurors is quite amazing even though one or the other may appear to be snoozing in the jury box.  When they all get togther in the jury room, they didn't miss much. experts note.

Don't put down the rating system too much; it's pretty good, but it's not a good judge of what is gallery or museum worthy, this is a club and not an 'art' club'.

It's for photo aficionados, not artists or gallerists.

For those the idea of a few high ratings and a few low ratings make sense; that shows passion was inspired in viewers, pro and con.

I'd be interested in hearing much more about your exhibitions and sales.

That has my great curiosity; please tell me more privately.

I'm certainly not  taking photos I think like yours, but I've been told mine are gallery/museum worthy but my mentor (with a Lucie Award) got disabled and no longer can mentor.

I'm on my own and can use advice.

My e-mail is on my bio page; I'd love to hear from you, please if you can spare the time.

I asked for some help from blogger George Barr, and he graciously offered some help with his friend, publsher of 'Lenswork' magazine. I'll follow through with that, and I'm now asking others for their advice/help.

Thanks for the comment on the writing/comments here.

Feedback on them is welcome.  They're not required reading but are meant to be fun! 

Sort of like John's salon.

john

John (Crosley)

Don't sell the ratings system short.

I have learned big lessons from it in what appeals to viewers.

Photo.net is my test audience.

Now after submitting for comment, I know what serious amateur photographers think is good work and also what they and the public who come here will click on, and that's got great value and is not to be undersold (Paul G., please note!)

This makes Photo.net a great 'focus group'.

I look at it that way.

I get great advantage by taking such a positive view.

Occasionally, there's an irritation.

Yes, two '1' ratings in a row is 'bad faith', or a 'bot' clear and simple.

I appreciate your feedback; that's what is so important about this forum.

I also get some of the BEST critiques in all of Photo.net I think by keeping the discussion pretty free wheeling.

Best wishes.

john

John (Crosley)

Someone once (so I heard) asked Bobby Fischer how to become a good chess player. Bobby replied "make good moves".

Q.  'Where are the canned tomatoes' a woman customer would ask.

A.  "On the canned tomato aisle.'

Flip is not confined to Bobby Fisher.

john

John (Crosley)

No flip intended. Since the discussion turned to ratings, I simply said that a good foto does not get a rating of 1. This is not a great foto but it is not a foto deserving a 1 and  it never got a 1. I don't know where you and Paul get your errorneous information on ratings.

Interesting... and a bit funny.. Very nice shot, congrats you!

Best regards

Tural

Above I wrote: "I don't know where you and Paul get your errorneous information on ratings." Better said is how you and Paul are able to hack into the system and get this rating information which I don't get. Enlighten me.

A great image! 

Simple answer to a convoluted and accusatory interrogative.

After two views and two ratings the average was '1', indicating two ratings at "1' rate each.

No mystery when one sees that.

Except how two people give me my first two '1' rates ever (that I know of, i tandem, without being doppelgangers.'

john

John (Crosley)

(no hacking involved, first rates are visible to me)