robertbrown

P.S. Christopher, I loved your Pinot analogy . . . .

John,your advice about ratings is of course sensible. For example, some one like Robert Adams' (Macarthur Fellow Genius Award, shows in most major museums including MOMA, prints $3000+ at the Fraenkel Gallery) photos would probably average in the 3's on PN, as would a number of equally famous photographers. There photographs just won't appeal to the casual viewer.

Jay and Mark, at the end of my post that started this thread I noted that the system needed to be tweaked so that popular photographers aren't penalized for being popular:

 

"One suggestion to improve the top rated page is to make sure all photos get their fair share of rates in the RFC. If people (friends, fans, mates) rate outside of the queue, it shouldn't count toward their RFC quota. I see many semi-popular photographers with only 3 RFC rates vs. 13 rates total. People should not be penalized for for being popular, just as they shouldn't be rewarded for being popular."

 

I'm sure Brian can take care of this fairly easily.

I just wanted to post a public thank you for making some changes to

the TRP. While the photographs may not be better (I have a

suggestion to improve that), it is certainly a much fairer way of

doing things. I, and many other dedicated PN users, are very happy

to see a wide variety of photographers and photographic styles now

being featured. Bravo!

 

And for those who like to mate rate, they can just click on average

and pretend nothing has changed, though I'm sure the mate rating

brings far less satisfaction than it did before.

 

One suggestion to improve the top rated page is to make sure all

photos get their fair share of rates in the RFC. If people (friends,

fans, mates) rate outside of the queue, it shouldn't count toward

their RFC quota. I see many semi-popular photographers with only 3

RFC rates vs. 13 rates total. People should not be penalized for for

being popular, just as they shouldn't be rewarded for being popular.

 

Thanks again Brian for listening.

Ben, the all time leaders really don't matter since the ratings have become so inflated (older photos have no chance).

 

Carl, I did check. There are some pretty weak photos on the TRP, but as I stated earlier (perhaps you didn't read my post carefully?), it's an improvement to what we had before. Hopefully, as more serious members go back to rating photos (since it has some meaning now), the TRP will improve.

Lisa, I'll agree with you that the quality of the work is now lower--but this is just the beginning. Currently, the top-rated page is filled mostly with photographs rather than PS creations. There is a diversity of styles and subjects. And more importantly, the images were rated: or at least as fairly as the average user of this site can rate. I think that's a vast improvement to the large club who rated each other's 7/7. Perhaps you prefer the other system?

Wow, Brian, you've finally done it. The TRP looks a lot different and the average to get on the top page has dropped tremendously. This is certainly a step in the right direction.

Before leaving on vacation about three weeks ago, I posted a thread on this topic every day for a week. The administration, which refuses to do anything about any of the mate rating problems, erased all the threads when I posted the final one. At least I got there attention!

 

What I'm encouraged by is that there seems to be a lot more PN users voices their frustration over the mate rating problem. Perhaps Brian will eventually listen.

Mr. Greenwood's fan club has just gotten Calvinballed . . . .

Don't know why this won't show--it's only 500 pixels<div></div>

The Caryatids--2nd try

The Caryatids

Todd, I like your seats

Puget Sounds???<div></div>

Nestor, over the last month, I've started a number of threads about mate-rating . . . which is the real cause for the decline in the ratings of your photos. The administration has made it clear, through their lack of action, that they either don't care about the problem or they can't figure out a way to fix it. Several members have suggested ways to tweak the system that would make mate rating far less attractive.

 

What's sad is that photo critique/rating is what brings most to the site--and the rating system has become seriously corrupted. However, the rest of PN runs very well: the forums, the classifieds, and articles on variety of subjects are all terrific. There's absolutely no reason the rating system shouldn't work better. Until the site gets fixed, it will continue to lose it's longer term members--the list of good photographers who have left the site (or stopped participating) over the last year is getting longer.

 

On an academic note, I'm wondering how high the ratings will go. . . . Soon it will take 6.5/6.5 to get on the front page. Some statistician or socioligist or political scientist should be studying ratings behavior--as well as forum complaints-- for a thesis or dissertation.

Nestor, I think there are a lot of us long-time members of the site who have noticed, especially over the last 3-6 months, a significant drop in number of ratings. I'm not sure the nude section is the cause of this. I'm more inclined to think it's the mate rating--the ratings have risen dramatically for those playing that game: the average is now over six for the first three or four pages. However, I don't think the ratings have increased much for the average user of the site. I expect if you'd start doling out 7/7 and write "Magnifico 7/7!!!!!" and "Terrific 10/10!!!!" for a few weeks your photos would start appearing on the first few pages and garner considerably more ratings. While you wouldn't get any useful comments (try offering a suggestion/critique for a mate/top-rated photo--it's as if you tried to defile the dead pope), you certainly would get more exposure.

 

As for the nude category, I think it was a good idea to put it in its own area. Many of us look at PN in the US, where nudity on the computer at work is potentially grounds for termination. The nude section is a mixed bag: some very good, artistic nudes mixed in with a bunch of snaps of guys/gals who get a thrill out of posting naked pictures.

Yes, it's been this way for four or five hours--it's hard to say why those particular images got stuck at the top.

While I can't say I'm always in agreement with Bob, his witty rejoinder is awfully close to the mark.

As a lover of pinhole, Polaroid, and Holga, I think this would be a great idea. It would be really nice to have both a critique category and a forum alternative photos.

Brian, I tried every angle I could think of and everything is working correctly. Thanks.

Carl, I agree, the problem now seems to be fixed. Thanks Brian.

Mr. Fisher? I meant Barry F. I was just working on a file for a Mr. Fisher!

Brian, the problem with the linked photo above happened this morning right about the time I posted the above comment. I just tried going through the critique queue for a 10 photos or so, and everything was working fine: as it was last night. I'm not sure what happened this morning.

 

There is a problem, as Mr. Fisher noted, with the members critique requests.

 

Also, Brian, I'm sorry about being critical, but as a long-time user of this site I'm dismayed by a few things and the site feedback is the only way to voice my opinion. I know many other long-time users have also advocated some changes, but currently these changes aren't happening.

 

As for John and Matt above, I'm well aware of all of the work Brian has put into this site and I'm grateful for it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------Barry also noted this on our previous thread on this topic:

 

Barry F , apr 01, 2005; 01:52 p.m.

I hesitate to mention this, but it might also be interesting to know why there are critique requests from non-subscribers in the "Subscribers Critique Request" queue. Oh, no, here we go again.

Brian, I was under the impression this got fixed last night--or at

least it seemed like it was. I just saw this photo

http://www.photo.net/photo/3243209

 

in the critique queue.

 

Also, sometimes I get the feeling you're being pretty defensive

(boardering on hostile) with the members. Most of us genuinely care

about this site, the members/users, and photography--we want

photo.net to be the best place possible and our suggestions are

meant to help improve the site, rather than a personal attack on you.