While I'm relatively new to PN (OK, really new), I'm not new to surveys, samples, and statistical analysis of results. In brief, Ivar is completely correct. Eliminating low ratings will not help PN determine which photos are worthy of wider exposure. Most likely, the mean scores will converge, and fewer photos will be statistically above average, to the extent any serious statistical analysis is done. Having a self-selecting population do the rating and using loosely defined criteria are both problematic, if you're trying to be serious about this. But maybe you're not...and maybe there's no need to.
I agree with previous posters that the text comments are quite helpful. One individual was kind enough to provide comments on four of my photos and I found it very useful. Personally, I would bag the numeric ratings and (gasp) suggest (although not require) more structure around the comments. For instance, a comment structure that provided space for lighting, composition, exposure, etc.
It seems that there are three problems PN is trying to solve: photographers want meaningful feedback on their work, PN wants a way to identify photos of above-average interest, and PN wants to reduce unnecessary flaming (which is quite different than necessary flaming, of course).
On problem number one, I sense some consensus that text comments represent the most helpful form of feedback. On problem number 2, while the current system presents a false sense of statistical validity, it has the merit of being relatively simple. I certainly wouldn't make it MORE complicated, because you won't gain any statistical validity for your trouble. On the third point, many boards rely on moderators to manage the useless flamers.
Changes to Rating System
in PhotoNet Site Help
Posted
While I'm relatively new to PN (OK, really new), I'm not new to surveys, samples, and statistical analysis of results. In brief, Ivar is completely correct. Eliminating low ratings will not help PN determine which photos are worthy of wider exposure. Most likely, the mean scores will converge, and fewer photos will be statistically above average, to the extent any serious statistical analysis is done. Having a self-selecting population do the rating and using loosely defined criteria are both problematic, if you're trying to be serious about this. But maybe you're not...and maybe there's no need to.
I agree with previous posters that the text comments are quite helpful. One individual was kind enough to provide comments on four of my photos and I found it very useful. Personally, I would bag the numeric ratings and (gasp) suggest (although not require) more structure around the comments. For instance, a comment structure that provided space for lighting, composition, exposure, etc.
It seems that there are three problems PN is trying to solve: photographers want meaningful feedback on their work, PN wants a way to identify photos of above-average interest, and PN wants to reduce unnecessary flaming (which is quite different than necessary flaming, of course).
On problem number one, I sense some consensus that text comments represent the most helpful form of feedback. On problem number 2, while the current system presents a false sense of statistical validity, it has the merit of being relatively simple. I certainly wouldn't make it MORE complicated, because you won't gain any statistical validity for your trouble. On the third point, many boards rely on moderators to manage the useless flamers.
My $.02.