chrisspracklen

<p>You're right, Colin!<br>

Nice comment. Thanks! ;o)</p>

<p>You may enjoy the following post : http://www.photo.net/photo/9702514<br>

There again, you may not!<br>

But, what the heck?! It's only a bit of fun!<br>

(Which is, happily, what photography still is for many of us.)<br>

;o)</p>

<p>Hi Carlos,<br /> My own view is that photo.net could be a bit more proactive about this issue. e.g. Why not disallow the privilege of rating images to those people who choose not to upload any photo's of their own? Better still, why not disallow anonymous ratings, or at least give the rest of us the opportunity of blocking anonymous raters from our own uploads? We're blocked from rating a photo with a '7' if the photographer has recently felt that one of our photo's deserves a '7', so why not put a limit on the number of times an anonymous-no-portfolio rater can dish out 3/3 or 4/4 ratings? And so on.<br /> There is absolutely no question in my mind that the overall atmosphere of photo.net suffers from its refusal to deal with people whose sole objective seems to be targetting a certain kind of photographer with low ratings. I've suffered from it for years and my portfolio would be a whole lot larger if that wasn't the case. In the past week or so, I've come across a number of others photo.net users who are pretty sure the same thing is happening to them.<br /> I'm not so stupid or conceited as to believe that everyone will enjoy my kind of image! I have my own style, and some people are not going to like it one bit. But neither am I so naive that I can't spot a deliberate attempt to consistently lower a person's average ratings.<br /> The vast majority of photo.net contributors are talented, fair-minded and positive people with whom it's a pleasure to associate. As is often the case with some so good, the true photo.net experience is being thoroughly spoilt for a number of us by a few rotten eggs.<br /> I hesitated before adding this response to your question, because I know the kind of response I'm going to get from some quarters. But I have to say, I don't really care any more!<br /> Thanks for raising this issue. I, for one, appreciate it!<br /> Kind regards,<br /> Chris<br>

P.S. Two of the the people who rated your image 3/3 rated this picture 4/4. http://www.photo.net/photo/9541971</p>

Hi Ken, congratulations on your new baby! I've had my D300 since February and I absolutely love it! I've got it teamed up

with an 18-200 VR lens and if you take a look at my newer uploads you'll see some examples of what I've got out of what I

consider to be a superb combination. Best regards, Chris<div></div>

To all those generous people that took a bit of time to reply to my little rant…

A huge 'THANK YOU'!

You've helped me gain a new perspective on this ratings thing and I appreciate all your input and wisdom very much.

Best regards, Chris

Many thanks, Matt. I really appreciate your comments. I guess I just get a little touchy at times and when my last

upload got a very favourable comment followed by a 3/3 anonymous rating I just snapped.

The fact is, I've deleted pretty much every image that received a 3/3 rating. Somewhat extreme, I know, (indeed, some

would use other words, like 'petty' and 'immature'), but I find such ratings frankly discouraging and, to a large extent,

unnecessary. I guess the answer is for my to bypass the ratings process entirely and just opt for critiques.

Thanks again for your kind and considered response.

Best regards,

Chris

... if you like, but I am still 100% convinced that there are one or two rogue raters out there who deliberately (and anonymously) rate

virtually every image I upload with a 3/3 or 4/4.

My question is, if that is the case, why should such people be allowed to continue to hide behind a cloak of anonymity? All I'm asking is

that either all rating should be done on a named basis ~ i.e. no anonymity ~ after all, why would anyone want to rate anonymously unless

they are rating maliciously?

Or that, alternatively, within the system whereby random recent uploads are fed for rating, the photographer's name is omitted so that

anyone who may have some kind of grudge against a particular photographer will not know which images are his or hers.

Thanks for your consideration.

Kind regards,

Chris Spracklen

Fair cop, Mike.

I guess I was, (to a certain extent), jumping to conclusions.

I'm probably over-sensitive in this area, but it does get to me when a high average rating

is dramatically lowered by a single 3/3 or a couple of 4/4s.

Thanks for being 'the voice of reason'.

Kind regards,

Chris

Mike,

Thanks for your comment, but when you consider the millions of photo's that are uploaded

to sites like photo.net every day, (let alone the ones that aren't), how many can you honestly

say are truly 'unconventional'?

Kind regards,

Chris

Brian,

If only you could see the photo's I rated with 3's! I don't claim to be a brilliant

photographer, but at least my images are sharp and reasonably well composed, etc. The

only photo's to which I would ever have given a '3' are those that are technically very poor

in pretty much all departments. If you can say that about any of my work then, fair

enough, I'll go back to the drawing board.

By the way, I no longer give 3's, but prefer not to rate such very poor images at all.

Kind regards,

Chris

I've been overwhelmed by the supportive feedback I've had on this question. Thank you all

so much for your encouraging words ~ your answers have helped to restore my

perspective on this issue. I'm probably a little over-sensitive about the whole ratings thing,

after all, with photo's, (like all forms of art), "one man's meat is another man's poison".

It's been good to get it off my chest, though, and thanks again to all those who've

contributed responses ~ and especially to those who took the time to visit my portfolio. I

really do appreciate it!

Best regards,

Chris

It seems like 2 or 3 people have gone right through my portfolio in the past couple of months and rated

almost every photo I've ever uplaoded with a 3/3, 3/4, or 4/4. I was already getting pretty fed up with

every one of my NEW uploads getting hit like this, but this really is pretty pathetic! Okay, so they're just

numbers, but what kind of mind do you have to have to want to do a thing like that?!

Isn't it about time the administrators did something about such obviously hostile rating?

Best regards to all fair-minded photo.net users,

Chris Spracklen

I'm having the same problem, Leslie.

Nothing wrong with my wireless connection though.

It's frustrating!

Regards, Chris

I can't help thinking that there's a somewhat pitiable person out there who seems to get

some kind of perverse pleasue out of awarding 3/3 to every shot, (or at least every

landscape), that ever hits the photo.net screen! I could be wrong, of course ~ but, if I'm not,

how pathetic is that?!

Hi Jayme,

If only more raters were as thoughtful and conscientious as you clearly are Ie'd have no

problem with the system at all.

Best regards,

Chris

I've finally worked out where all those question marks come from!

Doh!

ﾕ No more bullet points then!

Chris

...to everyone who has a taken a moment or more to post replies to my question. Many of

you have picked up on the frustration I have felt and have been kind enough to take the

time to post a thoughtful and helpful answer. I really appreciate it ~ thank you.

ﾕ A number of them show a similar sense of frustration with the rating system ~ I believe

there to be some wise answers here that we can all benefit from hearing...

ﾕ Several of them display a fine sense of humour ~ I enjoyed the smiles!

ﾕ Several more have rightly pricked my conscience ~ my own time is very limited and so I

give very little of it to making constructive comments on other people's work, preferring to

give a considered rating in an attempt to show my wonder, approval or otherwise. I

shouldn't really expect any more than I'm prepared to give. But, most of all...

ﾕ They ALL display an honesty and warmth for which I am especially grateful.

Thank you again!

Best regards,

Chris Spracklen

Many thanks for your encouraging feedback, Carl.

Kind regards, Chris

...as to whether anyone else out there is getting sick and tired of the huge disparity in ratings that their

pictures are given.

Having just loaded a floral image that I felt was pretty 'original', (insofar as I haven't seen anything quite

like it on the site before!), as well as being reasonably pleasing to the eye, I was very encouraged to

receive a 7/5 rating from the first person to leave a score. Then, lo and behold, two 3/3s!

Could I ask someone to please explain how we are supposed to interpret these ratings? Is '4' the average

in terms of all the photo's that are uploaded to Photonet, or is '4' the average in terms of, say, the top

10%?!

When I first joined this great site the marking seemed to be fair and well-considered, and I found the

whole Photo.net experience to be positive and enjoyable. Nowadays it seems that there are any number of

rogue (or, disenchanted) raters around who seem to seem to get a kick out of deliberately downgrading

perfectly decent images for the fun of it.

I'd just be interested to know if there's anyone else on the site who is as fed up with it as I am.

Thanks for your feedback.

Best regards,

Chris Spracklen

I, too, am extremely disappointed with the JPEG artefacts produced by photo.net's

harsh treatment when downsizing and compressing!! Great pictures are simply ruined

by this process that seems to be worse than ever. By contrast, when you upload to

'Usefilm', (a similar site to photo.net), your pictures hardly seem affected at all. Once

again, I'm extremely disappointed!!

Chris Spracklen

This question has probably been raised before, but I haven't got the time to scroll

through the hundreds of listings to check so I'll raise it againﾅ

Would it not be possible (and, in fact, very easy), to insist that a person be a

subscriber before they rate or comment on an image ~ or, at the very least, have

uploaded some images themselves. I'm getting really tired of what I would call

'maverick guests' hitting on my images and leaving what I consider to be a totally

unfair rating. 99% of the time, when I check these people out, they are neither

subscribers or contributors of their own images. I feel this is grossly unfair.

Please could something to be done to correct this?

Many thanks,

Chris Spracklen