wenger

For what it's worth I'm on IE6 and have not noticed this occurance.

Brian, I've noticed the order of the Top Rated Page has changed.

Previously, if two images had the same number of ratings the one

that was posted first would be displayed first. Currently if the

images have the same number of ratings they are not in an order at

all from what I can tell. This is not a big deal (though I did like

the old system). I've just noticed that things have changed in the

system in the past that you hadn't seemed to be aware of, so I

though I would simply make you aware. Thanks.

<i>I agree with Steve, especially about the timezones. On some times twenty people rate or comment within an hour, on other times it's close to none. That depend very much on the hour you post and who is awake then. </i><br><br>

But if less people are on Photo.net it also means that there should be less people uploading images and bumping your photo down the list. Therefore your image should get seen by approximately the same number of people no matter what time it gets posted. The only difference being <b>which</b> people see it. The short of it is that reposting critique requests is a selfish way of gaining exposure. I'm glad its been re-disabled. A much more selfless way to gain exposure is through offering critiques.

Just to beat a dead horse, involvement is the key. If you think of your photo.net member page as a web site (which it basically is), one of any web designer's goals is to get as many links back to his/her site as possible. Every time you make a comment, and every time you place a rating, a link is also developed back to YOUR "Web Site". People are probably 10X (I just made up that number) more likely to click on the link back to your web page from a comment than they are from the link on the ratings page. This is especially true if your comment is profound/insightful/enlightening/interesting. It is a lot of work. What in this world isn't. But the onus is on you, not other people or the system.

Dave -

 

Why not add hot-linked comments in each of the photos that belong in a presentation to the presentation. Something like "This photo is part of a larger series that can be viewed in presentation format here." It would at least increase the number of ways that someone could come across your presentation.

 

P.S. Very nice by the way (I actually had seen them before your plea).

Erin, I was just yankin' your chain. It isn't how many comments in the last 3 days. It is what photos that were uploaded in the last 3 days have the most comments. Got it?

Brian - isn't it possible for the search to be done in a temporary file, then once completed update what we see thus eliminating or significantly decreasing the downtime?

Erin - If I'm not mistaken if put in English the code would read something like this "Of the pictures loaded in the past X days; sort by most number of comments/ratings/whatever".

 

What you are looking for is code that would read "Of all pictures in the Database; sort by most number of comments/ratings/whatever in the last X days".

 

Unfortunately for you I think the first is probably much less time consuming for the server to accomplish. But what do you care? You already have 38 very informative comments on that image. ;-)

 

Cheers -

JVK - LOL

 

Tom - It is not entirely true that ratings are worthless. A rating of a 6 vs. a 3 is of little significance except to those who strive for that Top Rated Photographer status for whatever reason. But as Carl has pointed out, if you see an image that has a value to be commented on, by offering a rating you increase its likelihood of being commented on by other members. Especially if it is within the first 3 days of being uploaded. Someone like you who has been around this game for quite some time may not need that extra visibility to have your photos commented upon, a relative newcomer like myself doesn't have the network of piers from whom we can count on comments. Otherwise I enjoyed your comment.

Phillip, well said and illustrated. <br><br>

 

Carl, While I generally agree with most of your points and what you are trying to get across (especially that the comments are the true value within the system), it seems that you are at times trying to win on both sides of the argument. I don't agree with Robert's average-among-one-photographer approach, but based on your statement from <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005HI4">this</a> thread, a rater like Robert should be your best friend BECAUSE he increases the likelihood of someone coming along who will have something more to say. In addition, while I haven't gone through and looked up what he said on each of your images, while succinct, what he said on the photo listed at least had some value (as his opinion, whether you agree with him or not).<br><br>

<i>You're asking us to spend time trying to fix the averages, but it's the number of rates, not the value that I use to find interesting images. As far as I'm concerned, AVERAGES DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. - it's all about getting enough visibility through ratings - ANY RATING - so that someone who cares enough to comment will know it's there. ...

 

<br><br>

...You can give me a 4/4 anytime you want, and you'll be doing me a favor. (The people who comment without offering others the chance to join in the discussion by not rating it don't understand the realities of the current system.)

</i> - Carl Root<br><br>

 

This also goes against your complaint about receiving 4/4 ratings. Like I said, I agree with a lot you say, and respect your opinion, but pick a message and stay with it.

<br><br>

I know that I don't consider the "snapshots" as 1/2 of the photo.net inventory when I do my ratings. They very may be, but I generally don't rate from the general gallery, but rather rate from the "critique request" gallery. The number of snapshots that pass through this gallery is much lower, and this area generally represents photographers who are looking for feedback. The range of photos that I see pass through this in conjunction with what I see on TRP is how I generate my scale. What the hell use is the scale if it starts at 4? Of course a scale that starts at 4 could go a long way to explaining why there are so many 7/7s.

Sorry, just a little dizzy from keeping up with this thread.<br><br>

Well Doug you were wrong on at least one point<br><br><i>

From this point, I don't think there are any more useful contributions that can be added to this thread.

</i> - Doug Burgess<br><br>

The last 1/3 of this thread has been much more interesting with a more level-headed mature discussion than the first 2/3. <br><br>

The thing is, generally the people who are still involved in this thread have a way of rating that they consider "fair" and are not the problem. The hit-and-runers who slap on a 7 and a "wow!" likely don't have the commitment or the attention span to stay with this thread. <br><br>

The best solution I saw was the idea of subjecting ratings to an averaging multiplier. If someone only uses 5-6-7 keys on their keyboard, the 5 has the same value as "bad" the 6 is "average" and the 7 is "good". If they only use sevens, they count just as "average". But as has been said before, people will always find a way to abuse any system that is instituted.

<br><br>Vincent - I feel no sympathy for someone who lives in Hawaii making his living taking photographs!!! (just kidding)

YES! One free Anna for me please... where do I pick it up?

Great, thanks for the tip. I usually figured that for cropping tips, etc. the .gif worked fine, but this is much better. Thanks again.

<i>An alternative would be if we could get photo.net to implement an "All Photos" feature for people that prefer my style of surfing.</i>

<br><br>

They do have one. For example here is the URL for all of my photos.

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&photo_id=1527191">http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&photo_id=1527191</a>

<br><br>

You just need to change the id# for the appropriate user who's images you want display. Of course this could be as much a pain in the neck as going through the different folders.

I use the Micrografx program and have also had trouble uploading "in-line". I'm glad to read that it was not something I was doing wrong.

 

Robert - the fix I've utilized is simply saving everything as a .gif file. It's not ideal, but it works.

The only thing I know to do is Delete the comment and start over. I will typically "highlight" the comment and push CTRL-C to copy it. Go in and delete the unwanted comment. Then click "Add a Comment", and click in the comment box and hit CTRL-V to drop the comment back in without retyping the whole thing. In this particular case you didn't type all that much, so you could just delete and re-submit, but the above procedure is especially helpful with long comments.

<i>Hmmm... I saw these "Avoid rating"s and thought them to be something much more deliberate. In fact I saw it as an instruction to the minions to not rate these particular photos good/bad because either way they'd potentially rise to the TRP.

<br><br>

Maybe I'm reading too much into it... which could come from spending too much time trying to get meaning out of slight photographical implications. I better go do some real work.

</i><br><br>

This was my comment, and I was mistakenly logged in to the Picture This account when making it. I do not speak for the group as a whole and apologize for any confusion this may have caused. If the above comment has been deleted (as I requested) when you read this, Its place was 3 comments up from here.

Right, especially on the second point. You actually need to go to the "critique requests" gallery to see the recent critique requested photos. Otherwise you are simply critiquing random uploads.

You only get one per 24 hours. And I think 4 per 28 days.

First, let me say how happy I've been with the site's performance in

recent days (knock on wood). Pages upload at record speed and errors

have been minimal. Thanks for the hard work it must have taken to

get here.

 

I have been noticing a small bug. I have been asked multiple times

to log-in in short periods of time. I access the site on multiple

computers, one of which I chose the "Remember this address and

password" selection, so I remain logged-in and never have the

problem on this computer.

 

The problem occurs on a few other computers where I have not chosen

that option. After logging-in as I browse to certain pages that

would require a log-in (such as leaving a comment) I occasionally am

required to log-in prior to continuing. It does not happen every

time, and I have not noticed a pattern. In a few cases I have even

been asked to log-in IMMEDIATELY after logging-in (the very next

page I see after logging-in was the log-in page).

 

I am running MS XP with MS IE6.0 on each of the computers I

referenced and am accessing the www via a LAN with a Router and DSL.

I don't believe the problem is with anything from my end, but wanted

you to have all of the facts.

 

Let me reitterate that management has been doing a commendable job

with the performance of the site while at the same time making

recent alterations that accompany the hard decisions you have also

been forced to make. Get to this in your due time. I just wanted to

make you aware if you were not already.

Really not a bad idea, but here is <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=617763">something close</a>. As a post slightly more recent indicates, new members are being sought.

I'd also like to add that I find it interesting that there are above posters who admit to "mate-rating" openly... perplexing.

 

And Anna, your gallery is still up for everyone to see. I suspect that if/when you post a new image you will get many more visitors to that image offering their "valuable critiques" ("wow", "you did it again", etc) than I would if I posted a new image AND filled out a critique request. What's the problem? Are ratings really that important to you that they are worth the threat of legal action?

Since the practices that are causing this trouble seem to be quantifiable (as reflected by one of Brian's earlier posts) and since it is assumed that (at least in some cases) mate rating is an unrecognized phenomina by the participants, couldn't an "error message" be generated after a suspect rating that would simply warn the participant that their recent rating "may be falling into the category of mate rating... ...while you feel that you are aiding the photographer by rating many of their photographs you actually may be hurting them because of the potential for disiplinary action... " or something of the sort?

I was experiencing the same problem Andy. Your "fix" seems to have worked... unless of course it was coincidence.

Thank you Jason for inspiring me to find more information on his work. <br><br>

The web site of his estate is:<br>

<a href="http://www.moholy-nagy.com/">http://www.moholy-nagy.com/</a>