patricia_eifel

In case you are still having trouble with the 2200 in Panther. I have been having the same

problems for a month since I got my new G5--spent all day yesterday trying to fix it and

then noticed this morning that epson uploaded new driver for 10.3 yesterday evening. I

installed it and for the first time --- trouble-free printing! Follow same directions as

above but with the new driver

Gallery seems to have finally appeared within the past hour but still not really

working. I noticed that it says the 1 week gallery was updated on 2/16 but the

number of ratings that it shows for one of my photos was actually exceeded on 2/14.

A small point but it suggests that the gallery still isn't quite right even though it loads

quickly now.

Very few things are as black and white as you suggest. Photography by its nature

captures a unique moment in time. Even a waterfall that has been frequently

photographed may be taken from different angles, with different lenses, under

various lightling conditions, shutter speeds, etc... In fact, I find it hard to

understand how any image can justify a "1" unless it is clear plagerism. Some images,

however, are more startling, unusual, ?"creative" than others. Even then, originality is

in the eyes and experience of the beholder. The first time someone sees an image

that is desaturated except for a single highlight, it may seem original. After the

100th, it becomes hackneyed...the same is true of many other types of

photomanipulation. In a similar way, an image of an exotic landmark may appear

original to someone who has never seen it but unoriginal to the photographer who

lives next door... I think all one can do is rate from the perspective of one's own

understanding, knowledge, and experience.

Sorry - it wasn't the image I tried to load twice--it was the critique request. Thanks

again!

Not sure how it happened. I did load it twice though. The first time I left right after

hitting the button. When I went back to the computer, the image didn't seem to have

loaded so I tried again. Next time I looked I noticed the error. Would have deleted the

image and tried again but I couldn't because of the error message.

Patricia

Still happens -- this is the message under the image of my photo.

"HTTP/1.0 500 Internal Server Error Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:29:14 GMT Server: NaviServer/2.0

AOLserver/3.3.1+ad13 Content-Length: 547 Connection: close

Server Error

The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this server"

I have posted another image today with no

problem. Perhaps I will just delete and try again. Thanks.

I posted an image yesterday:

http://www.photo.net/photo/1909482

The thumbnails look fine but when I click on the thumbnail in my portfolio or in the

gallery, the image appears but the comments, rating sections, etc. are replaced by a

server error message. It must be showing up in the critique section because it has

received a few ratings but if there are any comments, I can't see them. I haven't

posted in a while-- Is this a widespread problem or is it just my bad luck. Any fix?

I recently discovered Usefilm and I think the two sites can complement each other

well. However, for me at least, PN began to be distinctly less fun and less helpful

during the last few weeks. This was partly because of the problem Brian addresses

above (happily apparently solved) and the accellerating acrimony on these pages. But

the greatest frustration for me is the very high ratings/comments ratio--currently

about 8:1 for photos on the top rating page with most comments less

than 4 words. I think one reason for this is that it is so difficult to rate AND comment

on photos on gallery or portfolio pages. Many people don't have time to go through

large numbers of photos serially to find those that they are inspired to critique.

However, if we want to rate and comment on a photo after doing searches or looking

in portfolios, it takes at least 6 screen redraws and many clicks to rate, comment,

confirm, and go back to the gallery/etc. This can be severely rate-limiting, (even

when not punctuated by a few server errors). Does anyone else find this a limitation

and, if so, can anything be done about it?

I have given this problem considerable thought and although I'm sure I don't

understand all the issues, I would like to make several suggestions for consideration.

As I understand it there are several needs:

1) To have greater visibility for "emerging" artists

2) To continue to have very accomplished photographers appear on and enjoy the site

without letting them dominate it entirely

3) To facilitate constructive commentary for new and experienced photographers

alike

4) To improve the consistency of ratings

Possible improvements:

1) Use more realistic descriptions for the numbered ratings. There are many more

photos with excellent qualities than can fit on the first few pages of the ratings

search. This confuses raters. How about 7= "outstanding" [i.e., it belongs on the first

page], 6 = "excellent", 5 = "very good", 4 = "good", 3 = "needs work" and forget

about 1 and 2 --- "bad" is such a pejorative word.

2) Require comments for "needs work"?a low score alone is little help

3) Change the "originality" rating to "originality/impact" --- this would allow people

to express their appreciation of photos that are particularly striking even though they

fall in fairly established categories.

4) Rank photographs according to the number of ratings that exceed some

determined high combined score (e.g. 11). This would combine the level of the rating

and the number of ratings, eliminating "low-balling" and reducing the impact of one

or two inconsistently high ratings. It would also stop the current problem that

critiquers are unwilling to give constructive low ratings because all ratings are treated

the same way in the gallery.

5) However, only permit any given photographer to have a limited number of photos

on the gallery pages. I would suggest 1 (the highest ranked image during that

period) on the 24- and 36-hr pages, 1-2 on the week page, etc. This would

eliminate anyone monopolizing the page. So what if some people give each other

inappropriately high ratings--the raters and photographers will only look silly if they

have poor photos appearing alongside great ones and surely they will only want their

best work to make it to the top if only one photo will appear in the gallery.

6) Include a special icon on the thumbnail of work from "emerging photographers"

who make it to the gallery pages. These could be defined as new members or even

better, members who have had fewer than [?3] photos in the top 20. This would

highlight them and encourage critiquers to look at their portfolios and rate their

work.

7) Include a special gallery page for "emerging photographers" with less stringent

ranking requirements and limited to new members or those who have had fewer top

rankings. This would provide a place for committed critiquers to meet appraise the

work of new or less experienced photographers.

8) Continue the front page which features unrated work from new members or

emerging artists but consider featuring a few more (maybe 4) so they stay on a bit

longer.

9) Encourage Anna to return and ALL the members (including Anna) to participate

FULLY to showcase their art and share their talents with the rest of us.

Doug - your suggestion would be fine if the site never expanded but how would new

photograpers learn about these special folks if they had no ratings and no longer

appeared on the "best photos" page?" I am aware of Anna's work because I joined the

site 6 weeks ago. If instead I joined a week or month from now, how would I know to

look for it? If all the individuals whose photos attract attention are removed from the

ratings, what will be left? How would you decide who is being too successful?

Comments are most helpful, but let's face it, it also is exciting and encouraging to

know that one of your photos has enough impact for a number of people to give it a

good rating---after all if that isn't the case, what is everyone so upset about?

Rather than develop some arbitrary method of exclusion, it probably would be better

to do away with the ratings altogether--although I predict membership would fall off

drastically. I suspect one of the main reasons people come to the site is to browse

great photographs --without the ratings, who would pick them?

I'm sorry Brian but I think you are misinterpreting the reasons for these statisitcs.

Of course there are many good photographs on the site from many photographers.

However, only a modest subset of the contributers (I would guess less than 10%)

produce steady streams of consistently excellent work. These photographers are

bound to receive many more ratings than those who have less consistent work or who

upload images less frequently.

Moreover, there are many different types of photography on the site. It was

apparently organized to make it easy for people to selectively critique certain kinds of

photographs -- portraits, nature, etc. I think this is a good thing but it further limits

the number of photographers who are consistently rated by a given individual. It is

inevitable that an individual will wind up giving a large number of their ratings to the

subset of photographers who share their interests and who are most prolific and that

groups of photographers with similar interests will tend to rate each others works.

Despite this, the "best photo" page shows a remarkable degree of diversity.

I think you are trying to fix something that wasn't really broken and in the process

may be seriously damaging it. Can't we just get on with photography???!!!!

I ran into this string a few minutes ago and I must say it makes me very sad. As a new

member who is bewildered by all this, I felt I had to commment.

I discovered pd.net only a few months ago. I roamed the portfolios of photographers

whose images appeared on the "best photos" and "best photographers" pages. I

found a lot to like and was inspired by the creativity of many photographers on this

site--Anna Pagnacco was certainly one of those whose work particularly impressed

me by its variety and quality. I looked forward to every new posting of hers...

So I joined the site and posted my first photographs about 5 or 6 weeks ago (partly so

my family could see the images from my first show). I started submitting photos for

critique and immediately started receiving comments, some of which were laudatory,

others critical and almost always constructive. I commented on other's photographs

and kept track of the photographers whose work impressed me so I could see (and

sometimes comment on) their new work. It was such a positive experience - I was

inspired to work harder at my photography and to try new things.

In fact, I am one of the new photographers who is supposed to be discouraged by a

broken rating system. I have no personal friends on the site and certainly have not

exchanged emails with anyone; yet I have had several photographs appear on the first

page of the 3-day "best photos". It never bothered me that Anna had several photos

next to mine - on the contrary, I found it encouraging to have my work next to hers.

So, in my apparent naivete, I thought everything was pretty democratic on the site.

I also thought I was using the system the way it was intended. The workplace

specifically provides a place to keep track of certain photograpers; I marked those

whose work I particularly liked and, naturally, I tended to look at and rate their work

more frequently. I also went through the critique pages whenever I had time. I tended

to rate photos that were more interesting to me so my average ratings were fairly

high- isn't that the intention? After all, the fact that "best photos" are guaged by the

number of ratings suggests that photos should be rated selectively (otherwise the

page would be meaningless). So I just left comments on photos I thought were less

deserving... Sometimes I looked to see who had rated my photos and looked at their

portfolios (it means a lot to me when my photos are applauded by someone whose

work I admire). I found a few more photographers whose work interested me and

sometimes stopped and rated some of their photos...

It was all so inspiring... Then I started seeing the vituperous exchanges on Anna's

site and now this. I respect people's concerns, but is it really worth this? There is no

ideal way of setting up a community like this and there are bound to be squabbles,

but I thought it worked pretty well. Now people are worrying about being black-

balled and the atmosphere has become distinctly unfriendly. I used the site the way it

seemed to be intended -- now I'm just confused.

I am not a professional photographer although I am serious about my photography. I

have a demanding day job (I am an oncologist by profession) and, although I am

aware that the art world is not immune to this kind of squabbling, I am sorry to see it

illustrated so graphically here. Although I respect the role of the administrators and I

understand their concerns about the statistics that have been quoted, I wonder

whether this action might not do more harm than good, particularly if it leaves

members feeling that they have to be second-guessing every step. You have such a

good thing here. I hope it continues to thrive.