venicia_l

I agree that the Top Photo pages are a parody of any meaningful display of, well, top photos. The same flocks of well wishers appear over and over in profusion the instant one of their kind posts anything at all. The same kinds of inane comments are repeated in a dizzying list of combinations and permutations with the word "congrats" as a common accolade. The ratings just pile on and on and on.<p>

There are many good workers here, but nothing much of a consequential nature is going on. I've come to enjoy work like Jon Peri's with his hoardes of incredibly beautiful, young, amateur models as a welcome, good-humored, honest respite from the self-congratulatory mobs.<p>

VL

David,<p>

Gasp! No, no! Do not go over to the Dark Side!<p>

VL

David,<p>

There is a note today on www.macintouch regarding problems with PayPal and Mac OS9. Apparently Mozilla will work on OS9 with PayPal while others browsers won't. It's a change in PayPal software.<p>

http://www.macintouch.com/#notesandtips<p>

VL

I logged in yesterday on my Mac G4 running OSX 10.2.8 with Mozilla 1.6. Got right thru to Pay Pal. My subscription on Photo.net was recognized a few minutes later.<p>

VL

Brian. You've said that all very well. Very good points.<p>

(What is AIM?)

Yes, that is a chat room response. As was my response to a comment on an image of mine that said "thanks" and "finally someone with a sense of humor" and " I appreciate all the comments." I didn't know the restrictions about that kind of comment were so specific and strict.<p>

I do agree completely that retaliating by placing complaints and derision in the comment section of someone who has given you a rating you don't like is just wrong. It's also childish. But the restrictions about responding in the Comments section in ways that are not directly related to the image are really bad policy.<p>

"The comments thread on a photo or a portfolio is for discussion of THAT PHOTO or THAT PORTFOLIO -- not for rebukes or even polite discussion about that person's behaviour anywhere else on photo.net, or any other subject. Such discussion is off-topic and will be automatically deleted, no matter how polite."<p>

"The comments on a photo must be about the photo. They are not a chat room; they are not a convenient place to conscript the photographer into a discussion of something else that you want to discuss; they are not hostages for the good behaviour (by your lights) of the photographer who uploaded them."<p>

"We don't have moderators regularly patrolling all the photos to enforce this rule, other than the POW; but if somebody complains about your using his photos in this way, your comments will automatically be deleted and if you persist, you will be banned from the Gallery. I hope this is clear."<p>

It's bad policy because it's unenforceable. If it were, the consequences enumerated above would be happening wide scale. And that's just impossible. So the policy is cause for contempt. And the people generating the majority of such commentary (which I consider quite benign) are not here reading this thread, and probably never will be.<p>

It's bad policy because if it were enforced, site wide, the objections would swamp the site. The bad feelings would drive people away.<p>

And it's frankly, silly. You can't stop people from doing what they normally do. It's normal to engage in social banter when communicating. To limit the comments to dry discussion of aesthetics, techniques, composition is to defeat the feeling of community that keeps people contributing in the first place. People are just naturally going to bring up side issues and related coversation. "Hey, I was at that very spot and I photographed that same statue from the other side in the pouring rain. You were lucky it was sunny on your trip." "You're the master at color, Marcello. I love ALL your work!"<p>

It's like telling people they're not allowed to talk about anything but company business while they're lined up at the photocopy machine. Yeah, right!<p>

I do NOT think the restrictions are widely known at all. Where are they stated? How about a warning when someone attempts to comment: "STOP, you may only comment directly about the photographic image. You may not carry on dialog with the photographer except specifically about the photograph. If you are the photographer, you may not thank people for commenting." I'm sure THAT would be well received!<p>

Well, my thoughts.<p>

VL

I agree completely.<p>

VL

Anyone?<p>

VL

I think just letting them appear on a paged display, 3-across, in order of submission, without a limit as to number of ratings, with no indication as to the number of ratings so far received until the viewer clicks the thumbnail, for 3-7 days, letting them slowly "sink" to the bottom, would solve the problem.<p>

VL

I don't know if this is related. If I comment on a picture before trying to rate it, the rating does not "take." I enter it, the system seems to accept it, but it is not to be seen. If I rate first, I can then enter a comment, and both are visible.<p>

VL

The opening page is quite awful, actually. The garrish orange is atrocious. It's your

site and you certainly can use it to display your face and talk about yourself. But that's

not what's going to interest a customer. It's much too much about you, rather than

your ability as a photographer. There is absolutely no need for your portrait on the

page. Your text is broken English with references to yourself in the third person and

first person in the same paragraph.<p>

It always amuses me to see pictures of photographers holding a camera like that. It

just looks damn silly. Pretentious and useless.<p>

The second page with images is pleasantly presented.<p>

You asked.<p>

VL

Walter is correct. In PS you must Convert to sRGB and make sure the sRGB profile has

been Assigned to the image before Save for Web. That is SOP for the Web. Save at

JPEG Maximum, Quality 100, and check ICC Profile and Optimized.<p>

I suggest that your largest dimension be 800 pixels. The PN downsampling really

loses image quality. Unless viewed Large on this site, you or viewers, will not see the

qulaity you see before sending the file.<p>

VL

Pradeep,<p>

Thanks again. I don't care at ALL about ratings. I'd just like to know if my images generate interest. And since they effectively disappear from view after they've gotten 10 ratings it's hard to know what's going on.<p>

VL

Pradeep,<p>

Thanks, but I really can't make myself more "visible." I rate others as often as I can. I try to include a useful comment with every one I rate. I must admit that I tend to rate images I like. I shy away from those I don't. But I DO make suggestions about changes I think should be made in technique.<p>

I think the problem is really with the site's handling of displays. I think it would be much more meaningful for viewers to have constant and EASIER access to all images posted. Yes, there are complaints on other sites that images are posted so rapidly that their posting of only hours ago has moved "down" several pages and that only the first "page" gets looked at. That may also be a problem, but at least in that sort of sysytem, page after page of submissions are easily viewed in the order they came onto the site. If PN used such a system, then also displayed them in the "number of ratings" order that Top Photos now displays, that would be better.<p>

My 2c.<p>

VL

Stuart,

You are right. It is not in Top Photos in the last 24 hours.<p>

Curioser and curioser.<p>

VL

Stuart,<p>

I'm willing to bet our photos go into that same alternate universe that socks in the dryer disappear into. Why our pictures are singled out for this is a mystery. Everyone knows about socks. They slowly and erraticaly "leak" back into our universe, often appearing in a dry load after their mate has been thrown away.<p>

Maybe our images, having disappeared with 10 ratings, will inexplicably show up with 30, 40, 50+ ratings and gushing accolades of all kinds!<p>

VL

Well,<p>

I guess I've found an answer. Not as the result of a "search" but by reading through recent messages. This is in response to a message titled, "Numbers of rates" on 5/14<p>

"Brian Mottershead , may 14, 2004; 06:41 a.m.

A lot of the ratings on a photo come from its being in the Photocritique Queue, which is used for the "Rate Recent Photos" feature. That queue has the photos with the least ratings at the front, and photos drop down the queue at 5, 10, 15, etc ratings. Enough people are using the Rate Recent feature that photos typically get to 10 ratings but not to 15 by virtue of being in that queue. It kind of depends on how good the photo is, whether you are a subscriber, time of day, phase of the moon, the weather, when high tide is, and other mysterious factors. <p>

But there are plenty of photos that get many more than 15 ratings. They tend to be good photos that get ratings by virtue of being in Top Photos, other people's Interesting People list, etc. One good way to attract attention is by being active in commenting and rating photos yourself."<p>

I think the most interesting part of the explanation is the "mysterious factors" item. I do a fair share of rating and try to add a comment as often as I can. I guess I am not social enough to get more responses.<p>

I believe if the requests for recent critiques were displayed 25-30 on a page for many pages, the "problem" I've described would improve. I know that the equivalent of that functionality can be achieved in Top Photos by arranging the display criteria appropriately, but that's not something that the great majority of viewers is ever going to do.<p>

VL

Stuart,<p>

Thanks. But you are entirely wrong about being Napolean. I personally know Napolean. He and Elvis reviews my images before I post them. They both agree that I should get more than 10 ratings, too!<p>

Gerald,<p>

Could you please suggest some search criteria that would get me to that message? I don't seem to be clever enough to give the search engine key words that are even remotely close to this issue. Or maybe the "search" engine doesn't.<p>

VL

This is a question regarding the mechanics of the Critiquing process,

that is, how are posted images handled by Photo.net and displayed to

viewers.<p>

I rely on the responses (high or low) to my images to judge their

general visual appeal. On almost all my submissions, I have gotten

very quick ratings up to 10 ratings. Then I seem to get no more

ratings, except for a few which come in very slowly for several days,

after the 10th rating on the first day. This has intrigued me, since

many other images very quickly reach much higher numbers of ratings

very quickly.<p>

I know that there are groups of people who respond to each other like

a mutual admiration society and gush over each others' work, no

matter the subject or merit of the work. However, there are images of

others who do not seem to be members of such groups which get very

high numbers of total ratings.<p>

Of course, the answer may be that my images just don't generate as

much interest as those of other photographers. And that's what I'm

interested in knowing. There seems to be a "pattern" with my ratings,

as though once they reach 10 ratings, they may somehow disappear from

view.<p>

Is there some mechanism that removes images from the Critique

category after they have reached a certain number of ratings (10)? Am

I just imagining this? Are all the images that receive high numbers

of ratings simply getting them or is there a way that images are

posted so that they stay in the Critiquing request area longer?<p>

Thanks,<p>

VL