peggy_jones

<i>"I wasn't commenting on the POW, <b>but rather on the POW process."</b></i>

 

<p>that was your content transgression. however, if you wish to start a discussion about the POW process you can do so in this forum by starting a new thread on the topic.

...you are talking out of both sides of the mouth ("i like it anonymous and because i am virtuous i think my urge to peek is justified for good reasons!"). just a thought.

and, why not... ?

<p><b>mammals<p>people<p>gods</b><p>etc.<p>actually, there is a <b>children</b> category, so <b>people</b> might be a useful category (though there is portrait and street).

ratings can be "turned off" only if you are a subscriber and you upload a photo and then submit it for "critique-only" by checking the appropriate box when requesting critique. but as far as I know, if you have already submitted a photo for critique with ratings, then you cannot "turn off" ratings, because you only get one opportunity to submit a photo for critique. in that case, you can delete that photo (and its ratings and comments), upload it again, and request critique-only. but, at this point, PN has not instituted the means to prevent critiques and ratings (except as described above), nor for subscribers or members to edit/delete comments by others about their photos.

Ken, what Max means is that you cannot access critique/comments-only for a photo without first requesting critique for it, which means a limit of four in a 24-hour period. however, I don't see how requesting a critique is a bother to others? anyway, here is the link to find these photos: <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&subscriber_p=1&critique_p=1" >Newest Critique Requests (Subscribers' Critique Only)</a>

the site feedback forum performs a vital role... <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0076LM" >Top Photos page by "more than 2 years"</a>

...are both correct that RFC and TRP participants are not likely inclined to engage in meaningful discussion about their photos for many of the reasons they have stated, both here and on other threads. so why not put your verbal currency where participants are at least de facto inclined to be receptive to photo discussion? those who have requested critique without rates must be asking for something else, if not rates, no?

it seems a "natural" fit to address a number of on-going concerns,

among which is to promote discussion of varied photos on a daily

basis. so now PN has a readily accessible and now steady source of

quality photos in various categories being submitted for critique-

only that one could be selected for a photograph-of-the-day

discussion. those who submit by doing so are apt to be more keen to

welcome honest/critical discussion and participate in same.

otherwise, they can opt out by not submitting thus. and perhaps a

critique-only POD will encourage more variety and quality, too to

this venue. and to those who would say that PN should not allow this

venue to compete with the gallery, one can submit duplicate photos

to both.

you can view 16 thumbnails on a page via -> GALLERY -> CRITIQUE REQUESTS -> Critique by Category (NEW) and then right-click 'open in new window' on each thumbnail you want to rate and comment.

<i>"...right now I think we should talk about whether it's a worthy idea. We can worry about whether it's feasible to implement if we decide it's a good idea."</i>

<p>so Brian, what do you think about this "we decide" biz?

 

<p>seriously Ted, my considered response to WIKI (interesting site, now bookmarked) is GIGO (thanks, Carl!)

<i>"The image in question got some lower rates, but last time I looked was still on the top page."</i>

<p>but is it now at the TOP of the top page? very few people bother to click 'next' or 'previous' page, and nearly as few likely don't bother to scroll down further than viewing the top 6 or 9 of the 21 on the top page. theoretical 'visibility' is quite relative to actual reality of things. the data is there and plain to see. 'views' in the hundreds of thousands (some in the millions!), 'comments plus rates' in the hundreds, if that.

tabulate the number of comments and rates. two or three digits, right? compare that number to the number of views. four, five, six digits, right? get the picture now? "visibilility" just ain't the panacea the conventional wisdom makes it out to be.

 

and the people who've never seen your work before are not likely to offer much more than "nice,clever,wow,colorful,banal,bad,blahblah", that is if one of them even bothers to stop by, right? to hitch your wagon to the 'visibility' star to get meaningful comments is simplistic and illogical.

 

you stand a much better chance to get meaningful comments in the non-rated critique forum. and you can upload the same photo in duplicate, one for rates and one for critique-only. maybe that would provide a useful empirical test, huh?

you should ask yourself this: who do I want my work visible to? a bunch of anonymous strangers, probably 99% of these 'views', who don't care to take time to look at my work or leave any meaningful comment on my photo? these notions of "exposure" and "visibility" are way overblown in relationship to their actual meaning and concrete importance. now, the critique-only forum won't get you 'views' or much 'visibility' or 'exposure'. but once more active PNers get wind of it then it might just become the "in" place to have your photos displayed. give it more time. and those who submit there ought to step up and comment on each other's work there, too.

<i>"There is no inherent conflict between wanting visibility and wanting a good discussion. You're merely noting how this gallery has evolved."</i>

<p>there is no inherent relationship between visibility and discourse on this site. Take 'views'. they're 99% anonymous. and most of the remaining 1% are probably the photographer's own! now, of course a photo cannot be completely invisible and be noticed by the one who cares to begin discussion about it. but there is the 'ratings' TRP/24hrs and now all photos uploaded show up there even if not yet rated. so seek and ye shall find, mark it a nominal 7/7 and maybe a few others will bother to check out why and discuss it, too.

use your right mouse button to open as new window. then you retain the thumbnails on the current window page which you can refresh now and then, or reopen as a new window page to see updates. same goes for details. you can also copy the details into your dialog box for handy reference, then delete.

the problem with your idea is that with a higher minimum number of ratings this photo would continue to stay invisible to most while it might gather high rates only from friends and admirers until reaching say 10 rates. whereas once it becomes sooner visible on the default TRP to any member it can now be accessibly rated by all. note that as I type this the photo now averages 6.00/5.59 and 17 ratings.

you wrote <i>"I agree with your orientation towards images that deserve discussion, but as you know, many popular photographers actively discourage it.</i>

 

<p>there is an essential conflict of interest between gathering high rates and encouraging discussion. however, I have noticed that some who leave serious comments often do so with an ax to grind, strongly suggesting that the maker do something unreasonable with the image, or daring the maker to show a series of similar shots (rather than just that best one), and so forth. no wonder that many good photographers once bitten or annoyed in this way decide to be more guarded or have none of it any more.

 

<p><i>"And you can pretty much forget about getting the needed high rates for your images if you rate popular images honestly yourself."</i>

 

<p>this goes to the bogus argument about the value of "visibility" on this site. plainly, those who crave visibility want it for the rates, not the comments, despite their self-professed but bogus pleadings to the contrary.

 

<i>"You stopped interacting with my uploads after I suggested that you hadn't fully appreciated one of my West Virginia images, so you see, it's all political, isn't it?"</i>

 

<p>that had nothing to do with politics... (biting my tongue)

it seems that the one with complaints and time on his hands ought to step up and select some images for discussion by sifting through the daily uploads (by ratings, 24 hours) and awarding a nominal 7/7 to those images he thinks are most interesting to discuss. then these images will go to the head of the list (by average, 24 hours) and thereby gain the visibility he thinks these deserve. sometimes you just have to step up and take matters into your own hands before you request that others do this daily chore.

<i>"I have heard there is now a no-rating section, by the way, but haven't found yet how to see the images uploaded to this new section: does anyone have a tip ?</i>

 

<p>click <a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery" >Gallery</a> then click <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1481" >Critique Requests </a> then look at right column under Subscribers' Critique Requests and click <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&subscriber_p=1&critique_p=1" >Critique-only (New)</a>

it means that if you lack the common sense and motivational drive to figure out how to use your software and this website, then how the heck are you going to look yourself in the mirror and say that today I am competent and wise enough to offer something useful to others photographically, regardless that I haven't made a photo in years or don't own a scanner.

<i>"The "critique photos" section is, imho, missing an important facility: the ability to get the technical details straight away, along with the image. This would be especially useful for those people who want to leave comments without having to go and opening up the page and then go back etc. etc.</i>

 

<p>learn to use your browser and mouse right-click function "open link in new window". then you get to view everything; to keep the critique requests thumbnails in view if that's your working page, and/or not lose your place in the critique forum queue (if that's your working interface), and also to view technical details and other comments on the photo's page, as well as to type your own (on the photo's page or the critique queue page).

 

<p>for those who think that all this is too difficult or "non-intuitive" and that Brian should make this all easier still, maybe you should ask yourself this: if I cannot figure out and/or do something as simple as this, then do I have the temperament and savvy to provide a thoughtful photo critique?

there's a method to my madness, Becky. if you copy and paste the link (then once there look to the right margin you will see highlighted the link you will need to access in the future) then all you need do is copy the link to your bookmarks or favorites.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&subscriber_p=1&critique_p=1

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/pc-recent-requests?rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&subscriber_p=1&critique_p=1

<i>"Everybody wants objective useful comments, but nobody comes up with a reason why anybody would care to contribute them."</i>

 

<p>muscle tone, if you don't use it you won't develop it... good conversation, it's enjoyable and its own reward... purposeless is wisdom, if you don't use it or share it... etc.

<i>"Technical quality is usually of a high order while content most often is sorely lacking. Lack of captions or other explanation seems to be one of the predominating deficiencies. If the viewer is not informed of the maker's intent then the image can only be viewed as an abstraction, and its success or failure rests upon such a frail subjectivity that should have been obvious to the maker."</i>

 

<p>members usually do provide captions, technical info, and such, about the photo's content. however, these might not show up in the critique request queue user interface if the requestor doesn't specify this info. such is a weakness of the critique request queue.

 

<p>however, there are many who firmly believe that a photo ought to stand on its own and tell its story "photographically" without so much as a single word in its favor. after all, anyone can verbally doll up or wax philosophic about a mere blank page. the maker's "intent" (if there is one, but there doesn't have to be a pre-conceived one, IMO) ought to be self-evident by the photographic content of the image. that is truly part of the nuanced art of photography and the challenge to the skilled photographer.