paula grenside

I am sure I have read the same question here, but do not remember

the answer ( or whether there wasn't any). About one hour ago, I

posted a critique request, got : success. Out of curiosity, I have

often checked the gallery have seen four photos appear, but not

mine. I do recall that when I first asked for a critique, after two

minutes the photo was up in the gallery, never again for my recent

requests. Clicking on critique request, recent rate ( two columns),

I saw my photo for ten minutes then it slipped down. Clicking on

Browsing ( more than 2500 requests), found mine on page four or

five. I'd like to know what criteria are followed to put the photos

in the gallery, whether they all are put up there on the front page

and if this can happen in a span of days. Thanks for any answer.

<i>Basically, if you click on "Top Photos", you will see mostly and average rating of 6.2 for both both Aesthetics and Originality. However, you will also notice that almost every photo on the first page has some really low ratings. Now I respect different views, but when such a great photograph has averaged above 6's, but some people have come to believe it deserved a pair of 3's, that's insane in my opinion. </i>

<br>

Hi Jory, I posted something similar ten days ago; I had the same perplexities as you have and referred to top photos with 20 or more high ratings and then sudden 2/2s, 3/3s. You call this "insane"; I call it mad clicking. Probably we are both wrong; taste is taste and one is free to dislike a picture ( or a piece of Art in a museum). Dislike, though, doesn't mean to dismiss hurriedly and arbitrarily all elements that occur in a photo. I, too, would like a way to force low raters to leave a comment: wrong light, disbalanced composition, utterly unoriginal take on a worn-out subject, or even more technical: it would be something. I was answered the comments would be reduced to : crap; shitty piece or whatever. Well, at least they'd make the effort to type a few words ( more than the simple click) it is said they tried to change the rating system and it failed. Amen.

Subject: Interest from the hereafter ?

Geez. I am impressed. I found this in the list of : people

interested in you; it has been there for two days though the update

dates back to June <b>1895</b>. I promise I haven't teaken part in

any seance.

David King (updated 1895-06-04)

It seems his ghost logged on recently:

http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=1328716

I see that the low-rating question is back. I myself asked, short ago, whether it was possible to "force" the low-raters to post a comment with their 1/1, 2/2. I was rightly answered that the figures would be replaced, or accompanied by: double shit, shit, crap, super crap, etc. Unluckily it is true.

But what if at least the raters <b> who don't expose any photo of theirs for critique</b> weren't allowed to rate? What's the purpose to come here and low rate the others' with no possibility for the recipient to see what these gods of photography can produce? A few check I did out of curiosity showed a good percentage of 1/1, 2/2 raters refers to the non-displayers.

Of course there are also low-raters who expose their work and, though I don't agree on slamming a photo without explanation, at least they are showing what they can do and their standard ( according to them.

This would not solve the problem but would eliminate free lance snipers.

Mike Dixon

<i>Look a little deeper in the feedback archives. The "glitch" is intentional. A requirement for comments when giving an extreme rating resulted in a lot of one- or two-word comments (and raising the required word count would just result in longer meaningless comments). The exact identity of raters was obscured because of excess "mate rating" among people giving each other undeservedly high scores and retaliatory rating by people who received low scores.</i>

Mike this clarifies things a bit. Thank you for adding these details I didn't know.

----

Ilkka, Neil, sorry for not addressing you directly, but had already typed the whole answer when I realized I had not memorized the name. Sorry and thanks for posting in this thread.

Oh, come on. If so, there is no need for rating, is it?

Probably I am being misunderstood. I am not saying they are not free

to rate low, only that very often, too often, the 1/1, 2/2 come out of the blue in a range ( long list) that goes from 4 to 7: so it does reflect personal taste and evaluation, which is fair. You'll say that 1 and 2 are in the rating range and, therefore, usable. No, because in most cases it's a dishonest attempt to diminish the photo. With 1, you don't even save the attempt to lift the camera.

And for God's sake, is it so hard to accept that I am not speaking because I am personally hurt? I got a 1/1 that disappeared after ten minutes. I suppose the management deleted it because thought it dishonest. What I proposed would ease up the management work, namely to delete the low rating considered dishonest.

If an easy finger clicked a 1 and was required to type something, maybe she/he'd think twice or thrice.

""Second: Are you just too lazy to look at your own work before you post it: is it out of focus, shadows blocked, highlights blown, too busy? If you can't see those things for yourself, why would you take someone else's word for it. ""

No, I am not lazy, but a sound critique (even though low rated) would make me think.

"Third: Photography is subjective. "

Agree. Also know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but beauty and craft can be distinguised, so can originality.

""

If there are people that get their jollies rating photos low...so what? (I have never rated a photo high or low.) The ones that we should concentrate are those that give high rateings to photos that are probably garbage. ""

I was referring to photos "undoubtly" amazingly well done ( unluckily not mine:-) and simply thought the low rating was unfair,

thus my post.

Congratulations for the ribbon. I mean it. Had it been really unworthy the judges would have not awarded it, not the second, not the third time. To believe in what you do is essential, but this has nothing to do with the "fast fingers".

Thank you

Dear Lord!

"The value of your photo is not affected by the ratings."

Of course it is not. I'll tell you more, after almost a decade of forum participation I am thick skinned, can face low rating and. My point is different and was not referring to myself,but to the unbelievable low rating I have seen on spectacular photos; it's that it is not fair and trolls should be stopped. If they are not trolls and rate seriously, then they have to give motivation and show their face.

I have been here for a bit longer than a month and probably have to

read more and look around. I did read, anyway, several complaints

about rating. I mean the easy 1/1 or 2/3 clickers, of course. 100% of

the 1/1 2/2 stick out in contrast with all the other ratings. Well,

I have been in poetry forums for seven years so I know how things go

and how reactions can differ. The fundamental difference is that in

a poetry forum you immediately know who the poster is, can ask

clarifications, can discuss, confute.

Here I can't detect who the low raters are; yes, if I check and it

happens to be the first ( and only) rating, I know who he/she is,

otherwise it is a wild guess. The problem, though, remains why some

seem to find pleasure in dimishing the value of a photo.

What I am asking is whether there is a way to " oblige" the

underground raters, first, to identify themselves, second, to have

them post a few words of critique to justify their rate. It doesn't

take long to type: wrong exposure, no focus, poor composition, worn

out subject. "very bad" says nothing and, to me, has only the

purpose to humiliate, for some unknown reasons, the photographer.

Truth to be told, "excellent" doesn't say much either, but I have

noticed that critiquers usually praise the composition, the light,

the original angle, interpretation.

I like photo.net and have to say I have met amazing photogtaphers

and seen photos that are real masterpieces. So, glad to be here; I

have a lot to learn.

It's seems a pity, though, the management doesn't try to solve this

unjustufied low rating that ( I have seen around) causes a lot of

irritation and unpleasantness.

The solving of this "glitch" might guarantee more fair play ( and

the elimination of trolls) and greater enjoyment.

Thank you