peter_apostol

I just realized that not ony the 1's and 2's are disabled but a rater is not allowed to rate aesthetics and originality with a deviation between the two. For an example, if one rates aest 4 and originality 2 the system does not record those numbers but does a bizzare alteration/mediation and gives it as a 3/3! This is not only meaningless but confusing and unfair! What if I see a photo that is extremely common but visually appealing? Should it not get a 5 aesth/ orig 3? Why should photo.net change it to a 4/4? That not only ticks me off but gives the wrong score to the photographer that thinks that his photograph is equally average in both originality and aesthetics when it really is aesthetically pretty but just not original. I hope photo.net takes back these changes because as already mentioned by a fellow 'photonetter' it's childish/protective to do such a thing. NO MORE quotas or barriers -free the system and find other ingenious ways to help scoring abuse- I'm sure Greenspun can come up with an idea in no time.

Most fellow photo.net members have approached the issue in a technical manner 'how to get around the issue or not'. I feel there is a greater situation at stake here: that photo.net is here to promote the art of photography. Many will say that not everyone here has such an ideal in mind and that is true. Nevertheless, the website's purpose is -or should be- that. Keeping this in mind, I find it a form of censorship to block a whole site because it contains nudes. What's so bad about the human body anyway? We all have one. Modern conventiality one might say. Anyhow being at a work-place definetely is a just excuse for using the software to block porn but blocking communities like photo.net is an exagerration...One may slack around in many ways other than surfing on photo.net.....

Only a blank sheet of paper might deserve an aesth of 1 and orig of 1. Any photograph has some value even if its flat in every way. But Mark you do have a point. By disabling 1's and 2's it seems like rating becomes somewhat useless and unpleasing. Like death makes life meaningful, as what is not evil defines what is good and as the ugly feeling of failure makes success important, so do low ratings give value to the higher ones. Why try to get better if whatever you post gets the same rating? Why feel good with a high rating when really no-one else has a low one. Giving realistic ratings makes a succesful photo gratifying to artist.

Should photo.net create an elite or/various levels of groups -w/ passwords- where one enters on his score and participation to higher levels? Should one make a critique -min characters- in order to rate?

we are in the same wave-length of thought. II also believe that if adding extra ratings is too complicated then maybe adding optional extra parameters -scores don't count towards overall rating- might give an insight to the rating score or even might make a rater re-consider his rating before he/she 'clicks' to proceed to the next photo.

After discussing with friends about photography and judging by the critiques

from fellows photo.net members, I find it interesting to discover, that most

people rate a photograph in more than just these two parameters! I myself for

example, pay great attention to what I call the theme; what the picture is

trying to say and if it conveys it. If one thinks of this parameter it really

doesn't fit in either two existing categories. I hope to hear your opinions on

other parameters you feel should exist. Also it would be interesting to take

into account the fact that not all categories of photography might have the

same weight in each parameter: obviously in landscape photography aesthetics

do play the major role in rating and in contrast originality is mostly

important in street photography. Or maybe not? Should raters be able to select

from a list what parameters they want to rate? Discussing this issue might

give an insight to why in photo.net all the nude photographers top the

popularity lists too... Is a beautiful subject worth a 7/7? Is there a gap in

photo.net's rating parameters? Could extra parameters bring out broader

thinking and evaluation of photographs -as works of art- and not a mere

collection of pixels? What do you think?

How can a picture posted only seconds ago have hundreads of views when maybe 1 rating has just appeared? Does the system really work? Or something is behind this?

How can a picture posted only secodns ago have hundreads of views when maybe 1 rating has just appeared? Does the system really work? Or something behind this?

Lately it seems like way too many 3/3 4/4 or 5/5 are appearing giving the impression that many don't even look at the photo just to get bigger quota. Personally, I find it hard for most photos on photo.net to have aesth and orig the same since most often they have a reverse relationship having to sacrifice one or the other.

In my experience I have realized that photographic talent is not due to gadget power or megapixels. And the reason is simple: most good photos have a strong theme and/or smart post-processing. So it might be misleading to compare a camera to a photo because you'd probably end up with a bunch of Nikons and Canons that are heavily advertised and marketed anyway. Obviously, that doesn't mean a Hassleblad is a bad camera! If one knows statistical theory it's a common mistake to assume 2 subjects correlated just because they both seem to depend on each other. On the other hand, I do find a search criteria based on 'camera used' an interesting feature... so..why not incorporate it?

Peter Phan are you a Canon employee or subsidized by Canon in any way?

Peter Phan are you a Canon employee or subsidized by Canon in any way?

IN any case, having a clear shell allowing the sun to hit on the interior electric circuit and wires etc sounds like a very bad idea!

I was thinking that the new system is finally not that great, because it protects raters BUT it does not protect commenters!!!! If I write a harsh critique someone will not know my rating (which might be a 4 and 5 -fairly good-) but can still click on my name under the comment and revenge rate me anyway. There were moments when I was giving a strong opinion and rating with a 5 and 5 and feeling this person is probably going to think I gave him the 2/2 on his list since the real 2/2 guy did not leave a comment (which is the usual case). Unfortunately commenters are still exposed maybe their names should be erased too or the whole thing returned to the way it was before.

Hi again, by fun I meant the ratings/names tie increased the circulation of viewing and links to other photos (one link led to the other), but I do understand the other points made in the forum postings *100%*. I am a photo.net user that critiques photos regurarly and my philosophy is to 'ALWAYS' leave a comment since I feel that if *I* do it, others will pick up the habit too. *Unfortunately* the more comments I write the more either 1/1's or 7/7's I get(mostly 1/1's or 2/2's or 3/3's). That means that people tend to punish or praise me for my comments. And the sad part is I never have revenge-rated or praise-rated anyone ever!~ So maybe the new system will protect people like me that comment a lot when giving ratings from extremely high or low ratings.

I am not sure the removal of names to ratings is a good idea. It was

more fun when we knew who voted, we almost formed a community by

identifying repeat viewers, plus the prankers (that always rated 1/1)

were isolated from the community, now they are free to do they're

pranks without being discovered.

Some picures need a title/explanation to help the viewer understand the photographer's effort and goal. Other photographs speak on their own. In general I find untitled photos laziness and lack of true interest.