Robert W. Pillow

Please excuse me Tony, but what is the meaning of the acronym in your response? I don't think I have seen that before. Thanks!

A healthy community can handle complaints. A healthy community will see complaints as opportunities to grow.

Here's a thought: Update the latest release of photo.net to restore the ratings functionality from the legacy system and save the users the trouble of maintaining their own. That's what I call user friendly.

Well, it seems photo.net did not like my updated email address. Eventually today, I lost the ability to access forums. After I went back to the old email address a few minutes ago, I could access forums again.

Update -- I can log back into photo.net using my current email address and password through Firefox on my MacBook, but the problem from iPad on Safari persists. When I go to forums I get "PhotoNet Community -Error", the two Tamron ads. and the system log out.

Late last night or early this morning, I updated my email settings. I was able to log-on from my iPad, but when I tried to go forums, I got an error message, two instances of a Tamron ads, and logged out by the system. I suppose that could be because my old log-in, with the old email address, persists from my MacBook even though I shut he Mac down last night. I write this from MacBook, now. I'm going to log out after I post this. If you don't hear from me again, you'll know why.

I agree the new photo-display format is similar to that of other sites, for which I have the same complaint as the changed photo.net: Scrolling to reveal more pictures is less efficient than clicking one button to go to the next set of photos within a gallery. Scrolling takes more effort than a button click. Scrolling is not as intuitive as a button indicating “click to go to the next page”. The argument that photo.net needed to get away from the TCL programming language, whose last release was July 27, 2016, is not justification for throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm certain that there was a way to use a more common programming language to keep the best of the old photo.net, update desirable features that needed improvement, and replace the parts that required cumbersome navigation. It wasn’t necessary to dump the legacy system’s distinctive look and feel to accommodate the use of a language spoken, so to speak, by a larger set of developers.

I agree. The system used before the upgrade worked very well. That is my ideal.

The best source for answers to these questions is the legacy system.

Mr. C, my concern is that the new photo.net will not re-introduce a rating system because the staff cannot guarantee that it's fair, accurate, and meaningful. Such a stance would be similar to a representative democracy canceling elections because voter fraud has occurred, period. Photo.net just needs to have a zero tolerance policy for ratings' manipulation. When ratings' manipulation is discovered, take action against those responsible. Meanwhile, the users and the staff have to live with the fact that there is no such thing as a perfect rating system. Exercise due diligence, certainly, as the rating system is developed, but don't exorcise what many consider to be a desirable feature. If a majority of the user base approves your solution, that works for me. By the way, I've been a member of photo.net since 1999.

Maybe it can't be prevented, but it can be addressed. You had to have some objective method to know when multiple accounts from a single user affected ratings. Of course, until I see the statistics, I can't really see how extensive the problem is.

The size of the response can be attributed to the location of a survey whose existence and link has not been broadcast throughout photo.net.

If an issue can be quantified, it can be prevented. Mr. Palm you just said "...Simplicity is the spice of life....of maybe it was something else...I can't remember now, but you get the point - I believe based on what we have seen before on this subject both discussing this internally and externally that once we start with complicated explanations....it becomes problematic...." Mr. C's proposal sounds pretty complicated to me.

The ratings' system of the old site persisted, even thrived, in spite of what perceived or actual gaming occurred. Perhaps, we'll learn more about the worries users of that system had as Leslie Reid's thread gets more exposure.

Let's look at the statistics on the incidence of multiple accounts used to either boost or break ratings. I might think that the occurrence is not significant enough to warrant the policy you and another have proposed just as you apparently do not believe cheating would have much of an impact on trending.

Would you apply the same restriction to limit those who can like a picture? If someone would go to the trouble of creating multiple accounts for a better rating, they could do the same thing for more likes. Let's keep 1-7, dedicated queues for categories, and the ability to rate on the fly.

Mr. Palm, I will support a ratings' system based on what the community says is fair, accurate, and meaningful.

I understand the concern of administration staff that the new ratings be fair and meaningful. However, as I pointed out in another thread, users of the old site continued to seek ratings in spite of system flaws. How photo.net management define fair and meaningful may differ from those who routinely submitted their work for ratings on the old site. In my experience with replacing legacy systems, it's best to document how the existing process works and why. After that, you work with users to identify what to improve, what to lose, and what to replace. It isn't necessary to re-invent the wheel. If you understand what got it rolling in the first place, you can make it work better or at least as well as it did before. I remember ratings were linked to raters in the beginning. Later, the old site introduced some level of anonymity by not directly linking ratings to the raters, who were listed by name -- most of the time. I can't speak to the vetting of the ratings. There were averaged scores for aesthetics and originality in the beginning, but that was changed to a single, averaged score.

I'm sure there were unhappy users of the old site's evaluation system. However, the number of people who continued to submit their work for peer review indicates that many saw value in the ratings process despite its flaws.

Mr. Palm, I'm sure you guys applied logic and rules in the 2.1 picture "like" function to prevent the kind of manipulation noted in the paper that Leslie referenced in the progress update for 2/23. I would hope that algorithm could be used in a new ratings' system to prevent undeserved numbers in favor of a photographer or picture. Of course, with the "like" system, revenge "not likes" wouldn't be an issue. That said, the old system handled revenge ratings to my satisfaction or perhaps I just assumed my work was flawed to some extent. :-)

Mr. Palm, the updated heading is step in the right direction and an extension for the deadline of the survey is one way to increase participation. However, a site-wide broadcast concerning the existence of the survey with a link would draw more attention to the question. Also, I'm glad to see the survey is not intended to be the only basis for consideration. I'm sure statistics concerning the level of participation in the old site's ratings' system would be of interest to many.

You may talk about whatever suits you. I'm just trying to get the word out on the ratings' survey that ends 26 February. It just seems to me to get the best participation, meaning lots of responses, it would have been posted conspicuously instead of stuck inside an unrelated post.

For some reason, a survey on whether or not you want ratings back on photo.net is in under the Progress Report 2/23 thread on the help forum.