Robert W. Pillow

16 hours ago, Tony Parsons said:

Oh dear. SOHBP ?

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!

Jason, have you considered trying for an informal ratings request of your own?

 

When posting one of your photos, add a comment "Numerical ratings from 1 to 5 where 5 is best and 1 is worst (no words required!) are welcome." And, when commenting on other's photos, giving numerical responses with the comment, "I'm giving this picture a 4 — out of a 1-5 possible rating." If enough people do it, maybe it would catch on so the text would be unnecessary.

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.

I find that it is totally user UNFRIENDLY.... also, it appears that PN sold out to 500px, same format, only less efficient. When one tries to fix an excellent thing, it so happens that one ends up turning back to a lower stage of evolution. I find it cumbersome to find comments to my photos, ..... I could go on and on.....I just cannot cope with this new format.... what a pity... I constantly get messages that "seem" to be regarding a comment on "my" photo, only to find out that it refers to someone else's photo where I had previously posted a comment. A waste of time, no feedback whatsoever.....I am about to give up altogether from PN.... The saying goes "if you do not undersatand it, you don't like it" - well.,....I do not UNDERSTAND it, thus, I DON'T LIKE IT.

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.

• call me a curmudgeon, but I thought the old portfolio arrangement was OK.
  

• However, at the very least, the thumbnails for the portfolio SHOULD NOT BE CROPPED OR REFORMATED, EVEN ON THE INDEX SHEET!
  

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

There are two things I'm curious about regarding the most recently used photo rating system. From your experience with the system, (1) About how many photos per day (or week or whatever) were submitted for rating? (i.e., what was the work-load for raters?) and (2) About how many people, on average, rated each photo?

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.

There are two missing pieces of information that might be useful for providing some context here: (1) About how many photos per day (or week or whatever) were submitted for rating? and (2) About how many people, on average, rated each photo?

Robert, I can't see your history here, as you have it restricted. But I've seen many of the complaints about ratings from when photonet started allowing photos. Many people got downright angry at what was going on, and who knows how many left for that reason? I really don't see much that can be done with the traditional rating system to curb abuse. For example, I wouldn't need multiple accounts, or even specific friends. I just find find people from my country, or whatever, and rate all of their photos highly. Some of them will probably notice and do the same for me. Or perhaps I get a bunch of people from my workplace, or school, or some sort of club, and ask them to join photonet and rate my "opponents" low.

 

Of course you can allow complaints and have staff investigate things, but I think it's a bad idea to build systems that are labor intensive. Again, I don't see any obvious way to control the rating manipulations, except by reducing their ability to make much difference.

 

As a note, comparative ratings, A vs B, automatically double the number of ratings - each time you select, one goes higher and one goes lower. And who can get mad at you for preferring another, similar photo, to theirs?

I would disagree, just because something can be quantified does not mean it can be prevented. I could roll out numerous examples, but its late. I believe we need something that is accurate, fair and simple. The former version was not accurate, not fair but it was simple....maybe just too simple.

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.

Yes - much more input would be nice - as it stands with the small sample size ~ 14% want ratings back, leaving ~ 86% in the no or indifferent camp.

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.

I think what we're looking for here Robert are new ideas. Bill C - had a great idea, and there is likely something there we can build on or use in part. As presented, it does it present challenges to execute - but to my mind, Bill is bringing forth new ideas worth a discussion. Mate rating was an issue and yes a quantifiable issue so we know mate rating was something that we would need to address if we were to roll out any system if we were seeking accurate ratings.

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.

I like it (personally) and appreciate your way of thinking because its outside the box...now comes the but....we have been down that road and what we found is that if our ratings system can't be easily explained in 10 seconds or less (elevator pitch), then it becomes problematic. 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.

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.

To my mind, (at least at first glance - mind you its late) because free and premium members would have to opt their photos in to a rating system for their photos and this gallery (for lack of better word) would reside separate from all others on Explore Tab. "Admires" (what I believe you are calling "likes") are a component of the input that goes into Trending (a fraction of) so at this point, my answer would be no - its not an apples to apples comparison and I don't think the same restriction would apply to admires as it does a system based on ratings.

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.

I know I am a one person sample size, but an easy solution would be that premium Members get to rate, both free and paid members can get their photos rated (provided free or premium has opted into rating system). But if accurate and fair is what we're after then this is one solution to the "gaming the system" problem.

 

This way if users want to create multiple accounts to game the system, they're limited by the funds they are willing to donate to photo.net.

 

Scale of 1-5

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.

So rather than continue on with "despite its flaws" would this not create a good opportunity to reassess what a fair, accurate and overall "good" ratings system would look like? Leslie opened up a thread to the discussion - lets see what the community has to say.

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

There’s an ongoing discussion across several threads about whether to bring back a ratings system, as well as a poll (link) to solicit members’ opinions of whether to reinstitute it. One of the issues is how such a system could be constructed to make it fair and meaningful, and there’s a good discussion of this in a paper I found on line that actually uses photonet as the example (link). I’m curious about what the ideal system would look like now if members had the power to build it from the ground up—what would you like to see? Anonymous submissions, or photographers identified? Specific judging categories, or overall score? Rotating panel of vetted evaluators, or whoever wants to participate? Or what other possibilities?

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.

Maybe to your satisfaction, but I can assure you, not to all.

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.

agreed, however please keep in mind there is a fair amount of work that would go into bringing a ratings system back and most of that work is to address the "gaming of the system" that could occur in the old system. How people have time to create new accounts and mate rate artificially inflating ratings is beyond me, but it did exist - so we'll need to design a system that can address that - otherwise I see little point. I think we would all agree that IF you are going to have ratings, they must be if nothing else...accurate.

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. :-)

@robert - The post heading was updated to reflect the inclusion of the poll. Its not the end all be all and (I think) we can extend the time period on it.

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.

<br><br>[Danny DeVito in to Arnold in Twins] "What's wrong with you? You look like you've been stung all over by bees!" Termite bites. Trust me.

<br><br>

You know Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov. The only other Garry with two r's that I know of is famous photographer Garry Winogrand. Then we have Glen with two n's. Just saying ...

<br><br>

Tony, we might have to stop. I think Robert wants to get back to the OP which is ... [reading the thread title] never mind ...

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.

I wish there was a rating system in place because as it is there are few or no comments on many of the new uploads. Much less traffic on mine anyway. As much as I disliked the old ratings system, I found I got more comments and interest on those I did ask for a rating and critique. I also miss top photos of 24 hours. I think the new look is ok, but its very slow. slow. slow. Compared to lets say 1x. But of course 1x. costs an arm and a leg to keep up.

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.

Why can't you update and reboot but retain the part of Photo Net that I enjoyed: posting pictures for ratings and critique and seeing them (my pictures!) for a few minutes on the Photo Net home page? Unless it's a "me" centered fantasy, I don't really see the point of Photo Net. Advice, reviews, etc., you can get in so many places.

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.