r_e

There is no general answer relating to a personal feeling. So you have to decide and underwrite (ethical) by yourself.

"receive higher ratings (6's & 7's )regardless of the aesthetics, technique, etc...." and if not, we often get to know a strange sensitive side of the spoiled.

Achieve greatest success with <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3368932">these</a> motives :-)) RE

I am a rat. Look at the birds in the stomach of my cat ... RE

Do I need still more LIFESTYLE around me? No. RE

Well done, Ellen!

 

 

Emre, up to now there is no need to select :-))

 

 

Please read the "History" and let me add that the "selection" of the subject picture is of less importance than the results. Seems to become more a task of civil service. Maybe one picture after another...

 

We shall start next week (10).

 

REgards

"Let's limit it to seven sevens a year." Lets limit it to one 7/7 a year, mine one is reserved for your first posted picture. RE

Keith, it seems to be a true word, I noticed this fact too. RE

Ray, thank you for your detailed answer. No matter what camera I shall buy finally, its worthful to learn what and how to think about in the new dimension DSLR. Greetings, RE

Woldnt call it a "game", but youre right its taken too seriously sometimes!

So I wait for to be told one day a better solution to exclude abstruse, agressive low - rating from the rating system. (For not beeing misunderstood: a 3 for aestectics with the argument "I dont like green" for example does not mean a problem for me...)

As the "author" of this shot I think it makes sense to take part. Interesting for you to have a look at the background , I think. I posted 66 photos up to today. 27 of them got ratings before I asked for critique. This I do "without rating" fundamentally because of an experience I made before. I had already posted some pictures as I made the mistake to make some purposes in my thread http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008q3n . The answer was that I was visited by a certain initial which rated the whole folder with 1 or 2! In this way its not really pleasing to present pictures. Others made this experience too. I have the habit to post several pictures all at once, as a "theme" for example. Its the time between posting and asking for critique the pictures are noticed mainly by members who are interested in you. As always. Consequently you should limit the amount of pictures being posted a day at 4 also. Its a good idea to eliminate pictures already rated from "asking for critique only". Although that would include that you have to delete and reposte them when you already got a rating. RE

Thank you, J-B. Expensive to make all experiences by your own. Not easy to understand your answer for there are two difficult areas for me (English too), but I think I got it! RE

I am very interested in the coming S3. Released in August - that

means since 11 days? We know how it works, but its the oppportunity

to ask a question. The chip will have the same size as that one of

the S2. Who does have experience with special lenses for Digicams -

I am impressed by the Tamrons, but thats a feeling, ... no idea.

But when later the cams will get larger chips - only a question of

time, I think, wouldn't it be better to own the "normal" lenses then?

I have no single lens for SLR yet. What to do in this "starting at

zero" situation with all possibilities and all opportunities to make

a lot of mistakes...?

 

Thank you, RE

Brian Mottershead,let me first confirm the sentence of Sandeha. It is no coincidence, that a german arrived at this community! But some weeks ago the system had been different. I think, it is in change, like everything and so I give my contribution...

thank you, Vincent K. Tylor!. I do think so, too. My proposal had been a minimum, a try, to cause raters to responsibility at least at the lowest level. So that they are "reachable" at all. A hurdle at the entrance to avoid (too much) trouble inside the community!

And what do you mean to this Final? proposal: Only members who loaded 5 pictures or more are allowed to rate for ranking. What does it mean? I assume that not all of these "badraters", are psychopaths, idiots bored by their sex- sites. In some cases it looks like a "second identity", a puppet. And you don't catch them with their average rating - they can rate unusual good some "friends" or anyone! You only have a chance when you follow their ratings over a long time, but you can't get the informations. Of course there are a few respectable persons, lifted off the "daily work" of the photographer.Therefore I called it "rate for ranking" before. I think when we introduce a "not for ranking" - rating for the not (yet?) posting ones, everybody is served right. Good possibility too for the "newbies", to look around and learn. So you have no longer to read:"Oh, sorry, I thought, "1" would be the best rating!". Greetings, Reiner

@Ralf Schiffert, to stay in your example the actual situation at photo.net is: Some of the cooks send "testers" to their competitors with a given result.This result they publish, signed with a faked name. And even the editor of the publication don't know their identity...

Could possibly be a beginning:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008q3n

Could possibly be a beginning:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008q3n

By the way, let me give a statement: It's not illegal to have friends. Yes, really :-)). Even I have some for myself. It didn't last long in this community - we are social beings. And of course we want to show our friends that we love them, and their pictures..., and their worse pictures too... and we hate their enemies. That's normal with the difference, that MY friends maybe have to live with a sticter rating. Because I love them. And therefore I want to help them. But that's my own matter. The facts become completely different when somebody gives up his honesty. When someone becomes illegal. A wrong identity for doing the ugly things you don't want to sign personally - that's a fraud. Actually all you need for "ranking" rating is an e-mail adresse (I still have some not yet used myself) and a low inspired NAME.

@Giampiero Scuderi, I think, there had been numerous discussions about this problem.I completely sign your opinion. But we can`t come from the best case. What's about "Wow, 7/7"? Your next problem. What we need is a minimum - in every case. A protection against the undercover synonyms which destroy the joy of the others!

A good idea. Should be possible to install a flag, for example. It's a problem (repressed by some persons)not only at the office, but at home too. "I played with Clara this afternoon and her father looked at these strange pictures..."

@Sandy, same direction, but there is also the problem that if there is no picture, there is no address.@Mike Morgan, you're right, simple.(Too simple IMHO.)

Thank you for your frank answer. There is no other way! Right, we have two problems, one of them, the problem with the "not reachable" raters, could be solved with my proposal, I think.

Reiner