Jump to content

zafar

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    32

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by zafar

    Earthquake in South Asia

    in PhotoNet Site Help

    Posted

    As you all are aware <b>Pakistan has suffered the worst Earthquake

    disaster of the century.</b> The magnitude of the quake

     

    tragedy will take time to measure. Till now more than 35,000 people

    are dead and still most the Northern areas are being

     

    searched for the effects of this quake.

    Towns and villages of Northern area have completely been destroyed.

    People and children have been buried alive. <B>I will

     

    request all of you who can, to help us in this hour of need, in this

    regard.</B>

     

    <P>

    Please see

     

    <A

    href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/10/quake.asia/index.htm

    l"

    target=_blank><B>CNN ***</B></A> &

     

    <A

    href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/south_asia/2005/south_asia_q

    uake/default.stm"

    target=_blank><B>BBC ***</B></A>

     

    & <A

    href="http://www.app.com.pk/"

    target=_blank><B>Associated Press of Pakistan ***</B></A>

    and

     

    <A

    href="http://www.northernareas.org.pk/disaster/"

    target=_blank><B>Disaster in Northern Areas ***</B></A>

    <P>

    <P><I>I wanted to post it in site feedback but I will request Brian

    to please include this post in any forum it suits.</I>

    Were Photos Posted In RFC Without Request?

    in PhotoNet Site Help

    Posted

    Hi John I also happen to comment on two of your photos but I did not find them through rate recent but instead by clicking one of the comments of Nicholas. Liked the photos and commented. Didn't rate any though. I think this bug has been pointed out earlier too where the photo appears in rate recent que without being submitted for critique and also you can come across your own photo while rating recent and the most funny thing is that you can even rate it if you like..... lol.

    Quality really improved?

    in PhotoNet Site Help

    Posted

    I understand your frustration of your recent photos slaughtered by low rates ..... Paul.

     

    Since you have mentioned this personal problem of "Your Low Ratings" on so many occasions and in many of your comments on these "Geographicialy Identifyable Names". You have even gone as far as writing the same to their porfolios.

     

     

    Instead of asking for an answer I think you should refer to "your e-mail" you sent me in which you ....... well read it in your sent folder carefully and you will get the answer to what you have asked for in your comment above. If you can't find it I can paste here for you to read it.

     

     

    Now I will bring this to you kind notice....Do you or the abuse have an answer for this.....

     

     

    Just look at last three days of my ratings received pattern since my first post here. All the new loads of added rates are 2s 3s and 4s. I had many low rates but when three days back PN deleted few accounts I had almost none extremely low rates left in my ratings received as they were all deleted form the whole PN and all of us know this fact. They have been doing it for more than couple of weeks now.

     

    If those accounts have been deleted and they are as they are not on my pictures any more ..... From where did this new load of low rates come from in the last three days????

     

    Now can you explain this sudden change in LOW rating behaviour on my pictures which are not on TRP even (no visibility even). Why people would rate them low??

     

    I think people do react to these discussions. I did not mention this in any of my previous comments because of the same reason. I did not point any geographical names doing it .... although the situation is almost similar. I think everyone has the right to think what he wants but I hope that this ends as this behaviour is not healthy for anyone of us.

     

    Kind regards.

    Quality really improved?

    in PhotoNet Site Help

    Posted

    Sorry Carl for mis-understanding your question. If you read my previous comment I mentioned in detail the ratings given and ratings received both mine and Vincent's. The situation would be clear if you look at the ratings given by me and the number of members who received it. I will try to summarise by saying that on an average I have rated 2.16 Photos per member (I have rated total of 1165 PN member's work). To give you the broad variations I may have rated only one photo of some members and may have rated more than 2.16 of some members. The overall average is 2.16. Well about how often it happens depends upon how often these members upload their work. Some regularly update and some post a photo in a month. Usually it is very time consuming to look for new portfolio but I do try to look at different people's work that shows in my ratings given too.

     

     

    Kind regards.

    Quality really improved?

    in PhotoNet Site Help

    Posted

    Thanks Paul for clarification. Kind of you to mention .... it was not in sarcasm...... Much appreciated. If you read my previous comments you will find the answer to the last question you asked

     

     

    Well carl its a good question and I will have to look in mine and Vincent's ratings to see if we have some common images or we rate different groups of people. I believe it will be an interesting result.

     

    Kinest regards.

    Quality really improved?

    in PhotoNet Site Help

    Posted

    Thanks Vincent for the feedback. Sorry for mis-statement. I hope no harm done. Just one more clarification my highest ever ratings given is 6.11 for Aesthtics and 6.04 for originality ("Last month" as for almost two months I did not rate recent) which I think you must have missed out because from last two days it did not change much. This fluctuates between 5.95 to 6.05 roughly. I think it is still near 6 and 6.05 even now.... Well that is not a big issue here.

     

    I will not ask you again about the same question that I asked on 7s for originality of yours, mine and other's pictures as you did not answer it even this time. I think it would have had answered many questions here. As if you know what is the rating 6 and seven and to what it should be awarded to and there is a set rule for it .... things would have eased out.

     

    Lastly it was a pleasure getting intouch with you. Although a little difficult to start with but you handled it quite decently unlike many others that I came across. I value you ideas and advice as it comes from a long attachment to this site and experience.

     

     

    You have **NOT** upset me in anyway and I hope I have not done it to you either. It was a nice experience for to share my ideas with you and have your input in return too.

     

     

     

    Kind regards.

    Quality really improved?

    in PhotoNet Site Help

    Posted

    Sorry Vincent to address you again..

    </p>

     

    I will just like to clarify somethings yet again...............

    </p>

     

    I already pasted the "ONLY" e-mail. I have nothing to hide. Its upthere for all of us to read .... "And you all have pointed out that I was already the high rated PN member even before this picture."

    </p>

     

    You have mentioned my good comments only but have not mentioned my comments with not only constructive crtiques but also posting the members pictures on their page after editting them to the best of my experience and knowledge. If you browse through my comments you will find many of these comments.

    </p>

     

    That I don't rate every picture that I comment and not comment on every picture that I rate. All of us do this too as number of comments are not equal to the number of pictures you rate. This morning when I was checking my ratings given to look for your picture and found your other picture that I rated earlier but commented now.

    </p>

     

    I had reuploaded the picture only after 10 minutes because of critique request change (already told the reason) and not for low rates as it got low rates again too when I posted it again and Vincent you yourself are witness of seeing it on the lower TRP page and I remeber it went to fifth page too after the repost. So it was not for the low rates.

    </p>

     

    Lastly I am guilty of bias in my rates as I admitted above ..... may be a hard thing to accept for some and you may not find many people admitting this although many many are guity of this as you yourself mentioned and offered that you can send me the detail privately. I very respectfully ask you... How many people from that list do you think will come on a forum like this and would like to be questioned and sarcastically addressed by others...!!!

     

    </p>

     

    One last thing...... You say my ratings given average is high but I can quote hundreds of user whose average ratings given are way above 6.30 both in originality and aesthetics... may be most of the people you offered to share with me privately will fall into this category. </p> Mine is way below the detail provided above. </p>Now coming to another issue as you have mentioned it let me paste a detail of your and mine ratings received and given....

    please read this carefully and give it your kind consideration.....

     

    </p>

     

    <i>Vincent

    </p>

     

    This member has rated 8381 photos on this site, with average ratings of 5.93 for Aesthetics and 5.77 for Originality. The ratings went to 3336 distinct photographers. (Photos per member 2.51) ..... This member has received 6068 ratings, on 87 distinct photos, averaging 6.43 for Aesthetics, and 6.04 for Originality. The ratings were from 1581 other members (Photos per member 3.83)

    </p>

    Zafar

    </p>

     

    This member has rated 2529 photos on this site, with average ratings of 6.04 for Aesthetics and 5.99 for Originality. The ratings went to 1169 distinct photographers. (Photos per member 2.16) ..... This member has received 1768 ratings, on 20 distinct photos, averaging 6.48 for Aesthetics, and 6.36 for Originality. The ratings were from 561 other members. (Photos per member 3.15)

    </p></i>

     

    Both of us not only are rating selected member's work but also receiving in the same manner too. You have rated more pictures per member and also received more ratings per member. Is this not mate rating? Giving and receiving 6s and 7s from same members!!! Well for me it is. No matter what explanation you give to it I think this too is mate rating but may be in a Better or Good Sense. Even the overall average of both of us, in ratings given, is not much different. Well the quality .... leave it to the people to evaluate. I browse different people's work and your selected members are different And we both select pictures which we consider are best.. It is quite natural as it is impossible to see all the work being submitted.

     

    </p>

     

    The things which I did not get an answer for I will humbly ask again </p>

    <i>A beautiful sunset scene with good detailed foreground and nice colors. Good sky....... Does this call for a 7 in originality, has this never been done before like this.???? Same goes for mountains lakes rivers .... is this not being presented before....? Original? A nicely composed portrait nice expressions.... does it call for a 7 for originality.... does a nude whose pose evokes "some feelings" in you deserves 7s for originality.</i> </p>..... is it fair? You have lots of 7/7s (including mine too). My pictures are also the same. Do we really deserve them, I don't see anybody complaining about why they are being given 7s 6s on their pictures. Anyway if you allow me to ask... what are the criteria for giving a 6 or a 7? ISN?T IT PERSONAL DECISION AFTER SELECTING FROM THE PICTURES "YOU" BROWSE. To my knowledge there is no criteria given here on PN, all it says is <b>"7 RATINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE PHOTOS THAT **YOU** CONSIDER THE *BEST* ON PHOTO.NET </b>, AND OUT OF THE PHOTOS SUBMITTED ON ANY PARTICULAR DATE, YOU CAN ONLY GIVE AT MOST 8 OF THEM A 7 RATING." I again respectfully submit here that there is no mention here HOW WILL YOU SELECT THE BEST . If you have the time you may browse the whole PN for new submissions. I doubt if ANY ONE member has viewed even **some** of the pictures of "ALL THE PN MEMBERS"

     

    </p>

    Regarding the quatification of how much do you like it....I will humbly suggest that Why not post question on what is the criteria of giving a 7 on originality and aesthetics and see what others think about it.....

    </p>

    In conclusion I would say unless this present rating system stays as such things won't be any different from what they are now.</p>

    Best wishes

    </p>

     

    Sincere regards.

     

    Quality really improved?

    in PhotoNet Site Help

    Posted

    "Zafar i have no respect for your tsnami media blitz. You claim you are "asking for prayer", shed a tear."

     

    "Who are YOU to advise anybody what to pray for? Pray to who,?.... God? Krishna? Vishnu?... and about what exactly? We supposed to pray to bring them back maybe? After all didn't God look down and decide to create this quake to begin with? Please God undo it?"

     

     

     

    Well Paul this is what I was reffering to in my above comments which attract people.....the heated discussions and your comments on my pictures but I am afraid here you will not be able to edit them like you do on the pictures..

     

    I am amazed at your idea of my using this picture for rates and self promotion where you yourself mention that all my pictures are locked at the first page.

     

     

    To my amusement in your dictionary an amatuer is considered as a bad photographer as you have concluded above.

     

    Is this sarcasms is going to lead us to anything. If you think so please carry on with all your heart....

     

    Kind regards... because I believe this is the civilised manner to communicate with somebody.

×
×
  • Create New...