howard_foto

what is good for or enjoyed by one is not necessarily so for someone else. this adage, first recorded in 1576, is so well known it is often shortened, as in Pat loves to travel to remote areas but that's not for Doris... "one man's meat, you know."

hi Michele. the situation you posed is an interesting one. and after giving it some thought, there may be a way to accomplish what you want. with a patient plan you can upload photos you do not want people to rate but only by "smuggling" them in behind the last three that you upload which as you know are plainly visible on your community page.

 

here is how I think you might do this. let's suppose you accumulate 8 photos to upload by being very patient (that's important!) and resisting the urge to upload one or two (or three) every day. set aside a session of time to upload the 8 photos (or could be fewer). select which three photos you wish to upload and request a critique-only critique. since you are a subscriber you can request 4 in a single day so that won't be a problem. now, first upload the other 5 photos, followed by each of the 3 critique photos. request those critique-only critiques right away. the result is that only your last 3 (crit-only) photos will be visible on your community page. the other 5 will have been "smuggled" in past the ratings-happy snoopers. sure, from time to time these might get rated, but they won't be immediately noticeable as "recent" uploads.

 

now, all this might sound like a lot of folderol, but in the bright light of LOGIC it makes sense. all it requires is patience and control of one's "natural" photo urges.

actually, Kim, YOU have RE-discovered, not just for yourself but for the COMMUNITY the RIGHT way to share the gift of photography within photo.net in REAL TIME. and I only pointed out what is probably common knowledge among the ratings-happy sharpies in the interest of full disclosure of the facts of PN life. (-;

as I understand it that's also a way to woo newbies to become instant fans of you and your work and thus shower you with unbridled high rates on subsequent uploads. not that there's anything 'wrong' with that, eh? so perhaps you've discovered one of the clever ways that all the OTHER mate raters operate, from the mafiosees to the wannabees to the regardsees. good work!

the format is fine, essentially b+w like a good periodical read. the forum layout with sub-threads that are searchable is second to none. and like Bob said, the functionality and navigability can be improved. perhaps one day the site will discover the virtues of image tagging.

<p>"</i>What are the chances of making it the default view?</i>"

 

<p>given that the default view is as static on this site as is the passage of geologic time, none.

 

<p>but with an alternative view, why should we care? render unto caesar the things which are caesar's...

 

<p>"<i>Also, what are the implications?</i>"

 

<p>that the chronic complainers will now have less ground to complain on since an alternative view is now provided.

 

<p>"<i>I don't want to sound defeatist, but will it encourage a whole new way of defeating the system?</i>

 

<p>what system needs defeating now? the only system we should be concerned with is the one that permits members to upload photos and share meaningful feedback with each other. the tools of communication are provided, and they are entirely in our control.

<p>"<i>what is cestova in the category section?</i>"

 

<p>as seinfeld's friend george's father frank costanza might have put it: <b>" a 'cestova'... for the rest of a... aahs (us) ! "</b>

Matt's points indicate what should be apparent to all. as long as this site rakes in the dough it barely changes its stripes in response to problems within it and developments outside it. for example: no useful system to categorize photos other than by ratings (or critique requests). an interactive tagging and companion search system would help bring it into the 21st century. unfortunately, the site has created an underlying monster, its competitive ratings system, so that no collaborative system dependent on cooperative sincerity would work.

I happen to agree with Nestor... that the ratings is a keen KISS - keep it simple stupid - system. so why complicate it? if many members who use it don't give a hoot about the TRP and find its feedback useful then why mess with it? chances are if your better photos score higher than your lesser ones, then it's working for YOU. so I prefer to read my tea leaves via the nuances of comments. diff strokes for diff folks.

<p><i>"Limit raters to one 7 and 5 sixes per day."

 

<p>"A decent start."

 

<p>"Limit the '1' and '2' ratings similarly,"

 

<p>"if you want, too."

 

<p>... or, or, or, or let's call the whole thing off ! </i> :-)))

and what is the purpose of this visibility?

 

some humbly but insincerely claim that "it's to get more comments", as though the quantity of "excellent/great color" comments is any substitute for the quality of one thoughtful photographic critique.

 

better that a website institute an open tagging system so that photos can be associated with keywords to enable searches that could be truly meaningful.

<p>"<i>WTF for um, something has to be wrong if someone with these quals is not heading up a Fortune 500 club..."</i>

 

<p>or perhaps a hawaii five-zero club...

<p>"<i>Mate commenting, with all its' pros and cons, will continue to flourish.</i>"

 

<p>indeed. especially because the site admin. won't do a thing to help improve this aspect of interaction.

 

<p>having lurked on another site that seems to promote good mate-commenting by featuring a daily critique and a separate good-critique/comments-given area, I would think PN would eschew such a feature here given its paranoia about anything that might compete with its sacred gallery ratings system cash cow.

I just had a moment of thrilling recall that simply went beyond the photographic cut-and-dry. it would not have happened had I not made connection with this photographer. see my comment on what this photo evoked for me regarding a classic film shot at the same location 80 years ago:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3186325

<p>"<i>A sense of community is fostered by mate commenting."</i>

 

<p>perhaps the discussion can flesh more out of this concept. seems that lots of mate commenting goes on at varying levels of substance critique-wise. and although comments certainly ought not be limited to purely photographic matters, often the photographic discussion goes on at the superficial surface level. and often I read quite over the top hyperbole concerning non-photographic values which people read into a photo that quite simply are the result of people craving to connect with a photographer in order to "mate" with them into a forward-going comments-wise relationship. but at least that is more entertaining and interesting than the mindless ratings-driven level of comments drivel.

a wholly rigidified RFC queue would quickly fall into disuse. the experience would be akin to agreeing to be a participating guinea pig in a psychological behavioral response test/study without any satisfying compensation.

<p>"<i>"No one has given me a good reason why anonymous ratings restricted to an RFC queue won't work.</i>"

 

<p>for anonymity to work it would have to work both ways. frames and names/logos on photos would identify RFC requestors. also, a photographer's style and subject/genre work would do that too. and there are email alerts.

in response, I am taking good Ben's good advice (see above) and shall not further pollute his good thread by responding to personal attack and witch hunts. perhaps the moderator might generously rescue the thread to return it on topic. enjoy.

PN is a virtual dinosaur when it comes to the ridiculously simple art and science of TAGGING photos. one website encourages its members to include any number of KEYWORD TAGS upon uploading one or more photos (even in batches). the tags themselves provide the raw material for searches of photos of any kind, or for creative and intuitive group batching by technique, subject, genre, and so on. oh, yeah, this is probably somewhere on the one and only PN administrator's to-do list, perhaps e.t.a. ca. 2103?

Ben, what you stated sounds capital to me.

 

Ben, keeping perspective, the ratings really are just so much PN "background noise" (as is the revolving handful of usual suspects who whine, bitch, moan, accuse, excoriate, demonize, or attempt to bully and terrorize others about it). there is so much more to PN that, for all I care, those few who wish to condemn themselves to its cause can remain behind in the past and eat our dust while you, I, and others substantively move on.

RH, that must be "hilda gollian" who even counts me as one of "her" interesting persons even though I eschew the ratings system altogether as meaningless and not worth a second of my time.

<p>"<i>Even though they complain all the time, they stay here. I wonder why?</i>

 

<p>simple. the complainers are a small minority set in their ways. but for most of us, the best parts of the site are long established (the content forums) and you don't have to be logged in to read them!

nope. not kidding. if arranging and presenting your photos any which way you want lickety-split to whomever you want doesn't interest you, well then... "don't worry, be happy." (-:

today I discovered an incipient photo website, based in Vancouver, Canada, still in its beta development, that has the potential to thoroughly kick this and all the rest in a very short time. the people who run it are young, savvy, with a breezy attitude, and absolutely dedicated to providing service to its members. they seem to know precisely what they are doing, provide development and site problem updates via a companion blog site, provide a range of user privacy controls, and have provide a thoroughly supported and ridiculouly easy photo upload, category tagging and set-sorting interface, and in a package that is dial-up friendly and blows anything I have seen. and there are extremely generous free and subscription levels of usage...

 

it's called FLICKR, and it's the 21st century wave of the future here now...

 

http://flickr.com

in your workspace there is a link to display members who find you "interesting". when you upload a new photo your name reaches the top of their "interesting" list. perhaps that is how they know.