dem_photos

I agree with Darius's diagnosis, particularly points 1 and 2 (I haven't spent enough time on the site to assess point 3).

Darius: Interesting suggestion. I'm not sure a voluntary system would result in 20 to 30 rates per photo, but I think it would be better than nothing, and it certainly would be cheap to implement. I'd get behind it.

 

Josh: You and Carl may well be right, though I'd still maintain that existing site statistics (I'm assuming Carl is referring to some data someplace showing how much time the average rater spends rating each photo) don't necessarily predict how people who WANT rates will behave when required to GIVE rates.

 

Assuming you (Josh, the Director of Community) still have hopes of improving the rating system, I hope you won't get hung up on my required ratings proposal. Setting required ratings aside, I still feel that the process would be improved by making it clearer to people what they can hope to get from ratings and finding some way to get people to rate more. In fact, I suspect that any effort to improve the system without addressing the low average number of rates will leave you constantly battling people who are trying to game the system.

 

It may be that simply encouraging people to rate more will suffice. It was something of a "duh" revelation, but I posted photos for ratings for a long time and was frustrated with the small numbers of rates I received before I realized that I shouldn't expect many rates if the average visitor was rating as few photos as I was (I still have received more rates than I've handed out--I have been a leech on the system!). The logical place to look for raters, it still seems to me, is among people who want to receive rates themselves. How about a page that appears when you post a photo for ratings explaining the importance of giving ratings? Obviously, people won't read much, so it needs to be short. Something like, "By posting a photo for rating, you are asking for opinions from the photo.net community. You are also a member of that community, and it can only function well with the input of all its members. If you hope to receive a certain number of rates on your photo, please make an effort to rate at least that many yourself. No qualifications are necessary." A link from that page could lead to a more extensive rationale.

 

A more extensive "marketing campaign," as Darius proposes, could also point out that taking time to rate and critique other people's photos is an excellent way to improve your own photography.

Dang, I wish we could add to posts after we've already posted them. In any case, my hope is that people who are hoping for ratings themselves will actually be more thoughtful about the ratings they give than the current average blitzkrieg rater. People should be reminded before they start rating that what they can expect from the system depends on what they (and others) put in. That's why I would promote it as a sort of civic responsibility.

Carl: Sorry, my last response was still meant in response to your first post, not your second.

 

Yes, I agree that some people, when forced to rate, will not really give careful consideration to what they're doing, but I don't want to assume that's the case for ALL people, or even a majority. You've told me YOU would make it as simple as possible. Let's let other people say what they would do.

 

And yes, there is a heirarchy to criticism. It's precisely because rating is so easy that we can expect so little from it, but I'm not (yet) convinced the ratings concept is entirely without value.

Carl: I feel compelled to elaborate further (not sure why). I think it's perfectly valid to care only about some opinions. I sometimes take photos for scientific textbooks as part of my work, and when I do so, I am really only interested in what people reading the book will think of the photo. People creating conceptual art photographs that, to be fully understood, require a thorough familiarity with contemporary art photography would be justified in dismissing my own opinion as entirely uninformed. Sometimes, though, I just want to know if other people (regardless of their training) think my photo is as beautiful as I do.

 

It would certainly be interesting at times to get opinions only from accomplished photographers, and I think it would be great if that option were available for those who wanted it. Realistically, though, I think the general opinion of the masses is the best we can hope for from this ratings system. Nonetheless, I think it's worth trying to improve this system's ability to provide that opinion.

Carl: If everyone who requested ratings on a photo had to rate 25 photos themselves, then each photo would average about 25 ratings, wouldn't it? And that doesn't count the ratings from random do-gooders like Bruce Cahn, who has rated over 7,000 photos without posting a single photo himself.

 

And yes, I am really interested in ratings from everyone, even people who don't post photos themselves. Arnold Schoenberg (a non-entirely-well-known composer of atonal music) once remarked that he thought nonmusicians appreciated his music better than musicians did (or something to that effect). Most people untrained in photography still have gut feelings about whether or not they like a photo. Who am I to say that gut feeling has no value?

I long ago stopped posting photos for ratings here at photo.net, but I have

checked in periodically to see if any changes have happened to the ratings

system to make it worth posting again. I'm not surprised to see the same old

complaints, though they now seem more readily met with explanations of the long

history and inherent problems of the system. There seems to be a certain amount

of resignation these days, a sense that the system is far from perfect but

impossible to improve. That may be the case. Then again, I do have some ideas

that I haven't seen presented before, and who knows, perhaps they're worth a

try. Please note that the ideas below are geared specifically toward ratings and

not comments. Thoughtful comments are of course far more valuable than ratings,

but that doesn't mean ratings need to be worthless. I feel that promoting more

(and more meaningful) comments is a very different problem that calls for an

unrelated solution.

 

I would recommend a two-pronged approach to revamping the ratings system: On the

one hand, clearly define the purpose of the system along realistic lines; on the

other, encourage many more people to rate photos, greatly reducing the influence

of any single rating.

 

As I see it, the primary purpose of submitting a photo for ratings should be to

get some objective sense of whether it appeals to other people or not. I don't

know about the rest of you, but I don't have any other source for truly

objective opinions along these lines. My friends, for some reason, seem to like

me and care about my feelings, and as a result they are less likely to say my

photos suck, even if they do suck. Anonymous raters on PN have no such qualms.

On the other hand, even if every single PN member carefully considered my photo

for ten minutes before assigning it two numbers, I couldn't expect to learn

anything more from the results than whether the photo generally appealed to this

set of people or not.

 

Believe it or not, there are times when I want to know exactly that. Some people

create photos entirely for themselves; others have a specific audience in mind

(e.g., the set of people with actual academic training in the history and art of

photography) that may hold opinions very different from those of the PN masses.

To these people, I would say, "Don't bother submitting your photos for ratings

on PN unless you are also curious about what their appeal is to the general

masses."

 

So my first recommendation for overhauling the ratings system would be to make

it clear up front that people who post photos shouldn't expect to get anything

more from the ratings than a general sense of whether their photos appeal to

other PN members or not. A page explaining this that you would need to click

through at the beginning of each ratings session should suffice. Innumerable

complaints about the ratings system over the years have taken the form "What am

I supposed to learn from a couple of numbers?" This would provide moderators,

and others, a ready response: not much, but more than nothing. Aren't you

curious about whether other people "like" your photos or not? That should be the

purpose of ratings on PN; nothing more, nothing less. A secondary function of

the ratings system, which follows automatically if the primary function is

fulfilled, would be to have the Top Rated Photos page accurately reflect the

opinions of PN members.

 

Personally, I lowered my expectations from the rating system long before I

stopped posting photos for rates. I stopped posting photos because it seemed to

me that the rating system wasn't even delivering information to meet my lowered

expectations. The trouble is that my photos were getting far too few ratings for

the ratings to represent a good sampling of PN opinion. When photos only receive

five to ten rates on average, individual rates carry far too much weight. For

example, the seventh photo in the TRP as I write this has six anonymous ratings

that average 5.83/5.67. A single 3/3 would reduce that average to 5.42/5.28,

knocking the photo to the third page of the TRP (if not lower). Conversely, it

is all too easy for a few friends (or one person with a few accounts) to promote

their own photos to the first page of the TRP. Because it is easy to do, it

seems to happen with some regularity (or it used to, anyway; I haven't visited

the TRP much lately).

 

If, on the other hand, every photo received 30 or more rates, it would be far

more difficult to "game" the system. A person who receives a single 3/3 on a

photo with 5 rates can legitimately wonder whether they weren't just screwed

over by a 3/3 bot. Someone receiving six 3/3s out of 30 rates (along with a

bunch of other relatively low ratings) will have a much harder time attributing

them all to bots or ignoramuses or what have you. People trying to game the

system would have to get a much larger group of friends (or set up even more

fake accounts) to have a significant impact, and they would therefore be easier

to detect.

 

IF we can agree that the purpose of ratings should be to get general opinions

from the masses and that it would help to get more rates per photo (note the big

"if"), the question then becomes, How do we get more people to rate more photos?

My second proposal for overhauling the system is to require that people who post

photos for rating first rate a certain number of photos, along the lines of

twenty or thirty, for each photo they want rated. The task should be presented

as a civic responsibility for the benefit of others posting photos on PN.

 

I can hear the wails of objections already, and although I doubt I can

anticipate them all, I'll give it a shot:

 

No doubt, some people will say, "I don't want ratings from just anyone; I want

ratings from good photographers." This has been addressed many times in the

feedback forums. One doesn't need to be a good photographer to be a good critic,

limiting the rating just to paying members would certainly not exclude lousy

photographers, and other schemes for limiting the people who are permitted to

rate would be problematic to say the least. Personally, I would like to have

ratings from everyone, regardless of their ability; comments, on the other hand,

are far more useful when they come from people who know what they're talking about.

 

Some people will argue that forcing people to rate will result in people handing

out all 3/3s, or all 7/7s, or all 5/5s, but people giving out the same rate over

and over again should be easy enough to spot and "discipline." If necessary,

people could be prevented from rating (and thereby posting for rates) if the

average of anonymous ratings they hand out exceeds (or is below) a certain

value; this would force them to find and rate some photos they don't like (if

their inclination is to rate only photos they like) and to ration their 7/7s.

People handing out random rates would be harder to detect, but I suspect they

would be few and far between. The people forced to rate would be people posting

their own photos for ratings, so for the most part, they are people with a

vested interest in a ratings system that works. A system in which every photo

gets 30 ratings can absorb the occasional random rater far better than the

current system does.

 

Some people will argue that people forced to rate will spend only a few seconds

on each photo before assigning it a number. I'm sure that will be true for some

raters. But remember, the most we're hoping for is a general sense of whether

other people like the photo or not. It might not take more than a few seconds

for someone to determine, generally speaking, how much they like a photo.

 

My own greatest concern is that more people would give low rates to all photos

in their least favorite categories. People who honestly have no interest in,

say, landscapes could easily take to giving those automatic low rates just

because they're tired of seeing all those damn sunsets. Ideally, I would allow

people to perform their "rating service" within a single category, or to exclude

certain categories. In practice, I think a reminder as you begin rating that you

can skip photos from categories that don't interest you would go a long way

toward avoiding this problem. It should be made clear, though, that you

shouldn't skip any photos from categories that DO interest you: If you shoot

landscapes, and you are presented with a landscape photo you really don't like

(for whatever reason), you should give it a low rating, however uncomfortable

that might make you feel. The photographer presumably wants your honest opinion

(that's why the photo is posted for rating), and you wouldn't be doing him or

her any favors by withholding it.

 

Note that people could still rate photos even if they don't post photos

themselves. The idea is to get ratings from as many people as possible. And note

once again that comments are another matter. Every ratings rant I have ever read

has had at least a few well-intentioned responses from people saying that

ratings are worthless and advising the ranter to ignore ratings and try to get

more comments. I don't deny that many people will still find the ideal ratings

system as I envision it to be worthless; not everybody WANTS to know what the

masses think of their photos. Comments are more valuable, though, precisely

because they require more thought and more work. My advice to those who want

more comments is this: Don't expect something for nothing. If you want

thoughtful comments on your photos, give thoughtful comments to other people,

and with luck you will eventually find a set of people willing to comment on

your own work. I imagine there are other ways this site could promote more

active commenting, but I don't believe this is the place to discuss them.

 

For the purposes of determining whether this is a viable idea or not, it would

be particularly helpful to hear from people who use the ratings system now. How

would you feel about being required to rate, say, 25 photos for each photo you

want rated, if it meant you would receive 20 to 30 rates in return?

 

Danny: Know of any good ones?

Is there an emoticon that represents a person drooling? Something like :)...

Hmmm...kid-in-a-candy-store does sound like fun. Thanks, Kyle.

Thanks, Ellis. I am looking for pro-level, so those sound worth checking out.

Thanks to advice I received in this forum a couple of months ago, I have some

good ideas for tripods and ball heads I'd like to look at, but the most

consistent advice I heard was that I should find a way to try them out before

buying. Unfortunately, my local options are decidedly limited. Fortunately, I

have family near New York City, and I'm hoping to add a shopping trip to my next

visit.

 

The community forum here at PN seems primarily devoted to mail order

experiences. Can anyone, speaking from personal experience, recommend a shop in

NYC that will allow me to try out a couple of tripods and several ball heads?

Adorama and B&H seem the obvious choices, and they're not too far apart. Is one

or the other to be recommended or avoided? Does one have a better used equipment

collection in the store? (A tripod seems like it could be a good thing to pick

up used, particularly if I get to check it out first.) Are there other places I

should consider?

I don't work there, so this may be a less-than-helpful response, but my experience with their Hadley store (the only one I've visited) has generally been positive. Friendliness can vary from store to store, of course; the folks in Hadley seem friendly enough. They have at least two very knowledgeable people on staff, and everyone does seem involved in photography to some extent, but John is right, knowledge does not necessarily extend to the equipment actually on the shelves. I sometimes find more employees than customers when I visit--I'm not sure how I would feel about that if I were an employee (boredom can be deadly in a job, but presumably they have other things to do when not helping patrons). In the absence of the inside scoop from a bona fide employee, I hope this helps some.

Thank you once again, Matthew, Kevin, and D.N.

 

Kevin: That approach definitely puts things into perspective.

Just for the record, I've looked up the difference in weight: The Gitzo G2257 Explorer (the replacement for the G2227) weighs in at 4.1 pounds. The Bogen 3021 Pro is 5.3 pounds. If the difference between the two is in fact mostly just that 1.2 pounds, well, I suspect that for $300 I'd be willing to carry 1.2 pounds pretty far.

D.N. and Matthew: I've always considered myself something of a pack horse, so there's hope that I won't find the weight to be daunting. On the other hand, I suspect that spending upwards of $500 on a top Gitzo model provides as much incentive to actually bring it hiking as the difference in weight does (I am certainly not immune to this sort of power of suggestion). Perhaps if I get the Bogen, I'll put the $300+ I save toward the eventual purchase of a tripod specifically for hiking.

Thank you everyone. This may not be over, but it has already been extremely helpful. After hearing such good things about the Bogen 3021, I went back to Thom's site to see if he mentioned it, and indeed he says that people try it (or similar models) fairly early on and it takes care of any stability problems. The trouble comes later: "The legs are starting to make their shortcomings known. They don't let you get down to ground level (or, if you got the Bogen with the "trick" centerpost, the stability isn't great in some positions). And the whole concoction is starting to get a bit on the heavy side (depending on the legs and head, perhaps as much as 7 pounds)."

 

As for not getting down to ground level, Jim Doty has explained two ways to get really low, at the very least. That the "trick" centerpost is less than rock solid in some positions is not surprising--I wouldn't expect an Explorer to be, either. But at least it would give me a shot at getting some photos that would probably be outright impossible with most other legs. The most important drawback seems to be the weight, and I won't know how I feel about that until I actually heft one.

 

What I like most about the 3021, of course, are the price and the reputation for durability. If it turns out that I'm willing to put up with the weight, I'll feel a lot better about spending more to get just the right head. I don't expect to know what "just the right head" is until I've tried out several options, but you've given me some good leads.

 

I will also build myself the sort of plywood support setup for studio work described at the Waynesthisandthat link Mark U. recommended. Rock solid and virtually free (with the scrap plywood I have lying around)--that's MY kinda photo equipment.

 

Until the next post explaining why I'm a fool, that's the plan. And won't I sound like the pro with my correct pronunciation when I make that field trip to a real camera shop?

Mark: Excellent links. I particularly like the idea of bolting a macro rail to a plywood platform and doing away with the tripod altogether for studio work--such a simple, stable solution.

Edward: Thanks again. Okay, the G2220 is out. WHEN I make my field trip, I'll definitely look into non-Explorer Gitzo legs to see if they might have handled that tricky lichen situation.

 

The Benbo sounds intriguing, but I've never heard anyone speak to its stability. When I picture a tripod that flops all over the place until you tighten it up, it's hard to imagine it can ever be as stable as I would like.

Jim: Great website! The superclamp seems like a worthwhile device, and it strikes me as another reason to get metal legs. Thanks for the warning about the geared column. I've been ASSUMING that a quick column would drive me nuts, because I imagine it's difficult to get exactly where you want it (and by exactly, I do mean within a millimeter), but now that you mention it, I can see how a geared column would have its drawbacks. Yet another reason I need to lay my hands on some of these things and try them out.

KL IX: Yes, I'd like to find out more about the new Gitzos, particularly if the old models will no longer be available (though perhaps now is the time to grab one used).

 

Matthew and John Doe: It hadn't occurred to me that metal might actually be MORE durable than carbon fiber. The Bogen (thanks for giving me the local pronunciation) 3021 Pro is starting to look even more appealing, but I suppose I really ought to heft one before making a purchase (all the more reason to plan that field trip to a real photo store). It's enough cheaper than the Gitzos that I might actually be able to supplement it with that RRS ground pod in the not too horribly distant future.

Edward: Thanks for sticking up for Gitzo. Since you seem to have experience with both the 2227 and 1325, do you have thoughts about the relative stability of these two? Is the 2227 "harder to use for general photography until you get the hang of it" or just plain harder to use? The reason I've been eyeing the Explorers in general is that I was unable to get a shot recently of lichen growing on a steep embankment next to a path. I don't think it would have been possible with the 1325, but it probably would have been with the 2227 (or the Manfrotto 3021).

Thanks Jens and Jochen--a lot to think about there. I'm fairly certain that if I get something like the 1325 I'll want a geared column. I can't imagine adjusting legs every time I need to get the camera a millimeter higher or lower.

 

The RRS ground pod looks great, but right now I can't afford to put that much money into something that won't also get me more height when I need it.

Thanks again, Kevin. Taken with Robert's advice, it's certainly starting to look like the head is where I should concentrate the money.

Robert: Hmmm...If it's not going to last forever, that does completely change the equation doesn't it. Unfortunately, my options for trying things out in a shop are somewhat limited here, but I hope to take a field trip to a good camera shop before I spring for anything.

 

I realize that any number of factors can reduce sharpness in macro photography (that chromatic aberration is a pisser, isn't it?). I WOULD like to eliminate camera shake as one softening element, though.