markboyle

<p>Here is a good case in point from my own collection I submitted ten minutes ago - <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00JawM&photo_id=5441473&photo_sel_index=0">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00JawM&photo_id=5441473&photo_sel_index=0</a></p>

<p>On last viewing it has had 6 anonymous ratings. 2 at 3/3, 3 at 4/4 and one at 5/5 and no comments</p>

 

<p>Now what I find frustrating is not that it is getting relatively low ratings, but that no one has bothered to provide any feedback whatsoever. And that is the point I have been making from the beginning, this system 'discourages' comment or discussion of images, and in particular it discourages critique.</p>

Well said Rob...

 

Do you know if photo.net has ever tried it without a rating system, just relying on comments etc.?

 

Also I think 'measurebators' is a bit harsh on, I suspect, many of your fellow members. We all like to get approval in one way or another, don't we?

Well Rob i base that assertion on what this site is all about - photography.

 

What is the point of photography? To be seen.

 

How do we get it seen? By presenting it to others.

 

How do we present it? Well on this site we present it via the rating/critique system if we want it to have any chance of getting noticed.

In response to your last post Rob, which you posted while I was writing mine. We definitely agree on the pointlessness of the current system, so why do you think we have it at all? What purpose does it serve? Who does it benefit, if not the people using it?

I agree John, I am not complaining about what ratings I or anyone else is getting as an isolated point. I am trying to say that the system as a way of encouraging communication and exchange of ideas is completely flawed. It actively 'discourages' any form of real discourse about the work displayed. From what I have seen in my short time the best you can expect to get when you submit a photo for comment/rating is a completely 'meaningless' pair of numbers and the odd comment about how 'great the shot is' etc. which is equally as meaningless, though appreciated none the less.

 

Of course you can just submit an image for 'critique only' but I would love to know the statistics on how many of those get any comments at all, particularly recent statistics. I would bet relatively few and I would bet that even fewer get anything of value. Probably the only images that have any real discussion attached to them are the 'photos of the week', the current one being a good example.

 

I also agree with Rob that there is much more to photo.net than the galleries and ratings, much of which I have perused and been impressed with. However, I think you are in denial if you don't think that the main reason the vast majority of people join this site is to see other photography and have yours seen and the best and only real way to do that is via the rating system.

 

That is why I and others get 'hung up' on it and want to discuss it and want to see it improved, so it becomes something of real value to the photo.net community and not just to the site owners counting the subscriptions.

Apart from the personal asides I think an important issue is raised here and it is not good enough for people like Rob to say if you don't like it leave, which is basically what he is saying. This is a community site that requires a payment from us to participate in any meaningful way so it is important to debate fundamental issues such as "is this site serving any real purpose or value other than making money?"

 

Now I don't know what the site was like 1, 2 or 3 years ago but now it seems to have lost it's way from the original intent. There are definitely some high quality photographs/photographers submitting work and participating in photo.net and I find looking at a lot of the work here quite inspirational but there is something wrong. I think it's reason for being here needs to be re-evaluated and being a 'community' driven site then it is the community that should do the re-evaluating.

 

What about a voluntary survey of members regarding the direction and structure of the site?

 

Oh and by the way I could only get to this forum via the link in the email notifications I receive when a new post is made, it seems to have disappeared from the forum list. CAn anyone tell me where it is? It is not in the default feedback list or any ofthe archived categories that I looked in...

 

regards

Mark Boyle

Hi Biliana

 

I can understand your frustration when photos you feel to be of high quality, yours or others, are rated very low by anonymous raters with no comment or critique as to why. However that is the natural consequence of a system designed to encourage 'bulk, batch' rating of images with little time for thought or serious evaluation. You should try not to take it personally as I am sure it is not intended to be and as they usually say, "if you don't like the rules, don't play the game".

 

Although I think it does diminish the value and intention of this site, which is to encourage the sharing and discussion of photography, when most members seem to be too busy anonymously 'rating' the ever increasing streams of uploads to have any time to actually look at, think about and discuss what they are seeing.

 

That is not meant as an attack on photo.net members at all, it is just the inevitable result of the current system in place. However, if the system was changed to prevent anonymous rating and/or require discussion of the images then there would be a lot less members and therefore a lot less subscribers but I am sure the overall quality level of photography would improve as would the level of discussion. Hmmm...

Hi Folks

 

I just had a look through the top photos for the last week limited to

'Landscape' and found no record of a number of images that I have had rated in

the last 3 or so days, which given their current ratings should definitely be

appearing.

 

Is this a known issue with the site?

Has anyone else noticed this happening with their rated images?

 

Just to prevent any unnecessary posts I am definitely searching with the correct

criteria to cover the images in question.

 

regards

Mark Boyle

Some interesting responses and I am sure for many readers just a re-hash of the same old issues. I just wanted as a new member to give my perspective on the way photos are rated as it is almost the only way to get your photos into circulation and create a 'presence' on the site for yourself.

 

Having given a bit more thought to the concept of 'originality' as it relates to the creative process I really think it is a poor choice of criteria for rating images on this site. It is just too meaningless and open to too much interpretation.

 

I do like the idea of two ratings as it does tend to make the rater think a bit more about what they are rating but given the choice I would replace 'Originality' with 'Technique' or 'Technical'. That way both the aesthetic, visual appeal would be covered (including originality to some degree) and the technical/technique aspect of the image displayed, which is extremely important when assessing photographic images given its reliance on technology.

 

I also think a '7' rating scale is good as it offers '1 to 3' for degrees of unsuccessfulness, '4' for average or undecided and '5 to 7' for degrees of successfulness.

 

Finally, having had a browse through the 'Top Photos' again using the search criteria "All styles, All time and Photog's Sum (Photos)" or "All styles, All time and Photographers Avg" I think the cream definitely does rise to the top with the ratings system currently used, bar a few exceptions.

Hi Sean

 

I appreciate your response and agree that every sunset is different as is every snowflake as is every fingerprint. But the point I was making specifically is not the originality of the sunset in the picture but the originality of the picture itself. In terms of subject matter and the way it has been treated, there is little, if any, originality at all.

 

It is a photo of a sunset (a very beautiful one) over water. An image I have seen hundreds of times before and will no doubt see many times again.

<p>Hi fellow photo.net members</p>

 

<p>I have been an active member of this site for just over a week and would like

to make some observations about the contentious ratings system we have. Let me

start by saying that I have submitted 17 images for critiquing/rating to date

and I am perfectly happy with the responses. The only disappointment in regard

to my own work is the lack of interesting critiques and comments, though I can

understand this when you see the sheer volume of images being posted for

critique every day.</p>

 

<p>I guess the first thing I am not really sure about is why members can make

anonymous ratings. I imagine the logic is that people may be more honest if they

can rate anonymously. I make it a point to always rate with my name and if I am

going to give an image a relatively low rating then I will leave a comment as to

why and my thoughts on how it could have been improved.</p>

 

<p>Now it is not possible to rate every photo that is posted, far from it, so my

approach is to only rate and comment on images that fall within my area of

interest which is landscape/nature. Although I have rated some other image types

that I felt were outstanding. Even so I am still only rating a fraction of the

images that appear just in these categories! I am not suggesting this is what

everyone should do, it is just the method I am using.</p>

 

<p>Finally I would like to mention the seeming inconsistency of ratings. I have

seen some images rated highly that I don't think deserve it and some rated low

that I don't think deserve it. Unfortunately any system for rating something as

subjective as a photograph is going to have inconsistencies. So far though, all

of the images I have seen and considered to be absolutely outstanding have been

rated highly, which gives me some faith. It is just that from my brief time here

there does seem to be a good number of images that have rated very highly which

to me are inexplicable.</p>

 

<p>I am going to use one example I have come across to hopefully generate

discussion. I am not attacking the photographer or his work, I just find it

difficult to understand the ratings for this image, given the criteria by which

we rate, aesthetics and originality. The image in question is <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5167063">

http://www.photo.net/photo/5167063 </a> and is a sunset taken

by Julio Segura Carmona (whose work I admire).</p>

 

<p>This is a nice sunset but can someone please explain how a photograph of a

nice sunset can have an average of 6.41 out of 7 for originality after being

rated over 100 times? Aesthetics is a different matter but surely by any

interpretation of originality a photograph of a sunset should not get anywhere

near this rating. From my perspective this devalues the whole rating system.</p>

 

<p>To finish I think the concept of photo.net is great as it is always good to

share your work with other people, especially people with similar interests.

That is the true value of sites like this and I look forward to a long

involvement and getting to see a lot of great photography. Can I just suggest

that if we are to use a rating/critique system that there be a lot more

critiquing and a lot less anonymous rating.</p>

 

<p>regards<br>

Mark Boyle</p>