guinivere

Hello Lex, I kind of agree with Robert, in that the wording may be where some of the problems lie. The system suggests two ways to rate each photo- both of which have a vast array of connotative meanings. Although telling people what each word is supposed to mean to PN users probably won't change those who don't put much thought into rating to begin with, yet it might bring more critical ratings to those photos that deserve much higher or much lower ratings. I guess you did not think much of my idea - to add a third category of which to rate photos on )that way you have more of a subjective/objective balance?) Either way, I think I will spend more time improving my photos and try not to get wrapped up in all these discussions too much. (You do not have to agree with me too much on that last comment:) Also, when/if and how this new credit system is implemented - will it be ratings/comments or both that are counted? ~J

Okay guys, I think I understand the philosophy of the ratings system (maybe not all the rater's themselves) but to each his own I guess. And I think I realized why my idea wouldn't work as I was typing it (but possibly I was hoping everyone thought like me in how they rate or comment:) Not the case here. So, I have one last suggestion and then I will be quiet and let you all figure things out: What would it do to add one more category to the ratings system - say technical or overall composition? and leave aesthetics for what it is - a broad idea that colleges spend entire semesters trying to define. Members could rate on 3- originality, aesthetics and composition (or technical)? Too much of a change to the system? J

Hello all, I think I might have an idea? I am fairly new to PN here, but I have been reading through all your ideas and complaints and rants as I have found myself a little frustrated with too many anonymous raters and runners and very little constructive critique myself. So, what about a requirement to provide a written comment or critique if the rating one wishes to give is low (say below a 4 or 5?) Not one of us should be so thin-skinned to not handle an ego-bending critique or a few low ratings - the entire reason I enjoy being a member is that none of these guys are my mom or my best friend - therefore I can know if I suck or am the next Miss Adams. So, being that you can not change the nature of people, vengeance and jealousy and all that, I think my suggestion would help rather than to pass out gold starry stickers for the most ratings or critiques in a week, promote constructive criticism and make it more boring for those brown-nosers who only want an A and don't care about what they learn. Make sense? I am also new to these snarky little threads you all have going on, but I think my suggestion has some texture to it. My guess is (and its only a wild one) that when most members give a 7 or even a rating of 6 - they have thought about it long enough to consider if that photo is worthy. So, why not encourage the same thought to giving a 3 or 4 (or 1 or 2)? If silence is power, than no ratings on a photo can only cause self-reflection, and save energy for the ones that might just make it. J.Anne

Hello Josh and to all the hard-working designers,

 

Everything I noticed last night has been fixed. I must say after reading through that last thread - I would not want your job/s of trying to please so many people who know nothing of web design such as myself. So thank you for working on the bugs and in general trying to revamp photo.net. That being said...the only thing I am not too keen on is the new background colour. It does not seem to compliment b&ws or colour pix. Is my observation completely solitary and totally unfounded? J