mtfaidherbe1

<p>I think, that, at the contrary, all ratings should be with the name of the person who express it. Each person should be responsible of his/her vote. That some people put always anonymous 3 where others put 5 or 6, we know... but when somebody puts 6 to one of my photos, I would like to know who is the person who took the time to look at my photo and liked it.<br>

For every rate low or high, I would like to know the kind of person and the kind of photos this person does... if his/her style is similar or very different.</p>

 

<p>"was it usefull ? "; it will be used as I like in Facebook...</p>

<p>Is your idea to make the ratings disappear?<br>

I already (and others) commented why I liked the two ratings; I also would like to say I don't like the completely anonymous ratings. I understanding you want to eliminate date ratings... but much more often than date ratings we had people who anonymously were underrating photos (I don't say mine... I am speaking in general).<br>

So I would say that, at the contrary, the same that comments can be good or bad and are never anonymous, I think that ratings should never be anonymous...<br>

And much much more, what I don't like is that the change was made before we could know..</p>

 

<p>Personnally I liked very much the two different rates. A ordinary subject can make a very esthetic picture, and an original idea can be not very esthetic.</p><p>If less than 5 % use it, doesn't matter. If people did not take the time to think about the difference, will they take the time to write a useful comment ?</p><p>AND, that you change it from the present and the future, why make dissappear the preceding ones ? </p><p><br></p>

<p>i tried tonight and it worked, so I suppose the database is happier now.</p>

<p>Josh,<br>

I could upload the photo with the new upload application... it is great (I used it in FB for a long time), but it takes a long time to appear, and I suppose, uses a lot of band..;<br>

so for ONE photo, the "legacy" sounds better to me.<br>

I am in the office now, I'll try again with another photo tonight, and if I have a problem again, I'll send you the photo.</p>

<p>Have a good day/night/whatever applies when you read this.</p>

<p>sorry, i should have read this before, i just put another thread about the same thing.</p>

<p>hello,</p>

<p>I am trying to upload a photo and I get the following message:</p>

<h2>Problem with Your Input</h2>

<p>We had a problem processing your entry:</p>

<ul>

There was a problem with the database

</ul>

<p>Please back up using your browser, correct it, and resubmit your entry.<br>

(i tried several times, but it still doesn't work.)<br>

The photo has the right size (anyway when it has the wrong size, i got another message, not this one).</p>

<p>could you help, please?</p>

<p>Thank you very much</p>

<p>As I said, ok it might be considerated ok if they participate to forums.... but if they only rate in a completely discordant manner of other people without any comment and do nothing else?<br>

what is then, a reliable indicator of a bogus account?</p>

<p>(anyway, you guys deleted or not deleted accounts, I just mentioned accounts that seem weirds to me, no obligation for you to delete them, of course).</p>

<p>thanks Josh, here some more:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4993918<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4991919<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4989122<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4997024</p>

<p>and maybe:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5056541 (not very sure, no photos, but some interventions in the forums)</p>

<p>same for me, a lot of them these days.</p>

<p>This time a lot of EXCELLENT notes to one of my photos (Peter Pan)... and most of them are by fake people... :-(<br>

could you remove these people (and let the good ones by real people, lololol).<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>problem is resolved. thanks.<br /> Thanks to the ones who have understood that I did not complain about the rates, but about the fake accounts. I have no problems to be rated by people who put photos on the site to be rated, but not by phantoms who don't do anything except rating people.<br /> For the other ones, take the time to READ what people write before taking time to answer.</p>

<p>This must be the problem I have (I posted it a moment ago...): junk accounts.. thanks for cleaning.</p>

<p>another list of names (with not so bad rates this time, lololol) is<br>

Megan Brooks, Mac Carter, Rhonda Fey , Loreta Reese, Jenner Samudra, Amin Taghehdrian, Bill Van Rhein...</p>

<p>no details on the profile, no photos on their page, etc.</p>

<p>Lately I posted two photos showing a medieval synagoga from Tomar, Portugal. These two pictures suddenly got many rates, so I went to see who was interested, of course.<br>

:-(<br>

The rates were quite low, what is quite possible "bien entendu"... but the strange is that the rates are all from people who put NO pictures at all on their pages, all subscribed to the site the same day and have no information on their profiles.</p>

<p>names are: Fabien Acosta, Chris Brazelton, Brandy Lewis, Mimi rivera, Alan Ari Mohammed (with arabic letters), Gregory Ross..</p>

<p>What is going on? Thanks for having a look...</p>

<p>(of course, what bothers me if that the bad rates are on pictures of synagoga... maybe an intention there?)</p>

Well, I understand all the reasons, but I also think there was a problem recently because I had this problem too. Not that my photos are very high, but I saw pictures with rates much lower than mine exposed. I don't care very much, but anyway, this is one of the fun of the sites, so it should work.

 

Generally speaking the site is working much less good recently....

to this, most of us agree, dear perpendicularity consultant.

Nevertheless, we are on this group to enjoy photos, where people like me, for example, are learning a lot. One of

the things we learn is how it is important how the sight is driven by certain points in a photography and should

not be distracted by unnecessary details.

the peeling stuff moving all the time distract the view, and is contrary with the elementary lessons of photography.

We don't say the ads are intrusive, we are saying this peeling corner IS.

So please, don't try to convince us that ads are necessary, we know it. Answer to this: how can we abstract us

with this corner?

By the way, your example of myspace is not so good: everybody left it to go to facebook where ads are less

intrusive... and facebook people made a big scandal when this one tried to put more...

I would like to correct my preceding post. Actually, it depends on which screen I am looking... On the main one I am working on, it is ok; on others, it is not...

So, I am coming back to my first reflection... We are on a photo site. We need advertising to make it unexpensive. Right.

So I agree with the ads. I agree with the adorama tab. I even can agree with the search (it is still possible to look for other options on the search).

But do we need this peel off corner?

How can we see photos correctly if our attention is always attracted by this moving corner? I would suggest a in-between solution: keep the peel off on all screens, except the ones displaying photos one by one...

What do you think?

It is ok for me now, the moving corner is far from "my workspace". I don't say I like it ;-) but I can work without being bothered by this stuff. Thank you very much for listening and working on it.

anyway, i think the adorama stuff should be far from the "workspace" option, as this one is the most used.

 

as I said, I agree with the tab, but not with this moving corner... looking at your photos with a moving corner that can open more any time? no thank you.

i use firefox 3.0.4

I understand the site lives also with sales and publicity, and I understand the new "adorama store" folder.

What I dislike very much is the publicity corner that appeared today. Most of the time when I want to click to my

workspace, I arrive on the publicity page. And also, sometimes this corner begins to open very widely, and i have

to wait that it closes for a long time to be able to work.

Please, change that! that is VERY annoying.

(more of it, i think this is for the US only, so no interest for all the members abroad).

hum.... I continued to look into it... tried with Internet explorer, and no problem... tried again with firefox, and got the problem... Cleaned the cache from Firefox, and it looks it works...

 

I'll keep you posted if the problem comes back again...

from

http://www.photo.net/photos/mtfaidherbe

It works,

 

but any place from the workspace it doesn't.

 

Is there another place than this one where to claim?

 

Thanks