jay_patel

I agree with Barry suggestion as well.

Brian, <br><br>

I am with James on this one...I think that anonymous ratings system is used by some the photo.net members (including Robots and Trolls) to hide their abuse of the rating system (just as high ballers are using the non-annonymous ratings system for abuse).<br><br>

First let me say that I have to agree with you that the ratings of the photographs should randomly vary around a given mean. If the system was working as designed, then this average mean for both the annonymous and non-annoymous ratings should be close to each other. But, for my last 8 out of 9 postings the annoymous ratings are ALWAYS lower then the non-annonymous ratings (sometimes by more then 1 point). This is not a random phenomena. One can argue that the true average of both the ratings is a good indication of the photograph as both kinds of abuse (high balling and low balling) cancel each other out. <br><br>

The abuse occurs in the fact that the annonymous ratings are almost always given before the non-annoymous ratings (if someone turns their photos for critique). So, for someone to abuse the system...all they have to do is give random low annonymous ratings ensuring the fact that the photo will be low on the list of TRP photos. I have noticed this trend for last couple of postings...and some of us have stopped posting their photos for critiques. <br><br>

Kim, <br><br>

I am with you on this one...To make the ratings impartial, you should not be able to tell who the photo belongs too. <br><br>

 

But pratical implementation may be difficult to achieve as lot of us have a signature we put on the photographs that can be easily be used to guess who the photo belongs too.

Hi Ellen, <br><br>

There are times when some programs randomly rate peoples photos and can produce low ratings on some of them...I noticed the problems some days ago myself. Photo.net admin staff corrected the issue as they discover it. <br><br>

Perhaps this will make you feel less batterd. And your work is very good...Looking forward to seeing more of it.<br><br>

-Jay

Ricardo, <br><br>

I have to agree with you. I am already there...The photo.net site has done wonders for me in the past to improve my skills, but lately in past few months, this site has lost lot of its appeal.

Brian, <br><br>

I think she is mad at me becaue I don't take snapshots...LOLOL! <br>

In either case, this rating underscores a point I was trying to make earlier. Now that I know (and have looked at their portfolio) who rated the photograph outside the norm, I can easily choose to ignore his/her ratings. And no, I have no intention to retaliate...If someone is not abusive they are definately entitled to have their own opinions.<br><br>

Having said that, I do agree with Vincent and Walter's point of making users responsible for their actions. I know it is difficult to tell the abusers apart from people who just rate good photograph...but of those know abusers should be responsible for their actions. Perhaps you will even get some sleep at night if the policy was making everyone responsible for their action was enforced rather then watching the ratings complains continue. HeHe!!<br><br>

-Jay

Kim,<br>

I agree with you why lie about your feeling....This should help people be honest about the photographs.

Brian,<br>

Nice logical explaination for 7/7 cancellation. It may not always be fair, but atleast rational behind it is well explained. <br>

And should I say, that I love to know who rated me my photographs. Some of this is really interesting to see...Thanks.<br>

-Jay

Nicholas, I don't remember that being the case, but I do remember that the ratings were not anonymous...You know who gave you what ratings. My photos from that era were lot worse then the mediocre work that I post now...and the open ratings systems helped me learn a lot from some outstanding photographs on this forum.

Kathy, I think it would be helpful if you know who rated you 3/3 and who rated you 6/6 i.e. what do their portfolios look like. For example, the person who does decent landscape photograph rated your photos 6/6, then it indicates that you are on the right track with your work. Similarly if some who only shoots potraits gives you 3/3 on a landscape photograph, he also have fairly low interests in landscape photos and would not weigh his ratings highly enough. For this reason, more then anything else I am advocate of open ratings system. <br><br>

I will leave a comment on your photo...:-))

Carl,<br><br>

I did not get a chance to respond to your post. You are right on both occasion about Volume and Mediocrity. It is an excellent observation. <br><br>

The solution to volume problem can be easily be addressed as I suggested to Brian in my above post. Limit the number of photos that show up on TRP to one per any give time period. Brian, what do you think about the idea?<br><br>

Mediocrity is far more difficult problem to tackle as taste in photography is rather subjective. So, rather then address the problem of mediocrity directly, What we should do is come up with some way to measure photographers ability as a good contributor. Besides ratings, photosig measure ability to rate peoples comments and also number of comment that each photographer leaves on the photos. <br><br>

-Jay

Judging from the past history, Annabeth must be refering to you Vincent. Hmmm...So, this is how you became a top photographer on photo.net, you cheated your way to the top instead relying on your talents. Rather then trying to sell landscape photos, better find another way to make a living....This cheating business just won't cut it in the real world. LOL!!

Brian, <br><br>

Glad that you acknowledge that there is a problem that we cannot distiguish between Mate Raters and talented photographer giving 7/7s to each other. But, still my point remains valid that good photographs by talented photographer are discriminated against in the ratings system.<br><br>

Now whether a talented photographer needs or does not need a ratings 7/7 depends upon what the photographer is trying to accomplish. For someone like me who is semi professional, I tend to view ratings (averages as well as number of ratings) as an indicator of how much the photograph impacts others. I also believe in what my peers think about the photograph...sometimes they will leave a comment and other they will leave a rating. Sometimes, I may love the photographs, that other talented photographer may have difficuly understanding...I want to know that before I submit a photograph to my clients. So, to extend a philosophy that "talented photographers" do not need ratings is does not seem appropriate.<br><br>

Having said, I am in support of establishing a policy that give everyone a chance to get visibility. I agree with Carl, that volume is a problem with some photographers. For some photograph their rise to the top heavily depends upon the volume of photographs uploaded at the same time. So, why not limit only one photograph from every photographer on TRP per week (or some other duration)? i.e. you can upload zillions of photographs a day, but only the top rated one will show up in TRP for a given time period. This would give everyone an ample opportunity to get their photographs visible on TRP...and you may not need to enforce the policy that seems to be unfair to works of talented photographers.<br><br>

-Jay

Ok...After reading most of the resposes. It seems that talneted photographers rating other talented photographers may find themselves classfied as "Mate" Raters. If I give Dave N. 7/7s on bunch of his photographs and he does the same to me, then we our ratings are disqualified? Or did I get it wrong? <br><br>

If this is the case, to me it just seems that we are discriminating against the talented photographers on this site. This should not be the case. <br><br>

-Jay

Carl,<br><br>

This is interesting...Now we need to define objective for the ratings system. What are we trying to accomplish? It is diversity we are trying to promote, then we can target a statistical measure to promote diversity. But, it the game it to get on the front page of TRP, other measures would be far more effective. I guess, if I ask a question as to what you want ratings system to accomplish, I would get different answers from different people. <br><br>

So, lets clarify...What are we trying to accomplish with Ratings? In other words, how should the photo be rated? How should it get on TRP?<br><br>

-Jay

Hello Brian, Carl, <br><br>

I have a suggestion...we should identify diversity of rating for everyone (not just the totals). For example, out of 20 7/7 ratings I gave out, 10 of them are for Vincent's image, 5 on Walter Images and 5 on Carl's images, then my distribution of ratings would 7/7 ratings would be fairly narrow. On the other hand, if I have given out 10 7/7 to Vincent's images, and 1 each for other photo.net memeber's images my diversity of ratings would be fairly high. This would indicate, that I am a big fan of Vincent's work, but at the same time, I judge other photographs on their own merit. Perhaps everyone should have their diversity scores published. <br><br>

I don't think that the absolute diversity score would mean anything, but the diversity score when compared to the average diversity score on photo.net should be able to tell volumes about someone's rating behaviour. Is there a flaw in my thinking? I would love to hear from everyone who has commented. Brian, is there anyway we can test this theory out on some know mate raters?<br><br>

 

-Jay

<p>Carl, Hmmm...I am assuming by reciprocal rates, you mean some sort of correlation between people who rated you. I would love to explore the idea of correlating scores further, but in a separate thread, as there will be lengthy discussion on how and what to correlate. What the correlating scores do is point out a pattern of ratings for a person. How we implement this correlation requires a careful thought and I would like to approach that subject in a separate thread. If implemented properly, this correlation can make the mater raters as well as abusers stand out like a sore thumb.</p>

 

<p>I also understand that a site like photo.net that is partly funded by sponsors and it ultimately relies on the growth of its new members. Kicking some or lot of them out may not make the best of business sense. So, how about making them public? If the correlation system is successful in identifying the mate raters, and the abuser then put a red X next to their names until their behavior stops, or suspend their rating ability for a short time or better yet the overall scores in TRP should be a combination of the Aesthetics, Originality and the correlation factor (so the scores of mate raters/abusers would be automatically reduced). This all depends upon finding a right correlation methodology. My recommendation is to have a group of concerned form a team to investigate how to best implement the correlation factors (instead of then photo.net administration make a unilateral decision). I would be happy to participate. After all nothing in statistics is more important then choosing the right sample to look at.</p>

<p>Although I am in support of the correlation factor, I am still an avid advocate of open rating system. Beside the reasons mentioned by Vincent in his first post in this thread, there are other reasons to have an open rating system. This gives some of us who are willing to learn a great tool to be able to match the ratings with person. If a talented photographer would give me low ratings, I would sit up a take notice. Why did he give me low ratings? What did I do wrong? How can I improve? At the same time, if some average snapshot shooter gave me high ratings on the same photo...I can easily ignore his ratings as being a motivated by little more then mate rating phenomena. This ability to discriminate the rating will give the photo.net members a chance to improve their photography skills. Perhaps this unique benefit of the rating system should be aggressively marketed to the photo.net members.</p>

Carl...I guess what I was trying to say is that current system seems to be just an ineffective as the old one. So, my recommendation is to make the ratings open (not annonymous) and go after the abusers.

<p>Carl,<p>

 

<p>"It's obvious that connecting a name with a high rate encourages mate rating. Connecting it with a low one encourages abusive responses of various kinds. Solution? Connect names with comments, not rates." </p>

<p>So, what do you say to people who leave their ratings in the comments, just to encourage mate ratings? Does this solution work as effectively as it was intended? And does it discourage abusive ratings i.e. now hiding behind a veil of anonymity, people are still abusing the system...just check out 1/1 on my <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=3254208">Finding Neverland</a> photo. I am sure all of us here can give lot more examples of this kind of abuse. </p>

<p>Hi Wilson, </p><p>Now you are talking....If anyone want to travel with me to let me know. I go shooting once every couple of months on average to some of the most breathtaking places. But, then I have been know to driving in blinding snow storms....Just to catch a photo of landscape <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00BuFc&photo_id=3294803&photo_sel_index=0"><b>Painted with Light!!</b></a></p>

 

<p>On more immediate practical side, I often contact people from photo.net before I travel to places just to learn when and where to go. Some of them have contacted me personally as well including the our friend Vincent Tyler before he went on his West coast tour (sorry Vincent I was late in responding, but I atleast part of the message got to him in time via Mrs. Tyler :-)...). </p>

<p>Please feel free to contact any of <a href="www.timecatcher.com"><b>The Timecatcher Team Members</b></a> for photo locations, time of day, best seasons, equipment help, places to stay, or any other misc. information that you would like.</p>

<p>Wilson,</p><p> Next time I come to Seattle, I was going to stay in that spare bedroom in your house before we head out to the Olympic Pennisula...And we can even watch Power Ranger with the kids (I am sure my son would love it). LOL!!</p>

<p>I third the makes raters visible comment by Vincent and Dave. If you are honest about your ratings and follow the guidlines, no need to hide.</p>

<p>Lisa,</p><p>No need to be discouraged...sometimes our work touches other in ways you can't directly imagine or even realize. Comments and ratings asides, we all have impact on other by the things we post on photo.net. Some impact of our work is readily visible (by ratings and comments), while others are not. We see that on our Timecatcher website as well, by the mail that we get from our viewers.</p>

 

<p>A while back you had posted a photograph...I think it was called "Looking from afar" (it is not there anymore). That photograph inspired me to try out something different...step out of box so to speak. Can a Landscape manipulated appropriately to convey the sense or feeling or emotion to the viewer...that would be otherwise lacking from a pure landscape alone? Here is a result of that inspiration: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=484008

Ratings are lossy, the concept doesn't always make sense to everyone and the photos seldom make it to the top of TRP...But I like the process nonetheless. It is different and it is certainly very creative....and certainly heavily influenced by your work. :-))</p>

Bravo John!! Well said. I couldn't agree with you more....Something I should remember when I get more 1/1s.

<p><b>Jamie: </b>No problem....Your feedback just clarifies further what I was trying to say...Giving high ratings to the photos doesn't make you a mate rater. I tried to point this out (rather sarcastically) in my last post. All the individuals I have listed on my last post has given out average rating of high 5s to mid 6s for asthetics and orginality and none of them are mate raters. </p>