Ratings

Occasionally I'll look at my statistics and sometimes I notice that I have another 1 or 2 ratings to some of my photos. Unfortunately there is no way, that I can see, to find out which photo(s) has been rated. Any way to rectify this?

I have been asking for this option for long time... this will help the photographer to find more easy from his few hundreds pics what was the general public view ;) I really wish that this feature be added.

I don't look at my ratings anymore, or you get 5 because some clicked on you photo or you get 1/2 because you gave him below the 4.

Just my $0.02

The rating system is fundamentally flawed. It would be much better with something simple for instance Like or Dislike.

The star ratings are meaningless without anything to compare them against.

Nowadays the general trend is to award a single star in protest, to an image and four or five to a perceived good or great image with nothing in between.

What does this say about all the images that do not have any ratings on the database, are they totally unworthy of being accepted onto the database and why are there hardly any two or three star ratings?

The travesty is that attainment of Full Membership relies on this feedback where even a single (crap) protest rating counts in the Members favour. The joke is the guy that is being clever by awarding a protest rating is unwittingly helping the Member attain Full Membership!

This post has been edited by Wallace Shackleton on 7th January 2012 - 23:26

I also appreciate what you're saying Wallace but I'd still like a system whereby I can see what the latest images are that have been rated :)

I also agree that a 'Like' or 'Dislike system would be better. Something similar to whats used on 500px.com

I agree 100% with you guys, we could have the - let's say - 3 last photos which were rated, brighter or with a little star or anything else to identify them in "our profile"and yes the "5 stars" is too wide. "Like" is maybe a Facebook property :) but this binary way of rating seems good (TOP/FLOP) (YES/NO); and if we want to keep a personal average rating (x/20) we could attach 0 to NO/FLOP; 10 to not rated, 20 to YES/TOP. With this system, not rated pictures have a meaning. Those are just ideas to inspire...

I also proposed in the past to hide the number of views only in the "latest photos" page just to keep the guests eyes exclusively guided by the interest of the thumbnails and avoid the cascade effect.

This post has been edited by Fred Boureau on 8th January 2012 - 05:44

The list of latest ratings is not there on purpose. I will share with you a story from this week. There was a 'rating fight' between two members. They rated pictures of each other with one star. Interestingly enough they made an effort to find what pictures were rated and who rated them. Just imagine what would happen if we listed all recent ratings on one page. The hell would break loose and people would be affraid to rate using anything else than 5 stars.

It is not true that ratings affect Full Membership. FM criteria are: (i) number of Eyecatchers,(ii) number of views and (iii) screening acceptance ratio. Number of Eyecatchers is usually the hardest one to achieve.

The Yes/No system of rating sounds ineresting, but how would you align it with the existing one?

The current system works as Wallace explained. The Top rated photos list is ordered by a sum of all ratings, and hence even one-star rating is pushing you up in the chart.

Maybe the "Kudo system" is a good idea, like this (Dutch) site http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/1910611/0af3cc17/abort_abort_high_winds.html (the red and green buttons)

This post has been edited by Bradley Malais on 8th January 2012 - 13:46

Not sure how the Yes/No system would align with the current one. Maybe run along side the current one for 6 months or so and then gradually phase out. I do know the one that runs on 500px.com doesn't show who voted what so it would do away with a ratings war.

Forget taking the "not rated" photos in the average, it's a non sense since not everyboby can rate or want to rate so the average would be almost all around 10,001. Maybe just taking in count the YES over the number of pictures/photographer could make a sense. We could propose a NO but that rating wouldn't appear in the average considering it's just an accident, something rare (if the screeners work well). To align this system with the existing one, just consider all the ancient ratings were big YES, you have already the number of ratings divided by the number of pictures and that's it. The New Year gift for all members!