Free travel home page with storage for your pictures and travel reports! login GLOBOsapiens - Travel Community GLOBOsapiens - Travel Community GLOBOsapiens - Travel Community
Login
 Forgot password?
sign up


Top 3 members
wojtekd 195
Member snaps

Suggestions group posting on GLOBOsapiens

main group page      | members      | discussion      |

'Spam rating'

Postings 1 - 10 of 13 Page: 1 2


rip_drifter

View profile in a new window


Premium account
Joined: Dec 07
Points: 305
Posts: 29


Posted: 2008-09-01 16:13:00   

Please remove the 'spam' picture rating if it cannot be used.

I rated a picture as spam today only to be told I was 'rating unfairly'. If this is an automatic response to any 'spam' rating, then please remove it as it serves no purpose whatsoever.



(I was being honest and objective)



I won't be rating any more pics.

---
Best Regards, Mike Bruin


Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rip_drifter
 

eirekay

View profile in a new window


Premium account
Joined: Aug 03
Points: 19539
Posts: 214


Posted: 2008-09-01 22:59:00   

Andy or Martin, or Rudi for that matter, can answer this better than I can. There are controls in the system that keep people from "dumping" a picture out of spite. The controls, as I understand them, keep you from rating a picture downward (or upward) more than 2 stars from it's current rating. In other words, a photo currently rated a 4* could not be rated a 1* or Spam rating. It was put in place as a result of some abuses of the previous system.



I don't think anyone minds people rating to reflect their true feelings about a pic. I think we are all objective but may have different criteria. If the picture is of a location particularly unusual or difficult to get to, or something truly unexpected, that, in my opinion, deserves a higher rating - these are travel pictures as opposed to pictures taken for the purpose of being art. The same holds true if the pic gives me a feel for the location, regardless of whether it is aesthetically beautiful. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of lovely sunsets, but I may get no feel for where they are. Other people see it differently. Rudi tends to be pretty technical in his rating - I respect that, just as I respect your ratings. I take no offense at your rating of 3* on pics of mine that have 5*. That's your opinion. They were taken, and subsequently posted because they are either interesting or pleasing to me.



Rate away!

Eire

[ This Message was edited by: eirekay on 2008-09-01 23:31 ]

---
Life is not measured by the breaths you take but by the moments that take your breath away. Profile Pic: Tikal, Guatemala


Reply    Reply with quote    Contact eirekay
 

rip_drifter

View profile in a new window


Premium account
Joined: Dec 07
Points: 305
Posts: 29


Posted: 2008-09-02 09:04:00   

Hi,

You are absolutely right. I'm just looking at it all too critically maybe. I feel that the pics I have in my gallery are over-rated for example. I think they are all three's except for my favorite which I would consider a four, although that would be subjective, and one which is maybe a two. They're all rated four or five. If everybody only rates between three and five, then what happens when an utterly stunning shot is uploaded by someone? There are lots of 'National Geographic' quality shots lagging behind pics that I don't think are up to the same standard. In rating a one, which is irrelevant bcause the server won't, I'm not trying to be rude, just objective.

---
Best Regards, Mike Bruin


Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rip_drifter
 

rip_drifter

View profile in a new window


Premium account
Joined: Dec 07
Points: 305
Posts: 29


Posted: 2008-09-02 09:26:00   

This is how I was rating:



one star - Thank you for sharing your holiday with us.

two stars - That looks like a travel pic.

three stars - Wow, that's a really great travel pic.

four stars - OK, a magazine would buy that for sure.

five stars - Forget the day job, National Geographic will be in touch.

---
Best Regards, Mike Bruin


Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rip_drifter
 

mortimer

View profile in a new window


Premium account
Joined: Jun 04
Points: 15075
Posts: 528


Posted: 2008-09-02 18:21:00   

Hi Mike



Eire explained it well.



Picture Rating is an alway recurring discussion and there are some things that have been put into action in order to get "better" ratings. Better in the sense that they are a true estimation of the pics and not a friendship rate or a hate rate...



These are some improvements over the time after a lot of discussions:

The comment function has been installed

The fraud warning has been installed

The ratings of the people can be seen on their profiles.

The exif data has been included.



Here a link to an older discussion:

http://www.globosapiens.net/topic-picture-rating_46_1220_0030.html



hope it helps

Mortimer

[ This Message was edited by: mortimer on 2008-09-02 18:24 ]

---
Today is the first day of the rest of your life, enjoy it!


Reply    Reply with quote    Contact mortimer
 

krisek

View profile in a new window


Premium account
Joined: Jan 08
Points: 84135
Posts: 203


Posted: 2008-09-02 21:34:00   

Hi,



I think we are digressing from the purpose of GLOBO... I would like to treat the page as my travel website and to share my experiences with friends, family, the members and everyone, who likes to travel. I do not expect to be rated for anything I post. Many members have been very kind with their encouraging comments. But I do have to admit that it does bother me a little when some members feel free to rate my pictures without leaving a comment. I am also aware of members who got seriously upset with low rating of pictures without receiving comments why they did not like the picture. I do not believe this website has been developed for that purpose. The rating of pictures is thought provoking and triggered some interesting discussions, which I think is a good.



I also am not convinced that overrating and underrating photographs for a purpose to bring the overall average to whatever the rater believes "should' be, is entirely fair. People tastes have been, are, and will be different and we ought to respect other people's views... :)



Perhaps the definitions of the stars are not ideal - I like the definitions that rip_drifter proposed.

[ This Message was edited by: krisek on 2008-09-02 21:34 ]

---
Open your eyes. Free your mind. Touch lives. Sink into the different. Travel and belong. Profile photo: Palma de Mallorca.


Reply    Reply with quote    Contact krisek
 

rip_drifter

View profile in a new window


Premium account
Joined: Dec 07
Points: 305
Posts: 29


Posted: 2008-09-03 06:25:00   

Points taken.

It's a travel community. not a photo contest...

---
Best Regards, Mike Bruin


Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rip_drifter
 

andreas

View profile in a new window

posting by GLOBOsapiens.net staff

posting by GLOBOsapiens.net moderator

Joined: May 02
Points: 8296
Posts: 803


Posted: 2008-09-03 10:20:00   

Hello everybody,



thank you all for your feedback. As Eire illustrated it correctly, rating is always a "hot topic" and is hard to control as there are many wishes like spam control while on the other hand keeping total freedom. Tough to find a good middle way. As rip_drifters's suggestions found a positive feedback, I have taken your advice and changed the rating text.



Have fun!



Best regards,



Andy


Reply    Reply with quote    Contact andreas
 

eirekay

View profile in a new window


Premium account
Joined: Aug 03
Points: 19539
Posts: 214


Posted: 2008-09-03 22:22:00   

Okay, I am trying the new rating descriptions and I find that they result in lower ratings. I just want to verify that that is what we are after? I understand the intent is to perhaps make more allowance for a really stupendous picture but it is going to mean people adjusting to a lot more 2s and 3s.



Eire

---
Life is not measured by the breaths you take but by the moments that take your breath away. Profile Pic: Tikal, Guatemala


Reply    Reply with quote    Contact eirekay
 

rangutan

View profile in a new window


Premium account
Joined: Aug 04
Points: 34267
Posts: 1034


Posted: 2008-09-03 22:25:00   

The new definitions are much more user friendlier, thanks for suggesting Mike and thanks for the change Andy. Remember that we are principally non-professional photographers. While I rate strictly and even fanatically, rating at GLOBO is a much more casual thing than at pure photographers websites. I hope though that the publishers of glossy magazines like NatG or GEO look at our best images sometimes. It would be wonderful for any to be chosen for publication one day.



Mike, which image was it that you had a problem with? If you cannot alocate the rating you wished, reload the image and rate it one star higher or leave a comment or rate it as spam once the average has come down, it will definetly if it is a poor photo!



As long as the "extreme-rating-protection-tool" is active, we should also change that word "fraud" (a bit insulting) to the word "unfairness"?



RR

[ This Message was edited by: rangutan on 2008-09-03 23:21 ]

---
Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner


Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rangutan
 

Page: 1 2




  Terms and Conditions    Privacy Policy    Press    Contact    Impressum
  © 2002 - 2017 Findix Technologies GmbH Germany    Travel Portal Version: 4.2.6