rating photos .. do you / don't you and why ?

forbairt

Just curious on this but do you vote for photos on the likes of http://pix.ie ( I don't really use flickr though I've got an account )

I just notice a lot of views on some photos but very few votes on whether or not its a good photo or not I'll also see comments but the people don't click the little stars on just how much they like the photos.

Every few days I'll be on pix.ie and flicking rather quickly through photos and I'll vote generally giving 3 , 4 , 5 stars .. though I will give a one and two if I feel the photo isn't up to much.

Tallon

42? Explain yourself

forbairt

Tallon wrote: »

42? Explain yourself

Good reading here :P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_%28number%29

(never really was that bothered by Atari Jugular)

Anouilh

Now and again I have give stars. It reminds me of primary school, however. Also there are some Flickr sites that operate on a star system or giving marks out of 20. I find them seriously alarming.

Slidinginfinity

I really only use the star system on Pix.ie when I see a photo that I happen to either like (then I leave a compliment) or hate (then I try to ask what the person was looking for in their shot).

forbairt

Anouilh wrote: »

Now and again I have give stars. It reminds me of primary school, however. Also there are some Flickr sites that operate on a star system or giving marks out of 20. I find them seriously alarming.

maybe its my cry for attention .. rate me rate me ... but in a way I find it useful to know what others think of a shot ... a comment and a star can be good

I find comments of "great shot" / "nice" / "good one" to be less helpful though nice to hear though I always try to say something I like about a shot if I'm going to comment

For example



is a dreadful shot and I know that it should have a star rating of 1 ... but I love the shot and that won't change how I feel about the shot

Mycroft H

Tallon wrote: »

42? Explain yourself

42 is the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything! :cool:

Fajitas!

I don't really like it. I'd rather give an opinion rather than an anonymous number...

That's kind of why I like Flickr, it's either a fave or it's not.

forbairt

Fajitas! wrote: »

I don't really like it. I'd rather give an opinion rather than an anonymous number...

That's kind of why I like Flickr, it's either a fave or it's not.

I guess in some ways I like the anonymity of just clicking the stars .. especially when you like a shot but don't really want to comment on it

Is "Nice Shot" better than 3 - 5 stars ? ... is .. "Nice Shot" a comment from a novice photographer ... an amateur or a pro ... seasoned pro ? ( though of course same could be said of the star system) from the community point of view you could scan through the posters photos and make up your own mind

Fajitas!

Well, me being awkward, saying "Nice shot" isn't much of an opinion, even if it means pointing out one thing in particular I like about the photograph, I'll prefer to do that.

But tbh, even "nice shot" is good enough, it's that tiny tiny bit more personal - I know who's made the comment, I can check out their photographs, I can even comment on theirs if I like'em. And you can make up your own decision on whether it's a nice shot from a seasoned pro or someone who knows nothing about photographer (And I like that as much, if not slightly more than some old fellah :pac: ).

4 Stars, well... you'll never know.

Also, if you just like the shot, and don't want to comment, that's where the 'Favorite' option comes in great.

ThOnda

I do use 5 stars on pix.ie, Favorite on Flickr and written comment if I feel like making it. And by "nice" I don't mean just nice.

Looks nice.

charybdis

★★★★

humberklog

Saying and recieving 'nice shot' is grand I think. Janey it's tough enough trying to be creative visually without having to take on creative critical writing on other peoples work too. Jayzuz I've been struggling enough finishing off an album. On the same hand it is good to get more than that or be moved (or more importantly: be in the mood) to write more than that to others. 'Nice photo' for me is usually used as an appreciation of the photographer's general body of works' direction. It's a slap on the back with a curious eye over the shoulder.

The Stars wrankle a little, and it shouldn't (but it does!) only because it's so hard for an amature not to get dragged into using them as a measure of acceptance. I'd often see some photos that have stars coming out their ears and yet I think it's not great. I can put that down to the photographer's 'connectivity' on the site but often I can't help thinking... "holy f... that's what people like? I'm fu..ed, we're all fu..ed, society is doomed. Cats and macro flowers are going to predominantly outline this eras photographic endeavours". But then it is a good feeling when you do recieve stars?! They play to the ego and we're all vain to some degree.

I much prefer flickr's fav system.
I sleep at night by convincing myself that it's views that count. If even on further inspection the pic isn't suiting the viewer it was good enough to get their immediate attention.
Views are the way forward! But stars do flatter! (perhaps to deceive). And comments regardless of content are general approval of the body of work. That's how I try to see it and it helps. Especially when cats are taking over the world. Or at least that's what people in two hundred years time will think when they reflect on how photography as an art form represented this period.
Cats and stars and ego and ids.

kjt

humberklog wrote: »

Saying and recieving 'nice shot' is grand I think. Janey it's tough enough trying to be creative visually without having to take on creative critical writing on other peoples work too. Jayzuz I've been struggling enough finishing off an album. On the same hand it is good to get more than that or be moved (or more importantly: be in the mood) to write more than that to others. 'Nice photo' for me is usually used as an appreciation of the photographer's general body of works' direction. It's a slap on the back with a curious eye over the shoulder.

The Stars wrankle a little, and it shouldn't (but it does!) only because it's so hard for an amature not to get dragged into using them as a measure of acceptance. I'd often see some photos that have stars coming out their ears and yet I think it's not great. I can put that down to the photographer's 'connectivity' on the site but often I can't help thinking... "holy f... that's what people like? I'm fu..ed, we're all fu..ed, society is doomed. Cats and macro flowers are going to predominantly outline this eras photographic endeavours". But then it is a good feeling when you do recieve stars?! They play to the ego and we're all vain to some degree.

I much prefer flickr's fav system.
I sleep at night by convincing myself that it's views that count. If even on further inspection the pic isn't suiting the viewer it was good enough to get their immediate attention.
Views are the way forward! But stars do flatter! (perhaps to deceive). And comments regardless of content are general approval of the body of work. That's how I try to see it and it helps. Especially when cats are taking over the world. Or at least that's what people in two hundred years time will think when they reflect on how photography as an art form represented this period.
Cats and stars and ego and ids.

Nice post

AnCatDubh

Well I;

***** rarely but i've done it - has to be exceptional in capturing my imagination both technically and emotionally.
**** for good stuff I like - regular enough.
*** less frequent
** not often
* very infrequent

If it doesn't get me going then i'll probably not vote at all except where something is getting great votes 4's or 5's where i'll drop in a 3 which in pix.ie speak is an ok shot (iirc) or a 2 if I don't think it's not that good.

I tend to vote if its good as an anonymous vote of whatever in the photograph.

Votes can be contrived so much and is no bearing on any league table of images. That's why pix.ie uses additional criteria in its 'secret' formula to calculate its best - but even so, I doubt that it is entirely accurate at bringing the best to the fore.