I know the topic of rating has come up before, and clearly people should be free to rate as they like, providing it is based on genuine grounds.
However, I think an eye needs to be kept out for persistent low raters. There is an element of marking 'highly rated' images down just for the sake of it. More strangely, there seem to be some users that only give low ratings. After a number of images plummeted in scores I noticed certain members have given average ratings of 4, 3 and even 2...
Clearly, people can vote as they like. Seeing as preference is entirely subjective, I personally vote almost entirely on the images I like. It's all too easy to click on something which I know I will dislike and simply mark it down. I have no motivation to do that.
The question is, what are members that seem to exclusively give ultra-low ratings doing on the site in the first place?
Also, should something be done about them and should warnings be given? I can't but think that this is some form of trolling.
I wouldn't immediately assume this is done with bad intent. Without knowing what pictures exactly they voted so negatively on, I don't think we can say that they're necessarily trolling.
Just like I usually only give a rating when I feel a picture is extraordinarily good (and/or can be bothered)--leaving me with a fairly high average rating--so too can I imagine people only voting for particularly bad pictures, perhaps in a sense of quality control. It would be good for the site if bad pictures indeed receive bad ratings. If you and I are only rating the good ones, who's making sure the bad pictures get to the bottom of the list?
I see what you're saying, but at the same time, why would anyone want to appoint themselves the task of quality control? That'd be purely down to personal preference, so it's going to be hard to be objective. The quality control takes place through the moderation - if it doesn't meet the criteria, it wont get through.
I just think there is something slightly misanthropic about those who persistently rate sub-par scores, and often it seems that it's just for the sake of it. I guess in the long run it doesn't matter too much as the vast majority of people vote accordingly and 'quality' images will always rate highly overall.
I very rarely rate anything lower than a 6 ... my default votes are 7s and 8s, with 9s and 10s for stuff I really like and 10+favorite when I want to 'turn it up to 11.' Zerobombing is just plain nasty, and I'd like to see some form of sanctions against habitual zerobombers.
Like Chevron, most of my rankings are in the 7-8 zone. If' I'm really jazzed about a particular photo, then it gets a 9 or 10. I doubt I've ever given a score lower than 4 or 5.
I'd like to think that this is a reasonable way to score. While a score of "5" may (objectively) be an honest "average" score, I don't click on every photo. My feeling is that if the thumbnail was good enough to click on, it's probably already a better-than-average photo.
I think the Zerobombers, though, have discovered that voting only tens and zeros hugely multiplies their individual vote.
Example: I see a photo that's running an 8.5, and I think "she's not that hot" and I give her a 6. And the vote average might drop to 8.4. But if I had given her a zero, and her score might have dropped down to a 7.0.
Yup, Zerobombing really makes your vote count ... but it also distorts the group's overall evaluation.
Someone, a while back, suggested that we eliminate the number vote, and simply choose "like" or "dislike" for each photo. That would eliminate the effect of the Zerobombers (effectively, it would make us all "Zerobombers"). That's a possible option, but I'd still prefer the voting system we have now - if only people would make an honest effort to vote sincerely.
I seldom give "zero bombs," but when I do it, it's always done sincerely. I'm not trying to be "quality control," as referenced by Fender; nor am I "nasty," as referenced by Chevron. I'm not attempting to "multiply an individual vote," as mentioned by Chinchin.
Most of my zero bombs are on pictures that somehow get through the screening process, as in, pictures of models who look like guys with implants.
Log in |
Register
However, I think an eye needs to be kept out for persistent low raters. There is an element of marking 'highly rated' images down just for the sake of it. More strangely, there seem to be some users that only give low ratings. After a number of images plummeted in scores I noticed certain members have given average ratings of 4, 3 and even 2...
Clearly, people can vote as they like. Seeing as preference is entirely subjective, I personally vote almost entirely on the images I like. It's all too easy to click on something which I know I will dislike and simply mark it down. I have no motivation to do that.
The question is, what are members that seem to exclusively give ultra-low ratings doing on the site in the first place?
Also, should something be done about them and should warnings be given? I can't but think that this is some form of trolling.