On my other thread we discussed about Photo Rating points (prp). Here I want to talk about the other element of the point system.

It is a lot easier to accumulate points with critique rating points (crp). You pick picture to write a critique and if you're the first three reviewers, you get 3 points every time someone marks your critique helpful.

So if your purpose is to accumulate those points, this is the easier way to build up points than posting your own picture.

Why do people want more points? #1 is the perceived value of the points. Members with high point counts been around longer, or know better (we debated this on the other thread). For me, other than that, it is the fun. After all, why have a point system if a higher one is not better? But most of the time, it is because I want the points so I can post my own picture.

I am not a premium member. So, I need to have 15 points to post every single picture. I really have no problem with that system, except that the current system would give me negative number of pictures to post. That happens when my current points (past 3 days) is not enough to cover the number of pictures I have posted in the same period.

So, I write critique, sometimes, for the selfish reason of uploading my own pictures. Even worst, I mark other critiques helpful to gain a reciprocate. All to gain points so I can post. Although I would not mark something that I totally disagree. If I think a picture is only worth a 1TU, I will not agree with someone who offered a 3TU, or 1TD. And I must say, I do give any picture I critique a genuine effort.

But no matter how I rationalize it, there is an ulterior motive and it is selfish. And I believe it is a very common practice.

It doesn't have to be that way. In my own case, I have 11,000+ crp vs 1,200+ prp. If the system takes into consideration of overall points, not just the past three days only, I would never have that problem. Not saying I'd earned my right, but at the least, don't drop me in the negative territory where I have to spin to get out of the hole.

I think that would improve on the quality of the critique because it takes away the ulterior motive.

Please weigh in your thoughts.

Read 494 times

Reply 

From iostream/Dean (4,398) on November 17, 2011 2:03:16 PM CST Although I would not mark something that I totally disagree. If I think a picture is only worth a 1TU, I will not agree with someone who offered a 3TU, or 1TD. And I must say, I do give any picture I critique a genuine effort. I believe that if you use the useful/not useful this way, you are not using it the way it is supposed to be used. That isn't supposed to indicate whether or not you agree with the person's rating, only whether or not you think it provides any useful information. Reply

From ssal/Alex (28,359) on November 17, 2011 2:13:38 PM CST I totally agree. It is not used for the purpose it is intended. But it gets me reciprocal and that satisfies the ulterior selfish motive. And if you believe that I am the only one doing that, I have a bridge to sell you. Reply

From texasbiker/Mark (11,014) on November 17, 2011 2:16:24 PM CST I agree. I have marked critiques as Helpful on the same photo, that were TD and 3TU. Often they say similar things, just one person likes the photo more. But both are valid or helpful critiques. Reply

From muralist0221/George (7,881) on November 17, 2011 8:27:39 PM CST Agree with your premise. The purpose of PhotoSig is to help photographers improve their craft, not to become "beancounters". The points mean nothing. Reply

From smoke11/Patrick (3,104) on November 17, 2011 11:19:45 PM CST I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous discussion and it makes assertions that may be unfounded. I'm a premium member and really don't post that many photos (750 critiques vs 80 photos). I honestly could care how many photo credits I have from my premium membership because I never use them. I just enjoy looking at the photos and participating in the critique process because I learn from it. Many of the critiques are well thought out, make astute and informed points, and contribute to the community. If you are making other critiques helpful to gain a reciprocate ... all I can say is if you want to help fix the problem (and to be clear I don't subscribe to your sweeping thesis) start with your own practices. Better yet, just pay the $25 membership. Hosting a server like this with photos archives going back a decade is, I suspect, not cheap. Reply

From captaindon/Don (11,683) on November 17, 2011 11:47:41 PM CST First of all, you don't need any critique points to post a picture. There are people here with several pics posted that have not written a single critique. You can post 1 pic and after (I believe 72 hours) you can post another pic. You can increase that number by writing critiques and receiving helpful ratings. These points are also only good for 72 hours as far as picture posting points go. You can post 1 pic for every 15 critique points received in the past 72 hours. Secondly, you should not be concerned about what other people have marked as a rating with regards to the critique being helpful. I have marked many a critique helpful that I was in disagreement with either the rating or the information but that does not mean the critique was not helpful, it just means there is a difference of opinion. Helpful critiques are those that attempt to offer suggestions for improving the image and/or words of encouragement. If someone thinks the background is too busy and you don't feel that it is doesn't make yours or the other persons critique unhelpful or not helpful. Both are offering their opinions and a variety of opinions are inevitable and almost always helpful. The objective here is to give the photographer honest feedback according to your own personal views on the image posted. Everything else is just fluff in the box. Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,994) on November 18, 2011 7:51:59 AM CST Although you present your case logically, I think you don't have evidence to support that your stated motivations are generalizable to the community as a whole, though it is likely that some segment of the community does write critiques in order to get posting priveleges. If your behavior were generalizable, then I actually think it more compellingly argues that the system works. A) You write critiques because you want to post. B) When you write, for whatever reason, you "do give any picture [you] critique a genuine effort" (which is all the site really asks). Therefore C) requiring you to write critiques in order to post results in more well-intentioned critiques on the site. I believe that some people write critiques only in order to post, and I believe the some critics write poor critiques. That is the argument that says: if you want to improve critique quality, don't require poor critics to write, but it requires a value judgment and logically results in fewer critiques overall. I believe that, since we can't systematically asses critique quality in a particularly reliable way (meta-critiques notwithstanding), and since we further need volume of critiques to encourage overall participation (witness your previous thread), that this would also be counter-productive. Ultimately, though, this is all an academic exercise. The site owner is the only one who can make changes and he does not have time to do so. There will be no changes like the ones you are discussing any time soon. Reply

From ssal/Alex (28,359) on November 18, 2011 11:00:18 AM CST Of course, the policy is up to the board's administrators. But I think the quality of this board can be improved if they take away that automatic 1 picture per 72 hours freeby. I have seen members and admin writing to remind member to post critique. I have also seem posting locked because poster don't write enough critique. If the board do away with the freeby, anyone who wants to post must write enough critiques first. Then no one will feel pressed to write critiques. Also, for people who have an overall positive reserve in the bank, taking away the negative number of post allowed would also ease the pressure of writing critique just to fill the hole. Hopefully, that would improve the quality of the critique. Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on November 18, 2011 11:17:15 AM CST We tried that. It didn't work. Posting a photo without writing a critique introduces people to the pleasure of getting feedback of their work. They feel invested and start to participate. Most people get the idea they need to write critiques for others pretty quickly. The other downside of the forced system was people wrote total junk. Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,994) on November 18, 2011 11:37:27 AM CST Sheena's right about people writing craptiques when they were required to post. Further, I don't think eliminating the negative number would be a meaningful benefit. It means you've already posted. Most people want there to be more critiques per photo already, and it's probably good for people to be somewhat selective. (We already have people who post many many similar shots. That can be interesting as a point of study up to a point, I suppose.) In any case, these are just my opinions. You're entitled to yours, but neither of our opinions matter if we're asking for coding changes... Reply

From angedazur/Jean (15,068) on November 18, 2011 11:23:10 AM CST I would rate this discussion unhelpful Reply

From deleted22692269/deleted (2,218) on November 18, 2011 12:31:02 PM CST I would rate your critique of the discussion as helpful. Reply

From minis/Mindaugas (6,427) on November 18, 2011 12:45:18 PM CST +1 Reply

From jaygheiser/Jay (10,361) on June 18, 2012 9:05:10 AM CDT It is the nature of human beings to compete and to seek ways to improve their social status. Any sort of social media that includes a point system is inevitably going to attract people who want to collect points just for the bragging rights. There are far more people on Photosig who are posting superficial critiques in order to rack up high scores than there are people posting them in order to get more upload credit. Well over a decade ago, I used to be a top 100 Amazon reviewer. I kept it up for awhile, but eventually, the top 100 was dominated by accounts that were uploaded multiple long reviews every day. It seemed unlikely that so many individuals had so much time and ability that they could read and critique multiple novels a day. It was crazy. I don't think that there is anything you can do to prevent people from playing games in order to improve their social status. This seems like a sort of shallow life goal, but who am I to judge someone else's choice of hobby? If they ask me to judge the quality of their hobby, I'm happy to do that, though. Reply

Return to forum