Ratings in Gallery? Yes or No ?

[Clint Troy]

Only in a world where people aren't annoying little putzes. We don't live in that world.

I would have agreed that they could be valuable, but for the fact that most ratings end up being 9 or so, when people even bother, and every photo in the photo contest being rated "1" is more vandalism than "concise and accurate comment".

In the end it averages out, believe me.
You can't let one person get to you this way. If, after 10 votes you emd up with a 3, then you have to take it.

 

[Clint Troy]

Too too silly.

If ratings were accurate and concise every viewer would assign the exact same rating to any specific image. The fact that one viewer clicks "1" and another clicks "10" shows you how accurate and consise ratings are.

A numerical rating is the least accurate, least concise system, unless very strict criteria are defined and agreed to and lived by. Otherwise, numerical ratings are worthless, at best.

If you can't be bothered to type a one sentence comment about a picture, click out to the next picture.

Dave, if you post a picture that's worth a 9 (to me), you'd be so glad to get a 9. But if you Post a pic that (to me) is worth a 2, my guess is that you just couldn't accept that rating.
Why? Ego problem? Probably.

I try my best to fight my ego, in life. It makes me a better person. A better photographer, even. I think the ego is man's worst enemy. You have to overcome the littleness of the ego.

 

[CameraQuest]

Update

Update

Feb 3, 2013 update

In keeping with a 3 to 1 majority on this issue,
Ratings have been turned off in all of the galleries
EXCEPT Rate My Photograph

Comments are enabled on ALL Galleries.

Thank you for participating.

Stephen

 

[Cyriljay]

No is my vote! find comments are more useful too.

 

[larmarv916]

ratings are a better summary of peoples impressions. Twitter is an example of why comments are fluff. A rating is many time not even given when some one looks at an image....if they do click a rating number then it is a summary as the overall creative impact "they" see as deserving. Good...Bad or otherwise. It's like at batting average.

 

[hteasley]

ratings are a better summary of peoples impressions. Twitter is an example of why comments are fluff. A rating is many time not even given when some one looks at an image....if they do click a rating number then it is a summary as the overall creative impact "they" see as deserving. Good...Bad or otherwise. It's like at batting average.

Yeah, but batting average is a terrible stat. It says little about the quality of the hitter.

 

[gb hill]

Most ratings get a 9 anyhow so remove them.

 

[CameraQuest]

Yeah, but batting average is a terrible stat. It says little about the quality of the hitter.

likewise ratings say nothing about the knowledge, skill, or rating accuracy of the person giving the rating.

An AWESOME 10 rated pic by a newbie photog can easily be a REJECT to an experienced pro or succcessful art photographer.

Stephen

 

[raid]

Ratings are not adding anything to the gallery.

 

[johannielscom]

No need for ratings in the gallery.

I'm not interested in the ranking of my or others' pictures. Especially when that ranking is completely blind since I cannot know who ranks which shots by what standards.

It's totally useless.

 

[krice58]

No. We all have different tastes, so ratings are irrelevant.