Caroline. 9 seems to be the average, 8 is under that and to use 7 you must be afraid. And you must be afraid too for getting some kind of e-mails or rather strange reactions like we have seen here some time ago, cos there were some profs so bold to speak the truth. All pictures here for sure are "very lovely, "perfect", etc., etc. and at least a 9 worth. And I´m here also in debt for sure.

But what to do? Inflation is overall. In a great organisation I´ve worked, we have had inflation in "confidential report". All people have become better and better :-)) So we have changed the confidential report system (for example you can switch the notes comletely, so 10 becomes 1 and so on) And .... after some years we have had the same inflation. So if you will be avoid of that, you´ve to change the rating system permanently. But that will be very difficult on this site and for Alan and Mario.

So again what to do? One possibility is to cancel all ratings. But that will have some consequences we have allready discussed here. BTW only commenting is also not the best way, as I´ve noticed here another tendence , "fishing for comments" to get a HCI slot. And the qualitys of comments are mostly in inverse proportion to level of rating.

Anyway what you´re doing, after some time you´re always at the starting point again (like today :-)) And on the other hand, like in our competitions here, there are only a few who are following this thread and able for acting.

To make it short: think your way, to make every quarter a BIG BANG to wake up the people and remember the site guidelines will be the best.

So the motto should be: "6 is a GOOD Average"

Best wishes,

Good points by Neil + Horst I honestly always appreciated your honest ratings Caroline. Though I am a still growing photographer and have yet been shooting a year, I tend to follow the photographers work I like and respect most. Work from most I follow does seem to usually fall into the 8-10 category imo. From time to time if I think I have a helpfull suggestion to a new member I give it a shot, yet I just leave it at helpful(I hope)advice w/out a 3 or 4 attached. Though only being a member 6 months now I see the rating thing always being an issue...and I guess it always will be. Maybe just leaving the rating to contest would be better? I dunno...Though as stated by Neil, to me helpful advice and insight are most valuable to me cheers -JP

Firstly, I have to agree with you Caroline. I think that one of the reasons for a new round of ratings inflation is that, as a popular site, MFT is attracting a constant stream of new members, some of whom are extremely enthusiastic. That’s great! But it’s understandable that newer members are unaware of the previous rounds of ratings inflation discussions.

In my view, the HoF nomination system has largely been rectified because it only counts 10s. That means that tactical down-rating cannot come into play for HoF. That’s good. The images with the most 10s get into HoF. Who can argue with that?

However, I think that a similar system needs to be in place for HRI. There is scope for tactical down-rating in the HRI slot and I think this influences ratings behaviour.

As it stands now, HRI is not truly HRI. One new image with a single 10 can displace an older image that has many 10s. A few weeks ago, I observed an image with one 10 - and only one critic's comment under it - remaining in the HRI for 33 hours. At the same time, there were other images less than 5 days old that had multiple 10s. None of them had a fair share of the HRI slot because they were ‘older’ than the new single-10 image.

So, I think that HRI needs to be selected according to this simple criterion...

• the HRI is given to the image that is less than 5 days old that has the most 10s

Currently HRI and HCI images 'drop off' when they reach 5 days. That’s a good system because it gives a fair rotation. Under my proposal, when a HRI drops off, the image with the next highest number of 10s (that is less than 5 days old) would get the slot.

Under this proposal all the best images will receive a fair share of HRI, and the very best of them will have the chance to get more exposure – and more 10s - via HRI prominence. This can do nothing but enhance the validity of the HoF nomination system IMO.

PLUS, maybe people will feel happier about giving their honest rating to an image if they don’t see it as spoiling the image’s chances of being appreciated by others.

Sometimes I see an image in the HRI with a single 10 and it’s an image that I don’t think deserves to be there when it’s compared to other images less than 5 days old. But that’s just my opinion. Fair enough. But I have the option to rate it down to take it out of the slot. That’s not an option I like because it can invite retaliation or nasty emails like those you’ve mentioned. And I would always prefer to see an image in HRI because it has been rated UP by a larger number of people rather than ‘left alone’ because a lot of people didn’t think it deserved to be there but they didn’t want to rain on a parade - that may have been as small as a single, lonely 10 – by rating it DOWN.

Re: Horst’s point about HCI images. I agree. The HCI images should not count the author’s comments. This will thwart image ‘bumping’ by some authors feeling the need to respond individually to every comment. I have seen images in HCI where almost 50% of the comments have been author responses.

Sorry Alan and Mario! And sorry to all for the length of this post. I had to say it.

I don’t agree with your suggestion about not counting author’s own comments for the list of Highest Commented Images. I’ve never regarded HCI as a competition. To me that list is useful for finding out if there is something which could be an interesting discussion on a picture (including author’s own comments to comments and answers to questions). I must admit though that it irritates me when some authors write short lines saying thank you after almost every comment they get. Then I get “tricked” to re-open an image where there is nothing of interest to read. Please don’t misunderstand. I think authors should write comments thanking for comments, but prefer that they wait until there are five to 10 comments written on the picture or wait until it’s not likely the picture will receive more comments.

Thank you for your input Neil, Horst, JonPaul and Rob. :-)

Neil: Your write: “I think a lot of people don't run into rating less than 8 because they haven't even wasted their time opening those images, or people just haven't posted images of such low quality in the first place”. I think that you may be right about people not even opening the thumbnails of pictures that appear to be poorer than an 8, but I don’t agree with the last part of your sentence. Average (good) it what most pictures are like. It’s not possible for everyone to post something better than ‘average’ because then the quality of ‘average’ would just become better and one would get a ‘new average’. ;-)

I’ve been on MFT for almost two years now and when I first started posting pictures the quality of pictures posted were far better than nowadays. Still pictures get far higher rates now than then. When I looked at pictures posted before I become a member I thought the quality of pictures being posted had already gone down a lot at the time I started posting and I also noticed that ratings seemed to have been stricter earlier.

Horst: So yes, I agree of course with you that 6 is good/average. :-) As it is now I find it both off putting and depressing to see all these ridiculously high rates on MFT pictures and read all the shallow praise comments that are being written. As I’ve said many times before I don’t expect all comments to be quality comments (and I do write a lot of shallow comments myself), but I should wish there were more good and useful comments in between. I think MFT is turning more and more into a gallery it is a waste of spending time on. If I wanted to look at good pictures there are loads and loads of galleries, portfolios and home pages on the Internet with far, far better pictures than the pictures that are being posted on MFT.

JonPaul: I enjoy doing what you also do; Follow the work and progress of some of the members. :-) I also agree with you (*lol* and did even before you were here) that ratings should be left for competitions only.

Rob: Interesting suggestion to apply the same principle for the HRI slot as for the HOF by making it impossible to rate down pictures. If nothing else it would at least make people feel less uncomfortable with giving lower than 10 to pictures already displayed at the HRI slot.

BTW: I’ve got emails questioning my ratings, but only a very few of them have been nasty. Most just ask how I could rate their pictures as low as 5-7. I get the impression that they ask because they don’t regard 6 as good/average, but believe that 8 and 9 are good/average.

And thank you for your input as well Michael (you came in between). You put what I feel about MFT more clearly than I did. “Who will be next… to abandon the site? And who cares?”. As sad as it is (from my point of view) I think you are right about MFT now being beyond “repair”. I’m sure MFT will continue to grow and be a nice and cosy photo site/gallery, but with a different set of members and with a different purpose than the first years of its existence.

Caroline, I take your point about HCI not being a competition. It isn't. However, if author's comments were not counted, I'm sure that images that were receiving a lot of comments would still rise to the top and be noticed so that you could join in the discussion or satisfy your curiosity as the case may be. And some images that don't currently make the HCI list - because their authors' aren't into 'bumping' - would get more noticed.

The site has grown as more people buy Olympus cameras. But when the site was conceived as a vehicle for the four thirds system, the only camera available was the E-1. Only individuals with enough money and commitment to Oly purchased the camera. The general image quality was very high. Now with what I consider to be lesser cameras, the E-xx and E-xxx cameras, the plummeting price of the E-1 and the lack of a successor to the E-1, many people that have an secondary or hobby interest in photography are buying into the system. It is very sad that the quality of imagery at this site has gone so far down. Sadder still that apparently many members don't have an eye trained enough to recognize a fine image in any single genera, let alone all generas. Then there are the nasty emails, email threats and manipulation of the system to achieve some higher recognition. Not to mention the sycophantic comments by a few to achieve a personal fan club. Yes, there is less quality imagery, fewer meaningful comments and growing distaste for this site.

Here is another point about the functionality of our own personal page...

If you go to your own page and attempt to "Edit User Information", the next to last drop down menu supposedly allows you to choose the "CAMERA VIEW". According to the caption with this single menu, the choice made 'Filters what "Recent Images" you will view on the front page based on camera.' I choose E-1, but I see images on the front page made by all system cameras. I don't care about the E-500 or other cameras and wish this choice would work. I only want to see E-1 images at this point. ALAN & MARIO! PLEASE MAKE THIS WORK!!!

Michael, I agree with you.

Alan and Mario, I have a suggestion for your already busy schedules: On the rating/comment page, break down the rating out of 10 into components for technical quality, composition and emotional appeal. I recall Caroline mentioned 3-3-4 in a thread on the rating topic from awhile back. Have the forum member choose a mark out of 3 for tech. quality and so on. Include the point form list, from the Guide to Critiquing page, of things to consider for each of these components.

The idea here is to encourage people to think more about all the aspects of an image.

My feeling is that a lot of people are giving quick "knee-jerk reaction" ratings based almost entirely on emotional appeal or they are just following the example of how others have rated. I am sure the more experienced members consider all the different aspects of an image without having to think about it too much when they rate. But why not give some guidance newer forum members and/or those less experienced in photography? This approach may seem somewhat heavy-handed but clearly there are several people who are either ignoring the Guide page or just need a little direction in how to include it in their rating of an image.

As a new forum member back in January, I felt more comfortable giving ratings after I educated myself a little more about what I should be considering when viewing an image. I made up a rating breakdown for myself and described it on my personal page (admittedly pretentious - my apologies) in case I wanted to direct a disgruntled forum member to my thought process leading to a seemingly low rating for his/her image.

I am very discouraged by members leaving over this issue. I humbly ask you to stay but I respect your decision to go, if you must. To Alan and Mario, I know you guys are busy but I hope you can consider this suggestion.

Cheers everyone.

It's alright being honest. We may or may not like it, but having all kinds of personality here makes this community vibrant.

Now back to the discussion... I have nothing new to contribute except that let's all keep shooting away, post them, and take a step back and enjoy others' work.

I am new member here and perhaps I don’t even have the right to voice an opinion but I am going to because, as I see it, there is a need for some balance and perspective.

Perhaps, the short memory is just a deliberate effort of members to forget similar to this discussions of the past. Perhaps many find them offensive and destructive, I know I do.

I can appreciate the dedication of some members toward the “perfection ” of this site and toward the highest standards in both, quality of photos posted and ratings. Let’s not loose perspective however. Lets keep focused on what this site is all about; lets keep in mind that we are all different, with different personalities, tastes, preferences, emotional “buttons”, styles etc.

I fully agree that ratings should be administered fairly and with high standards – lets not forget though that every member could see things differently – emotional impact is a big factor on rating a photo and emotional appeal is very subjective.

Doesn’t everything balance out at the end? If one thinks that a photo is overrated does he/she not have the power of their own rating?

The other point raised here is quality and experience. Why all this talk about the different types of cameras used on this site? About the fact that many more people can now effort to purchase those cameras and thus qualify to post photos here? Quality is going down because of “US” new, non E-1, inexperienced, amateur photographers? It may be that the quality of “OUR” photos is low, but how does that effect the quality of you “pros”? But let’s say that it does, what do you want to do with US? Throw us out by making this site available only to E-1 users? And if WE then purchase E-1s, what then? Shoot us?

In my humble opinion, all that each and everyone of us can do, is his/her best to post the greatest photos we can, write as many constructive comments as we can, rate as fairly and according to the rules as we possible can, and LEARN AND ENJOY ! of course, making suggestions to improve the site etc, is noble; but lets really choose our battles.

Thanks a lot for new comments on the subject everyone. :-)

Avery: Of course you have a right to voice your opinion! I’m sorry you find threads like this offensive and destructive, but I have no problem understanding that you do so. As I wrote above I think MFT will continue to grow and be a nice photo site, but a different kind of photo site than it used to be, and from what I see not the kind of photo site I would enjoy being on and learn much (if anything) from. *lol* I suppose you can regard my thread as a sort of last desperate cry from one who want things back to as they were before (a site with many good pictures and good quality picture comments in between). ;-) I suppose I belong to the third or second wave of uneducated, unskilled hobby photographers – one of those who made the first members leave because of dropping quality.

You encourage members to “…keep focus on what the site is all about”. What is MFT about? On the web site information it says: “This is a photographic community where owners of Four Thirds camera equipment can share their very best photos for review by other members (not to be confused with an online image storage facility)”. I think MFT has turned into something close to a ‘online image storage facility” (or gallery, if you prefer). I see members pouring out 10-20 pictures of the same subject – all pictures looking close to identical and perhaps also shot on the same day or over a few days. That is not my idea of our “very best photos”. Please don’t get me wrong – I love seeing series of pictures like those Valter made of a Christmas tree and those Ferd Berfle made from a hotel he was stuck in. They were good examples of how some are able to make a variety of different pictures out of the same subject.

The website information says “…reviews by other members”. I can’t bring myself to regard cosy “great, wonderful, beautiful, marvellous picture” comments as “reviews”.

A good photographer can make good pictures with any kind of camera. Still I think there is some truth in the notion that those who bought the E-1 when it was new are/were more interested in photography, more dedicated and eager to grow and make good pictures than many of those buying cheaper cameras. When I read some of the replies authors give to the comments they get I get the impression that they are not really interested in photography and that they are perfectly happy with their own pictures and see no room for improvement. That is not what I want from a photo site.

David: I think you are quite right about “..affordable dSLRs means that the site will have new but inexperienced members”, but I’m not as optimistic as you. I don’t believe there is only a short-term decline in quality, but a permanent decline (and by that beyond “repair”). I also think you are right about having a photo site for E-1 cameras only would be a slow death. ;-)

Brad: I think your suggestion about a new way of rating could be a way to go if it could “force” members to read the “guidelines” and find out what to look for in pictures. Something like that has been suggested earlier. At that time I was sceptical – thought it would be too complicated and that it would be easier to just bear the “guidelines” in mind. As it is I think it is quite obvious that a large number of the MFT members don’t pay any attention to the “guidelines” (or that they are not interested enough in photography to study the guidelines and find out what they mean).

Why is it "us" vs. them Avery? A new member may well be a seasoned "pro" as you put it. The one thing I have never understood with new members at every site is the feeling of --- (fill in the blank as you see fit) that comes through in their messages. Old or young in age, new or old in membership, does it matter? No, not to me. But I do prefer to look at competent images!

As for wanting to see pictures made by the E-1 only, I have the E-1 and don't care much about the other cameras because I am not going to buy one. I simply want to pare down the number of images I look at every day to a manageable level by using a function that is already designed into the system; this seems like a great way to accomplish that goal.

(What is wrong with talking about cameras on this site? What is wrong with "pros"? I am an amateur, but know quite a few "pros" that have helped me in my photographic journey. And why wouldn't you have the right to voice an opinion? By all means, learn and enjoy. There are great joys in being a student and in being a teacher. Photography is a lifelong process and the best image makers continue to learn from each other for a lifetime. The joy of making images never leaves. All the rest of the junk that sometimes goes with it is not so joyful sometimes.)

Everybody back up one step! A rational discussion is about to turn into a full-blown emotional debate that will keep expanding and expanding until someone quit the group again.

Thank you Caroline and Edwin for your response, it helps me see your points of view a little better. Perhaps I was not very clear in expressing my view on this. The main thing that I wanted to communicate is that even though we should definitely make suggestions for improvement, we, at the same time, should understand and accept the fact that this is a democratic site, open to everyone and we have to respect that. To keep in mind that our personal preferences, standards and styles are all different AND most importantly, that our style, preference, standards etc. are NOT any better than those of another member.

For example, it has become clear that there are many members who believe that when THEY rate a photo with a 10 it is very justifiable BUT when I, for example, rate a photo with a 10, they call it inflation.

Perhaps, a comment from yesterday will illustrate my point on this better, and I am referring to this just to show my point and I do not mean anything personal with it. Yesterday, a photo was posted: http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=24435 (an outstanding photo for that matter). It received several comments and four ratings of 10 and thus, it was on the HRI spot for a while. I was pleased to see it and to see it on the HRI spot. More pictures were posted and of course, others were rated with 10 by members and replaced that one at the HRI spot. This photo: http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=24451 with six ratings of 10, came to the HRI spot. At some point, this comment was posted under the first photo:

 “Not to down qualify ....other pictures, but according to some discussion here, it’s a shame that this is not standing a long time in HRI slot. This could be an example for high quality standard of this page.”

The way I see this is as follows: there are rules set by Mario and Alan for the HRI spot and that set of rules apply to every member and every photo. Members determine which photo is placed on the HRI spot with their ratings. I can appreciate that a member may have a “favorite” and may wish that it stays on the HRI forever but we have to make room for democracy and for all the members, preferences and favorites. There is no shame at all here. Both photos are fine photo’s, they both have made it to the HRI place. Most importantly, they were placed there by members in a free rating system. And besides, if a member thinks that one photo is superior to another, he can rate accordingly and that will have an effect on the HRI spot. I can appreciate that the author of this comment made an effort to clarify that he meant “not to down qualify” but still I see no value whatsoever on such comments or in fighting such battles.

sorry, if you have somewhat misunderstood. If you have read her for a longer time, you should have known a discussion about how to get an HRI slot (can´t find at once the tread .... can someone help me?). So my posting was thought to illustrate this matter. Written in hurry. Longer posting follows soon.

Best,

sorry, if you have somewhat misunderstood. If you have read her for a longer time, you should have known a discussion about how to get an HRI slot (can´t find at once the tread .... can someone help me?). So my posting was thought to illustrate this matter. Written in hurry. Longer posting follows soon.

Best,

I know that you did not mean anything bad with your comment, and just wanted to make a statement. I just wanted to make a point as well on something that I believe in. I have no hard feelings and like and respect your work.

Thanks again Avery. You were clear in your first post and I think I understood what you mean. :-) As long as MFT is an open photo site for everyone to take part in regardless of level of skills and knowledge I don’t think it can be different from what it is like now (though I think the rating system aggravates the problems). Edwin wrote above: “Sadder still that apparently many members don't have an eye trained enough to recognize a fine image in any single genera, let alone all generas”. I agree with Edwin and I would guess that that is also one or perhaps the main reason why many fine photographers and critics have left the site. It’s not only about different preferences, standards and styles.

The development on MFT is not different from what can be seen on other photo sites (or any sort of special interest site for that matter). They start off with skilled/knowledgeable members, becomes known to a wider public and then starts attracting a different set of members who are less skilled/knowledgeable and less interested in acquiring skills and knowledge. When that set of members by far outnumbers the original set of members, the site becomes unattractive to the original set. I’m sure that I with my mediocre pictures and limited knowledge made MFT less attractive to “old” members just the same way as there are others who now make MFT less attractive to me. I don’t really think there is anything which can be done to make things different – it’s just the way things are. The burden or drawback of becoming bigger and more popular.

I should also mention that not all new members are unskilled, ignorant and (most important) not interested in learning, but to me the good/positive “additions” to the site are drowning/disappearing in poor pictures, shallow comments and ridiculously inflated rates and I really miss many of those who have left.

...will have far less influence on the site IMO if they don't degrade the vehicle that has the greatest potential to stimulate discussion on the best photographs - the HRI. There is such a volume of images passing by these days that it's harder to obtain good discussion around the best ones. Aren't most of us here to discuss photos and learn by doing so?

Am I the only one who thinks that fixing the HRI selection criterion to match that of the HoF will go a long way towards (a) Facilitating more discussion on the best pictures, (b) Diluting the effects of aberrant, "ridiculous" ratings and (c) Providing a non-punitive avenue for members to give pictures their Dead Honest Rating whilst feeling comfortable that if their rating is against the mainstream then they haven't dragged an image down just because they don't happen to like it so much?

As mentioned before, I don't like the idea of raining on someone's parade, but I do like the idea of being able to voice a counter view if that's what I honestly feel. I value the positive and negative comments on my work because I can learn something from all of them. Hopefully a few others feel the same way.

Often, I refrain from rating an image that's doing well if my rating would be less than the mainstream. I refrain because of the way HRI works now. Well, yes, you could say that my attitude means I'm part of the problem. Fair enough. But I don't want to be a policeman.

It's all fine to have rating guidelines - but it's better to design a site that doesn't so much rely on people knowing the rules and being trusted to follow them. You will always get new members and you will always come around to this point again where people need to be reminded about the so called guidelines. Save yourself the trouble. Have a site that is self-regulating. Change HRI to be in line with the HoF. Weight of 10s rules.

I started a thread about too many pictures here uploaded per day http://myfourthirds.pixelcritic.com/document.php?id=17869

There I predicted that we will get here communities in the community and that is what we exactly have got. There are some circles who are only busy with them self and commenting only on their pictures, if ever. In germany you can follow a discussion about the same phaenomen in watching TV: Lower Class TV (means that there is a special comunity (lower class) who is watching TV-programs (with rather low level) you even have no idea that they exist).

For me here is only one solution possible: immediately a drastic reduction of the picture flow (one pic per 48 / 72 hour or a weekly rate). That will allow the following: all will be able agin to comment on nearly all pictures (here are the "proffs" in a special duty :-)) And the benefit: at first a greater discussion in ONE community. At second a better advice for new members. They will in a short time "see" that they are talented or not and will take the consquences (I hope). And that means per se: better pictures, better comments, better ratings and a better community.

But I´m afraid, that this thread is read also only by a few members (a special thanks to all who have read here AND commented). And without reducing the upload we will have much more pictures and will only comment in our own circle.

Perhaps the "E-1 Button", E. Edwin mentioned could be a help (I´m not with him about selecting photographers after their cameras - the photographer makes the picture, not the camera). What I mean could be a distinction between "engaged" and "not engaged". So the photographer could decide if he would like only to upload the picture or to have a critical discussion (but this means two buttons :-))

However, I can follow the feelings of those, who are photographer with a real passion, whether if "Oldie" or "Newbie".

Best wishes,

What do I want to say here?

Lots of conversations about this topic many times. Did my bit and now just want to comment on images and will rate to support the site's approach to it.

There have been a number of generations of people on MFT and there will be more and more and more.

No matter how many times we thrash out this issue, it will always have to be thrashed out again and again and again with each new generation. I dont want to do this anymore. The site guidelines are there for all to see. Each will implement them according to his/her experience and photography wisdom/knowledge.

Newcomers, oldcomers etc etc etc - all are welcome. When I came here at first I didnt know an f stop from a hole in the ground (some might say, whats new?! - you are still the same!!). I am grateful for what I learnt here.

I was on a different site over the weekend having a look. I was amazed at the quality of images taken with all sorts of cameras, amazingly, some with a P&S.

History on this site shows us that these conversations just go round and round, rating patterns trundle on and on, the sun comes up in the morning, six months pass, another article appears, heated discussion, some beer, sleep, the sun comes up in the morning....... (no offence Caroline, I know that you are totally sincere in your article)

.*lol* No problem Eugene. I’m giving up now and think it’s not unlikely that I will write a similar post as yours next time the issue comes up (if I’m still around by then). ;-)

Rob: Just in case you didn’t notice – I am in favour of your suggestion of changing how the HRI system works. :-)

Horst: And yes, I’m still (as I were in December 2005) in favour of reducing number of images. I think one a week is not enough. Better with two or three. If we only could post one image a week I’m sure many members would get out of the habit of being on MFT every day or every other day. “Addicts” are good for photo sites. If you break addicts habits they just get new addictions and stay away. ;-)

To determine what level of support there is for standardising HRI selection to align with HoF? I feel that doing so would significantly reduce (possibly nullify) the skewing effect of unjustified 10s from members who don't follow the guidelines (or are unaware of them as they come onto the site). As a consequence of that, I feel it would also stop us coming around to this point after every few months. A few wild 10s here and there, or in waves as new members arrive, will be unlikely to override HRI appearances of quality images that receive wider acclaim with 10s from members following the guidelines. And, to repeat, it will encourage members to give more Dead Honest ratings because such ratings will not be interpreted as punitive by the system. (After this, I give up as well!)

...the idea of further limiting image posts to 2-3 per week.

I will give full support to a limit of photos per week i think that could be interesting. I guess i would enjoy that kind of limit, since i normally try to post in series, that usually are connected to aplace or theme, and that could abid for a better workflow of photos into the site.

I have been following this article from the beginning, and basically I can say that I find a lot of truth, goodness and noble intentions in the words of all the contributing members. There were several issues raised here and several solutions offered; I tried to think about those issues and solutions and here is my opinion/recommendation on each issue. And I will start with the ones that could be solved with simple implementations:

HRI. Image

Basically I agree with Rob about selecting photos for the HRI position based on the number of ratings of 10. I think a variation of that could work better; a photo competes for the HRI only after it receives three (3) ratings. This will allow photos in the HRI position to stay a little longer but without becoming stale and possibly boring, and will not bring photos rated with one or two 10s by enthusiasts (like myself often:-)) to the HRI spot.

Highest Commented Images

It has been suggested that for the placement of images on this spot only comments received from other members count. I agree with this. It is fair and easy to implement and will allow members to respond to comments however they want, individually or collectively without their own comments effecting the position of the photo on the Highest Commented Images spot.

Empty and meaningless comments

It is a reality that members maintain a variety of styles in writing comments; some write detail, instructive, etc. comments with a lot of advise and suggestions; others do not do that – for what ever reason; I think MFT needs ALL; without wanting to downplay the value of the those constructive comments, the so called “empty praise” comments, are NOT so empty nor useless in my opinion. Again, MFT needs all styles. It is a community and as every community , it is a cross section of our general diverse community.

The real problem here, in my opinion, is the number of comments that members write. And the cause of this problem is mostly that there are many photos posted and members simply do not have the time to comment on many photos and to invest some time and thinking into commenting. It has been suggested to increase the interval of posting and I think it is a great idea; I believe a good start would be posting one photo in 48 hours; it slows down the flow of photos by 50% and at the same time it does not take away the interests and enthusiasm of members; as Caroline pointed out that enthusiasm and interests is essential to the site.

Inflated ratings/ quality of photos

I consider myself as one of those enthusiasts who give praise and high ratings. And I realize that, of course, some more conservative/critical members disagree. I will state my reasons for my rating below, but first let me say that by having more members commenting/rating, and by implementing the above recommendations to the HRI spot (along with the existing criteria for the HoF), the problem of “easy 10s goes away. With these minor changes, several “easy” 10s will not effect anything in neither, the HoF selection nor the HRI spot.

As it has correctly been said, regardless of all the guidelines and manuals, in photography – as in all of the arts – emotion plays a very important and major part. And to me “emotional impact” weighs the heaviest in valuing art. For example, I am a big lover of symphony (classical music in general) and I have attended concerts in the most prestigious concert halls around the globe, given by the best orchestras on earth. I love it with a passion and fully recognize their artistic excellence and complexity ; BUT if I am to rate those orchestras or that music, I will rate with a 9.9, where a simple melody from my region ( a very basic, non complex song) I will rate with 10. Why? Because it goes straight into my heart, because emotional impact weighs the most with me.

As to the quality of the photos posted, I agree with those who argue that MFT is not a “storage” facility, I agree that every member has to continuously try to improve the quality of their photos; but I also realize that MFT is not the “exhibition hall” of the finest photography ever produced on earth. It is rather a place on this “wide web” where members like you and me spend some time together with our photos, our comments, learning, sharing, exchanging ideas and forming friendships; and it is fun (at least most of the time) Let us all try to make MFT the best it can be.

Vaggelis, I agree with your analyses and conclusions. I believe that the solutions you and the others on this thread propose for the rating and HRI systems will be accepted and implemented by Mario and Allen.

What I read here is a plea for respect for one another and I agree with that very much.

Thank you for your thoughtful and well-considered post Vaggelis. :-) I’d like to comment on a couple of the things you write about.

I understand what it’s like being an enthusiast. I am an enthusiast myself (*lol* bet you don’t believe me). I try to remind myself about how “emotional appeal” is defined in the Guidelines and that usually brings me back to earth. The Guidelines state:

“The vital element for a truly great image, making it unique and memorable. DYNAMIC: Does it grab and keep your attention? Does it have the "wow" factor? PROVOCATIVE: Does it excite your imagination, or create a strong emotion in you? CREATIVE: Does it show a familiar subject in a new, unusual and yet effective way? UNUSUAL: Does it show a very unusual subject in an effective way? “ Often I will find that I can answer yes to one or two of the criteria listed above, but very seldom yes to all of them. It is also very seldom I can confidently say yes to all the criteria listed under Technical Quality and Composition.

As others have mentioned above we can’t expect members to use (or even read) the guidelines, but I do believe that those of us who are among the most active members of MFT have a responsibility to pay more attention to the guidelines than we do (and I write we because I often disregard the Guidelines myself and hand out 8-10s to pictures I like a lot even when I see the pictures in question have serious technical flaws, not an optimal composition and when I can’t answer “emotional appeal questions” affirmatively).

I don’t expect pictures on MFT to be of the finest ever produced, but I expect members to do their best. My best pictures may be of such poor quality that another member would not even have downloaded such pictures to his/her computer, but they would still be my best pictures.

In fact I don’t really expect members to only post their best pictures, but I expect them to have a purpose/idea of why they post. Before posting I ask myself why I want others to use their valuable time to look at and comment on my pictures. Sometimes the answer is that I need help from others to make it better (even that particular picture or what I could do if I were to take a similar picture later). Sometimes the answer is that I think I had a good idea others may like and get new ideas from. Sometimes I’m very enthusiastic about a picture I’ve just made and wants to show it to people (*lol* and usually end up regretting I posted it only half an hour later). And sometimes, but not very often, I post just because it’s nice seeing my picture on the website and getting emails with comments. ;-) I don’t do my best when I post just because of a sudden enthusiasm about my own pictures and when wanting “action” (seeing the picture on the web site and getting “pling – you’ve got an email”), but I do my best when I post something I need help with and when I believe I had a good idea (even when it wasn’t a good idea – the main thing is that I thought it was a good idea). I try hard to not post too many “enthusiasm” and “action/pling” pictures. Maybe the problem about too many pictures posted on MFT would be less if we all tried to be more critical about what we post? But not too critical because then we would have missed Eugene’s latest Eiffel Tower-picture. :-)

very well said Caroline......ver well!

Well said Vaggelis and also well said Caroline (blush - thanks for that mention btw). I think the suggestions are of merit and worthy of implementation. Also, appreciate the quality of debate and respect on this one.

LOL @ David. Have you heard about global warming? ;-)

In no way could I express my thoughts as well as the previous. I just wanted to say that all of the above is very well stated. It's nice to see the discussion come around again with more understanding and respect for one another. While I am usually a spectator, I want to say that many of the previous posts make the most sense and the most sensible to me probably being Eugene's thoughts on the trend of discussion. The adjusting of the HRI would probably help with many issues any might be bothered with, so I would agree. Also agree with images every 48 hours is a good thought, though I find myself having photographic fits where I take tons of pictures in a weeks time with the excitement to share, then lay off for a short while. As for my own contribution I want to try and comment/critique many of the photos that float by with out any advice. I don't feel that I'm best at critique but want to improve and the only way is to give my honest thoughts to the many images posted here. Sort of trying to give back for all the help the community has given to me. All in all I just enjoy MFT for what it is and could easily adjust to any changes; I'm quite light hearted and imagine I can always enjoy the site as long as others are enjoying it as well.

cheers - JP

btw: David, much appreciate your bits of humor intertwined here ;)

"global warming" discussion, I hope that this time something will happen at least.

Best wishes from rainy and cold Germany,