Gallery Ratings Switched Off

[StuartDH]

I've just turned off the gallery ratings system as unfortunately there have recently been a lot of 5 star ratings given to grainy and out-of-focus pictures.

The ratings are a very popular way for new members to get a quick look at some of the best images in the gallery. However, recently it's just not showing off the thousands of outstanding images that we've got, because it's being used to promote lower quality images instead.

If I can I'll try and bring it back again, but only if we can keep better control of what does/doesn't earn 5 stars.

We'll also spring clean soon (in autumn), to ensure that the standard of images is kept as high as ever.

Stu

[FungiJohn]

Very wise Stu.
John

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

Very wise Stu. The rating system has been abused by some members lately. Roll on the autumn clean
John

OK. but the forum images too?

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by Beryl

OK. but the forum images too?

It's getting very busy Beryl and images are coming in at a faster rate than past. Its important to maintain a standard which when viewed from outside reflects the true quality of WAB and its contributers.

John

[Beryl]

So now half the thread doesn't make sense, as people havs said nice cobination of poem and pic

[FungiJohn]

I think I see where you're coming from Beryl but I'm not sure how we could achieve it. I think maybe it was a lot easier before

John

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

I think I see where you're coming from Beryl but I'm not sure how we could achieve it. I think maybe it was a lot easier before

John

Oh , not to worry. I realise the situation, it was just a bit of a shock.
My avatar will have to do , it's a better photo and with the vegitation having been removed from the background one can at leest see it.

[Boddie]

I am still seeing star ratings on the thumbnails.

[DaiTheDragon]

The old star ratings are there but you can't rate new photo's. I do agree that some images were below the star rating they received, perhaps the moderators will have to be a little more strict.

Dai

[lewisa]

Over the years ive seen several community based topical galleries suffer from rating problems. The biggest issue is normally that subject matter takes a higher precedence than photographic quality.

The most blatent I have seen is on a mountaineering website, where the votes seem to be cast based on how high the mountain is (or what range it was from), rather than the quality of the photo.

I imagine on this site, that problem would manifest itself in the form of rare species being voted highly based on the rarity of the species, rather than the quality of the shot.

That might not necessarily be a problem, if the site's raison d’être is to be a wildlife site with a gallery, rather than a photography site with info about wildlife.

Personally I wasnt even aware that voting was open on this site, I guessed it was controlled by a panel or by moderators, as when I first came to the site and took a look through the top rated images they all seemed deserving great photo's. I was surprised in fact because it looked like a gallery where the voting was restrained and reflected the quality of the images. So I reckon the community has done well upto now, all things considered, but it doesnt surprise me that as the size of a community and gallery grows issues surrounding voting creep in.

[chunkychambers]

Is this a wild-life site or a photographic site is the question.
On my short time here there have been occasions when I feel I haven't been able to contribute on certain threads because it rapidly turns into technical jargon concerning photography, and I just don't understand or have the knowledge.

The standard of the gallery IMHO is excellent, in fact I am seriously considering having a go and foresaking a new scope that I've been saving-up for, however if you rate the photos purely on their technical merits and not on the content then perhaps were missing the point as a wild-life site.
I would give top marks to a less than perfect shot of a wild Otter in its natural habitat for example, because of the degree of difficulty in obtaining such a shot.

It's just my opinion and I do love this site and its members.

[lewisa]

To highlight the issue about wildlife site with a gallery, consider the best of the two Bittern shots in the gallery.

Im by no means an expert critic of photography, however, I will guess that there are at least 100 other images in the gallery that are technically superior to the best of the two bittern shots. However, does one of those bittern shots deserve to be in the top 100, above technically better photographs?

(No disrepsect to the photgrapher there, they got a difficult shot of a very rare bird, and they probably have a photo that average people want to see more than another perfect shot of.. a sparrow or robin for example.)


The user of a wildlife site would probably want to see the bittern shot in the top 100.

The user of a photography site would probably want to see technically better photos.

[Boddie]

For me the main problem was submission of photos out of the capability of the users equipment. To take a photo of an animal which only fills one hundredth of the frame, then continually crop the image, until it fills the frame, loses most of the subjects clarity. It is simply not practical to try to take telephoto length images with a standard lens or a point and shoot camera.

I think it is a shame that those that have invested money in macro and telephoto lenses, to capture that 'once a month' shot, after putting in the hours, now suffer because the system was abused.

Before I got a zoom lens I concentrated on insects, trees, fungi and the like, so its not as if those without zoom lenses cannot express themselves but I have to agree that many images lately rated as outstanding were not and persons using the gallery as a reference may become antagonised by that.

With regards technical versus rarity I can empathise but it stands to reason if a particular subject matter is over represented a spring clean is justified surely?

[StuartDH]

The aim was always to rate the images by both quality and subject, so a great looking mallard or other common species would get 5 stars alongside a less-than-perfect osprey grabbing a fish out of the water. What we never planned for was someone giving a grainy blackbird 5 stars, because the photographer had given their out-of-focus robin 5 stars the day before

I think we may just go for some sort of 'pick of the week' page with 50 great shots chosen by the gallery editors. That way we can show of some of the best pics and also change the 50 every 7 days.

Stu

[paulthomas]

Originally Posted by lewisa

The user of a wildlife site would probably want to see the bittern shot in the top 100.

The user of a photography site would probably want to see technically better photos.

You've raised a valid issue here. As I understand it, one of the main purposes for the gallery is identification so I feel any rating system should give weight to that. So in my view any photo of a rarety like a bittern should score higher than it would score on it's technical/compositional aspect alone.

[Alan]

Yes but the rare ones take care of themselves, and eventually as more are added, the less than perfect ones can be weeded out. It's the hundreds of sparrows, robins, blackbirds etc shots that need a sort out every known again. I don't think anyone can argue with this.

As far as the rating system goes, it's human nature to put a higher star to ones that are your 'favourites' no matter how good they are.

Maybe it would be better - as has beens said, to allow the editors to choose the pics of the month. You could even have a 'hall of fame' gallery, for those exceptional pics that take our breath away. This could then be a flagship gallery for the site!

It's all work for the editors though, that's the trouble..

[matt_xyz]

As Stu says, a rating system should take into account both the technical quality of a shot and its subject matter. At the end of the day, we all know a top quality photograph when we see one (well 99% of us do anyway ). A 5 rating should only have been given to exceptional shots. How do we define exceptional?

- Well it could be a common species doing something unusual

- or an unusual composition of a common species

- or a technically difficult shot of a common species (e.g. insects or swallows in flight) that is well executed

- or it could be a good shot of a rare species that required a great deal of skill (e.g. bittern, Otter etc).

- etc. etc.

In short, a 5 star image should be an exceptional image in one way or another. The above is my interpretation of the voting system, others may disagree. Although it's rather academic now since we don't have a voting system at present

Having seen some of the other suggestions I think it would be a good idea to have the editors' pick of the month or something along those lines.

Matt

[carlj]

More work for the already hard working editors. I personally don't agree with ratings on a site like this, as it is a community/information site, not a photography critique site. As to the solution, hmmm. Maybe a gallery specifically for members to vote on to shortlist? Again, it's a workload for Stuart et al, but is there another way?

[Jonny]

On BCUK some of my photo's have got a 10 out of 10 rating, that might be because people are being friendly, or they want you to rate their photo's the same, or it could be that the standard of photo's they are used to is lower than on here. I have never got a 5 star rated photo on here, but I don't have many photo's up as I feel totally out done on here and don't want to put my feeble efforts on, where there are some amazing photo's. I think you guys are more honest about rating, I certainly don't feel my shots deserve a 5 star rating, esp when compared to the others on here. I don't think that the rating system should be removed, I think if a bad photo is given 5 stars, then a mod or you Stuart should give an honest description underneath, or perhaps we all should rate more and the averages will sort the rating out. Loads of new members comming on this site remark about how good the photo's are, I have never heard anyone say anything about bad ones rated well.
Thats my 2p worth..............

[matt_xyz]

we did have a photo competition which seemed a good idea but I think the voting caused a lot of work for Stu. I seem to recall him saying he was looking into it, so it may return in one form or another.

Matt

[cherrybee]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

The aim was always to rate the images by both quality and subject, so a great looking mallard or other common species would get 5 stars alongside a less-than-perfect osprey grabbing a fish out of the water. What we never planned for was someone giving a grainy blackbird 5 stars, because the photographer had given their out-of-focus robin 5 stars the day before

I think we may just go for some sort of 'pick of the week' page with 50 great shots chosen by the gallery editors. That way we can show of some of the best pics and also change the 50 every 7 days.

Stu

I think that would be a very nice idea.Especially if both quality and subject are considered so that those who have managed to get an unusual or difficult subject gets a chance alongside those who have excellent equipment.We all would like to invest in better equipment but for some of us we have to make do with what we have.I myself try to get the best out of my camera but would hate to just stick to subjects that I know will look technically good.I have been told my photos have improved a lot since I have been here but there are still some I like to capture that maybe are a little too far off and I have to crop them and get the best out of them which works quite well sometimes.It is the encouragement on here that has helped me enormously and I would be disapointed if the kind of shots that are less than perfect in the technical sense are overlooked

[matt_xyz]

photos don't have to be technically perfect CB, but they do have to meet a minimum requirement in terms of focus, graininess, size of the subject matter in the frame etc. I believe digi gave you some useful hints and tips and your photos have definitely improved. One or two of your dragonfly shots the other day were very good indeed.

We all have to resist the temptation to blame our equipment from time to time. You use a Dimage Z20 don't you? This is a perfectly good camera with 300mm lens equivalent and a macro function so is certainly capable of producing good images. There are many WAB users who don't have expensive DSLRs, myself included. Even the most basic of digital cameras these days can produce very good images. I used to own a 3MP Canon with only a 3x zoom but was very happy with some of the landscapes and other shots that I got with it. Here's a couple;





In sum, yes images have to meet a minimum requirement but you and your equipment are more than capable of far exceeding this minimum requirement so don't let it discourage you!

Matt

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by Jonny

I think you guys are more honest about rating, I certainly don't feel my shots deserve a 5 star rating, esp when compared to the others on here. I don't think that the rating system should be removed, I think if a bad photo is given 5 stars, then a mod or you Stuart should give an honest description underneath, or perhaps we all should rate more and the averages will sort the rating out. ..............

This could be the way forward-put the ratings back in and make everyone promise to go & vote. Personally I've almost never voted on the gallery ratings and I'm sure there's a few other regulars that are the same. If enough people vote then the dubious five stars will fall into their proper place. Why anyone cares enough to rig the voting is beyond me...

[cherrybee]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

photos don't have to be technically perfect CB, but they do have to meet a minimum requirement in terms of focus, graininess, size of the subject matter in the frame etc. I believe digi gave you some useful hints and tips and your photos have definitely improved. One or two of your dragonfly shots the other day were very good indeed.

We all have to resist the temptation to blame our equipment from time to time. You use a Dimage Z20 don't you? This is a perfectly good camera with 300mm lens equivalent and a macro function so is certainly capable of producing good images. There are many WAB users who don't have expensive DSLRs, myself included. Even the most basic of digital cameras these days can produce very good images. I used to own a 3MP Canon with only a 3x zoom but was very happy with some of the landscapes and other shots that I got with it.

In sum, yes images have to meet a minimum requirement but you and your equipment are more than capable of far exceeding this minimum requirement so don't let it discourage you!

Matt

Oh I am not didnt mean to sound like that .I do realise that they have to meet certain criteria and agree with it.Nice photos by the way.Digi's help has been invaluable and I keep in touch when I have a question.I just get frustrated sometimes as when I had a loan camera (whilst they were sending mine around the globe for repairs that I was unaware of and sending it back with the origianal fault st ill there ) it had a longer zoom and i now see some lovely shots that are now not as good with mine although the macro on mine is better and I want to scream hahaha

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by cherrybee