| Author |
Message |
Graaf
Member
|
# Posted: 27 Feb 07 17:47
Reply
Akbar: Yes you are right, Is there any proof....let's hope there isn't any
Big Apple: I fully agree, further no comment
|
devish
Member
|
# Posted: 27 Feb 07 17:48
Reply
Yes Big_Apple, you are right, if someone self-rates his own pic it is because he needs it and doesn't have good pics, but it still is extreemly unfair, and, besides, it makes your pic jump up in the charts, and better pics go under your's. Besides, I think that it is just ethically not right to vote for my pics, and another thing, the rating sistem exists to see what others think about your pics, not what you think about your's, for that you just post a note under the picture.
|
www.imagografie.ch
Member
|
# Posted: 27 Feb 07 19:08
Reply
@ Graaf: by more then 400 times read allready i would say that the most 'important members' (the ones who cares) have read this, but do not wanna say anything about this silly issue.. (i just wanna say that i'm still amused about this.. :-) hehe it is silly in my eyes)
|
Mike Hancock
Member
|
# Posted: 27 Feb 07 20:48
Reply
When I recently joined Woophy I thought that there were two objectives:
to give as many places around the world as possible a photographic record and to do it with the best possible photos.
Reading the above comments it seems that the art side of the photography is far more important in the minds of the contributors than the recording.
Should Woophy make an attempt to recognise the geographic side?
|
|
devish
Member
|
# Posted: 28 Feb 07 17:29
Reply
Interesting point Mike, and thinking about it it does seem fair that the geographic side of woophy should get recodnition, but I think it already does; let me explain: When somebody posts pics from Iran, North Corea, Africa and places that most of us are quite unfamiliar with many members look at those pics and comment on those pics more than the others, because they are curious and attracted by them. So I think that the geographic side of woophy is very important, because most of us I think, and I as well, are very intrested in pics that come from unusuall places and places that are usually rarer to find.
|
nuxbal
Member
|
# Posted: 28 Feb 07 23:57
Reply
I agree with some of you: this tiopic became too controversial. I'm quitting it. I was just trying to share my concern of having honest judments on pictures, not just an average of 4.5 on all Woophy photos. And to find a way to sort the really good pictures from the ordinary ones.
Never mind. The best of Woophy is still to share pictures from around the world, not just have a permanent contest between members!
Bye
|
Big_Apple
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Mar 07 00:04
Reply
@nuxbal: anyway thanks for bringing about an important change in the rating system ;)
|
|
devish
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Mar 07 17:16
Reply
yes, I agree with you Big_Apple, I enjoied discussin with you, it's been a pleasure !!!
|
|
Mike Hancock
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Mar 07 21:03
Reply
I enjoy choosing what I consider to be good photos from my travels and submitting then to the Woophy public; I like seeing them rated and reading the views.
But I would like to see the geography element recognised more. Following on from the comments made by Devish: could not the member's photos be ranked by numbers of views; after a certain number of views the member could be awarded something. For example ( and only as an example) if a member had 10 cities with 50views each or 5 cities with 100views then a bronze globe could be awarded; 10cities with 100views then a silver globe; and so on.
I have seen comments that old photos and those with no ratings should be withdrawn - I would hate this to happen because I would lose 75% of my entries but what the hell!
|
|
Big_Apple
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Apr 07 16:49
Reply
Websites like Flickr use a better mechanism whereby a score is calculated on the rating, number of views, number of comments, and number of times it has been favourited.
Can you rate pictures on Flickr? How do you do that?
|
