So tell Me! New Crit Gallery or Here?

[mtbbrian]

With the new gallery software, I was wondering what people think of it.
It seems that people seem to either like it here, just don't like the gallery software or don't know about it.
There are some photographs posted there, but not that many.
So please tell me your opinions!
Do we continue with the Critique Forum as is, or do we move over to the new gallery or what?
Thanks!
Brian

[kkraczek]

I like it here, and I like the new gallery... but I agree that it has to be one or the other. Change is sometimes hard, but I'm sure it would be fine once everyone got used to it. Thanks!

[natatbeach]

Brian I like the new gallery but my brain isn't synchronized enough to rememebr to go to two separate places...whichever way---

I'd just like to take it down to one...the new one is simple and visually more effective than this one...my two cents.

Thnaks for trying to always keep things fresh and new.;)

[Mig]

What she said. Mainly I still come here out of habit, but I prefer the setup of the new gallery.

[PuckJunkey]

I posted a somewhat lengthy opinion of the new gallery a few weeks back. My main point was that I think The Gallery and The Critique Forum should serve two different purposes. However right now, because of the way the Gallery ratings system is set up, it's not clear that they do.

This place is about verbal critiquing of people's photos. Details are given on a daily basis about exposure techniques, retouching ideas, composition quality and all the rest. It's basically a discussion-based critique. In short, "Photo Critique" works and shouldn't be touched IMO.

The Gallery has more of a numeric or ratings-based flavor, and that's OK as far as it goes, but the ratings themselves need to be more logically laid out. Right now we're basically assigning numbers to photographs based on arbitrary criteria. I might give a rating based on six different factors while someone else gives a number based on one factor. By definition that makes it difficult for the person posting to always understand why the overall rating for their shot is as it is.

My understanding is that now you must also post comments before you can post a rating. This is actually counterproductive in some ways and also creates overlap with this forum IMO. Let me explain...

IMO, the ratings in THAT forum should be anonymous by default (you can post a comment if you like but you don't have to IOW). Further, they should be based on specific criteria rather than just letting people decide for themselves what the criteria are. This way everyone will judge with the same things in mind, which will be more helpful to the person who posted the photo.

For example, one possible arrangement would be:

1-5 stars for exposure quality (sharpness, DOF, shutter, spot-on to light or too dark)
1-5 stars for composition and framing (position of subject, cropping, etc.)
1-5 stars for color, shading (BW) or texture
1-5 stars for mood (or some such)

If I then assigned 3, 5 and 2 and 2respectively, the rating I end up giving would look like this...

Exp: * * *
Comp: * * * * *
Color: * *
Mood: * *

Overall: * * *

...and then could be averaged in with the other scores as appropriate, and my comment posted separately if I had one.

Comment or no, it wouldn't matter who gave the rating because it still has meaning relative to all the others. And like polls, everyone should only get to post a rating once. This might also have the benefit of allowing people to really say what they feel about a certain photograph that might not be so great, or alternately, that might be very good but of touchy subject-matter (for example).

Hope that makes sense....

[Sebastian]

I prefer the gallery.

PuckJunkey,

The gallery has a space for entering comments with the submission of a rating. I know that most people here will use the comments section because they know the value of it. I don't think the steps you mention are necessary, but ultimately that's up to the group and PJ to decide. I hope he looks at this thread.

[bdbloom]

I agree with some of what PuckJunkey says. While I don't post photos or critiques that often, I find that this forum provides different feedback than others. For example, Photo.Net (and I assume the new gallery here - I've only briefly looked at it) has a great ratings/review system, but most people only use the number system. Great so I post a photo that's a 4 out of 7. How would I make it a 5, 6, 7? That feedback is what I look to this forum to provide

They both have their places. A number is great for getting the general feel of a photo as a whole and how it may be received. The specific suggestions and comments in this forum let me know what elements of the photo are working or could be improved.

If people want to use the gallery, great, but I don't want to sacrifice one for the other.

[Sebastian]

What if one had to leave a comment for the number rating to be recorded?

[natatbeach]

THAT is a good idea---the best of both worlds...

maybe even specific sections to fill

Likestype your message)
How could it be Improvedtype your message)
Rating:

something simple but that provides feedback

[mtbbrian]

One of my concerns is that people will get lazy and leave just a rating with out any of kind of comment. If you have been around some of the other "critique site" you know what I am talking about.
That is one of my pet peeves!
My other concern is that the poster can post one photo in upto three different galleries and not always see all of the comments left on their photograph.
This happened to me, I posted one photograph in the Critique Gallery, and also listed it in two other sub catagories. So I looked around and saw that my photograph had been commented on in the Critique gallery thinking it was the only place it had been commented on and posted too. But I looked around and saw that there were other comments made on it in one of the other galleries.
My point is, it would be great if all comments on a single photograph followed the photograph, regardless of where it was actually posted.
Make sense?

Seb, I am sure John is following this, we have emailed about it some recently.

Brian

[PuckJunkey]

I think where ratings systems fall short though is that they are one-dimensional. 4 of 7 means nothing to me, but

3 of 7 for composition
4 of 7 for color
and 5 of 7 for mood

DOES mean something to me, all by itself.

Again, these are just examples, I'm not saying those should be THE criteria. My only point is that if you create a system where the ratings are more than just numbers (i.e. numbers associated with specific things) you can at least know where your image is strong, average or weak. That's when you really wouldn't need a comment per se, but could just leave some quick ratings if you were short on time or whatever...

...meanwhile the place to go for really in-depth discussion and commentary is right here, using this forum as we have all along. Therein would lie the difference in purpose IMO. I do agree though, that a single rating which has no focus or criteria associated with it, is useless.

[Sebastian]

I think where ratings systems fall short though is that they are one-dimensional. 4 of 7 means nothing to me, but

3 of 7 for composition
4 of 7 for color
and 5 of 7 for mood

DOES mean something to me, all by itself.

Again, these are just examples, I'm not saying those should be THE criteria. My only point is that if you create a system where the ratings are more than just numbers (i.e. numbers associated with specific things) you can at least know where your image is strong, average or weak. That's when you really wouldn't need a comment per se, but could just leave some quick ratings if you were short on time or whatever...

...meanwhile the place to go for really in-depth discussion and commentary is right here, using this forum as we have all along. Therein would lie the difference in purpose IMO. I do agree though, that a single rating which has no focus or criteria associated with it, is useless.

You make good points. What if the numerical rating was eliminated altogether, and people could only leave comments like they do here? It would encourage the same sort fo dialog, but it'd be much more user-friendly.

Brian,

I totally agree with you regarding posting in multiple categories. Not being able to see cumulative comments makes no sense to me.

[PuckJunkey]

Well, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting having categories but instead of using numerical ratings for each, comment on each? That would be OK as far as it goes but then it begs the question: what purpose would the Gallery serve that the Critique Forum doesn't already serve (since it is comment-based)?

[Photo-John]

I've been talking to Brian about the new gallery and checking in on this thread. Here are some answers/comments:

1) A lot of your ideas and suggestions for changing the gallery are great. Unfortunately, we have a lot of projects on our plate and customizing the gallery more isn't an option right now.

2) Ratings vs. Comments - I agree that multiple types of ratings would be nice. But the bottom line, in my opinion, is that people need to comment. That's an ongoing battle on the Photo Critique forum, too. It might be possible to disable ratings without comments so that you have to comment to post a rating. But I think the main thing is to lead by example and challenge people to leave detailed critiques. My intention has always been that people post real critiques. The ratings are just a part of the new gallery. But they aren't what it's about. A Photo Critique gallery is still about critiques, even if you can post a rating.

3) If you include an image in more than one gallery, the software treats each instance of the photo as a separate image. That's why the comments don't carry over from one category to another. This is something I only caught after the gallery was done. And it would be very hard to change. So, like the ratings, we're going to have to live it - at least for a while.

4) Gallery vs. Forum - Differerent people like different things. I always thought a thumbnail gallery would be a better format for a critique section. But there's no reason we can't have both. This site has people who only use the reviews, people who only use the forums, and it will have people who only use the gallery. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I do want to do another version of the gallery and address some of these issues. But it probably won't be for a year or so. The new gallery may not be perfect, but it's soooo much better than what we had. I'll look into these requests and see wat's possible. But I don't think we'll be changing anything right away. What I'm getting frmo this is that we should keep things as they are and not force people to use the Photo Critique gallery. If you do use the gallery, please do as you would on the forum and post real critiques and challenge others to do the same. Don't accept, "I like it" as an acceptable response. People asking for critiques deserve better.

I hope that addresses most of your concerns. Let me know if you want more answers. I don't want you to think that I don't care. But my resources are limited.

[Liz]

Thanks for all the information, and for giving us the update about your goals and plans for the gallery, specifically the Critique portion. Personally, I appreciate knowing what's going on and what to look forward to.

I would just like to say that all the changes that have taken place these past months have made PR such an incredibly awesome site. It's so much faster, easier and better in every way. It took me a while to get used to the new forums, but now I like them a lot better. The gallery is the icing on the cake for me. I love it. I don't know how we ever did without it, actually.

So, PJ.............one great big THANK YOU from the great state of New Jersey!

Liz

[Ultra Magnus]

My only real complaint about the new gallery photo critique is the total lack of comments. At least when you post here 95% (I did the math J/k) of them get critqued where 95% of photos in the gallery don't! It is nice though to scroll through tumbnails, but I find that after I see the tumbnail I'm not as likely to click on it an look at the full size pic. I'm sure it's purely a psycological thing, but not knowing what lies inside a post makes me want to see whats inside and consequently read what others have commented. On that note, I should say that I don't often reply because I'm still learning that makes a good photo and because of that I don't usually know what to say.... Anyway, just my thoughts...

[Yoyo Szeto]

I prefer here.
yoyo

[Asylum Steve]

When did this "either or" mentality arise regarding the Critique Forum and the new gallery? I see them as two totally different venues with only some slight overlap.

The gallery should be a showcase for the work of the members of this site, fully customized and editable to have individual pages with bodies of work. In case nobody's noticed, comments on these pages are rare and when left usually kept short and general. Rating a pic is not in any way the same as critiqing it...

The Critique Forum is a much more specific venue for members whom want you to take a close look at a shot and offer feedback as to what works and what could be improved. The threads and posts are presented in a much more accessible way than a gallery page, meaning dialogue and discussion are easier and more likely.

The new gallery is great, but I think eliminating the Critique Forum would be a huge mistake. I don't mind sifting through Critique posts from time to time to look and offer my advice, but I doubt very much I'm going to spend hours sorting through all the subject catagories and members pages in the new gallery to do the same...

[mtbbrian]

You have some good points Steve..
The Forum or the Galley won't be going away, I put this thread out to get a feel from every one. To those who have responded John and I say THANKS!

Some of your concerns are mine as well, especially the leaving of just a numeric rating. I have seen that on other photo sites and do not like that whatsoever. I know that PR.com is better than that.

Brian

[jcharris]

Brian ,

I do like the new Gallery for the subject catagories make it easier for me to pick a category where i want to upload a certain photo . Think the layout of the page make things a bit easier and quicker .
However there is nothing wrong with the old forum !
I think when everyone has used it for a while they might think differently .
Keep up with the good work !!
Greetings
james

You have some good points Steve..
The Forum or the Galley won't be going away, I put this thread out to get a feel from every one. To those who have responded John and I say THANKS!

Some of your concerns are mine as well, especially the leaving of just a numeric rating. I have seen that on other photo sites and do not like that whatsoever. I know that PR.com is better than that.

Brian

[gahspidy]

I like the gallery , but feel this Photo Critique forum should remain seperate.

[almo]

With the new gallery software, I was wondering what people think of it.
It seems that people seem to either like it here, just don't like the gallery software or don't know about it.
There are some photographs posted there, but not that many.
So please tell me your opinions!
Do we continue with the Critique Forum as is, or do we move over to the new gallery or what?
Thanks!
Brian

I registered here early last year, and though i didn't actually begin to post untill last week I have stopped in time to time to look through the forums and galleries. I always found the news group system to be a bit slow and wordy for me. I do read and post regularly to usenet groups, but I have found the format of this forum to be somewhat confusing. I much prefer the new gallery system. Its much more visual and frankly a bit more fun for me to use. I think that more of the people here should be posting there, and I think that the same, comment at least as many times as you post rule, should apply there as well. I have a great opinion of these galleries and want to see them be sucessful.


john

www.freewebs.com/digitaljc

[Photo-John]

I'm disappointed in the small number of responses on the new gallery. I'm not sure why more people aren't responding. It could be that we're used to this format. Or it could be something about the way the gallery works. Any thoughts no this would be appreciated. I still think the gallery is a better way to approach the Photo Critique concept. But the proof is in the pudding. And right now, the new pudding ain't as tasty as the old one.

[Photo-John]

Steve-
I'm not sure if you've noticed. From your post it seemed like maybe you haven't. But I added a specific, Photo Critique gallery. So you don't actually have to sift through all of the categories. If someone wants to request a critique for a gallery image, all they have to do is include that image in the Critique gallery. I agree that for the most part the gallery serves a different purpose. But I also thought it might work better than the forum for criticism so I added the Photo Critique gallery.

Different people have different tastes, think differently, and aproach things in different ways. There's really no reason we can't have a Photo Critique forum and a Photo Critique gallery.

[Photo-John]

I much prefer the new gallery system. Its much more visual and frankly a bit more fun for me to use. I think that more of the people here should be posting there, and I think that the same, comment at least as many times as you post rule, should apply there as well. I have a great opinion of these galleries and want to see them be sucessful.

Different strokes for different folks, right? No one thing will work for everyone. I'm starting to think that keeping both the forum and the Photo Critique gallery might be the best thing. There's really no reason why it has to be one or the other.