On 5/14/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The ratings are apparently monitored as is the general behavior of > forum members.. I noticed that someone bombed you last night. The guy > was a nut case, and he generated quite an uproar. All his ratings were > apparently deleted. He may have been kicked off Photo Net as well. Two > of my ratings were deleted last night as well. One was a 3/3, but the > other was a 6/5. Whoever left that last one may have been banned for > some other violation. I know several people were banned on the Leica > forum. There are those who say the monitors are heavy handed, but I > guess someone has to preserve a bit of order. Thousands of people use > the various forums.
Thanks for the info, Paul. I can't imagine, with the thousands of photos posted every day, that the monitors must have their hands full. Getting low ratings like that doesn't bother me (really!), but just for the heck of it, I usually go to check how they've rated other pix, and invariably, they're all way-low, so these guys are obviously just being jerks. I was rating a bunch of photos one day, and I'd noticed that on many of them I was the third rater. The other two ahead of me had rated them all as 2/2, regardless of how good they were. It kind of left a bad taste in my mouth, as these two were obviously fooling around, pranking or whatever. Some people really take this stuff seriously, as I've seen on some threads that I've popped into from time to time on photo.net. One fellow thought that the solution was to let only paying members rate photos, as he felt that they would be more responsible that some jerk (like me? <G>) who can register, get booted off, and then register again under a different name. But, I digress. Thanks for the explanation to my little question. You've been most helpful. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
