TXPhotog wrote:

I didn't think this was a thread I had to follow from beginning to end.  I just check in now and then to see how things are going in it.  My bad, I guess.

Me either.  I didn't even know it was you at first, we all told Doug he should just ask whomever had vouched for him.

TXPhotog wrote:
I'm sure he could.  But that seems to me to vitiate a lot of the utility of the site.

1.  When I joined, I put in a lot of vouches for people I knew.  Most of them were not members.  If I had to cross-check to see if someone were a member before entering them into the system, I wouldn't have bothered.  It literally would have taken hours.  Not worth it for me.

2.  If I do a TFP shoot in the future, should I not be able to vouch for, or comment on the performance of someone who is not a shootnotes member?  If I can't, that takes away a lot of the utility of the system.  If they join three months after the shoot, I'm not about to go chasing them down to find out, and then go back and reconstruct shoot details that I couldn't put in before.

3.  Chris may be able to suppress visibility of information relating to vouching and shot with entries until a person is a member (that's probably not too hard), and it may solve Doug's concern.  But it also takes away utility.

After reading this post I visited Shootnotes.

I was not a member there.
Two people had vouched for me.
My non-member status was clearly indicated. (such hub-bub about endorsements, really now.)

Earlier in this thread a distinction was made between professionals, non-professionals and how Shootnotes could aid someone with negative intentions. There's one effective way to counter that and help SN work as intended ........   I've joined.


bt




........ now how about smaller badges.  Geeze -o- Pete Chris, they distract from my logos.

Bruce Talbot wrote:
........ now how about smaller badges.  Geeze -o- Pete Chris, they distract from my logos.

Thank you, Bruce.

And yes, smaller, more stylish badges are currently #3 on the list (which is about 80 items long right now, covering what I want to accomplish by the end of the year, when I intend to call the beta complete).

I've had one person in this thread send me his take on what they might look like, and I've gotten interest from a few others. Graphic design is the one area where I acknowledge my shortcomings (everything else, I'm big-ego guy, of course).

King of the Letter L wrote:
(everything else, I'm big-ego guy, of course).

lol - big egos get things done.


bt

George Lue wrote:
There really needs to be a button where you can look up yourself.

Simple features are easier to just do than to put in the list. :-)

There is now a link in "My Profile"

Is that what you wanted?

King of the Letter L wrote:

Simple features are easier to just do than to put in the list. :-)

There is now a link in "My Profile"

Is that what you wanted?

Yes.  Wewt.

George Lue wrote:

Yes.  Wewt.

Excellent. After tackling the badge issue, making the profile much prettier is high on the list, along with a few more useful links, and an "address book" of sorts. That is, a private list of everyone in your Worked-With and Vouch-For list for easily looking them up and adding more Worked-With entries, presuming that you're likely to work with them again.

And then making some new "data badges" that are visually appealing that give information about you, the member, that you can place on any web site. Somewhat of a "Check me out" banner, if you will.

My math geek consultant tells me that the beta is at about 65% of the number of users he wants to have a good sample size to see how his algorithms work, so the open beta is well on its way.

Colorado Model Amber wrote:
Even if you go to edit or view your shootnote page that will count as a "hit" maybe that should be fixed. The hit counts every time someone checks your mm page and whenever someone or your self checks your SN page. Like I said even if you edit your page it counts that as a hit. So, That's why so many people have 1000+ plus hits cause every little thing is counted as a hit. I can refresh my SN page 20 times and each time it's counted as a hit lol

Yup. This has been mentioned a bunch of times. The answer is that this is expected behavior during this part of the beta, because I'm counting actual loads. I don't care who does the load, I need to see how much data is transfered and how fast. All hit counts will be reset after this phase of the beta and will also have self-discrimination as well as IP-discrimination.

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
Worked with shoot reports: why can't I seethe description of other reports someone filed about our shoot? It seems to show all data except the description.  I assume that also means other people can't see the descriptions I've filed about them. Why is this?

Because you could put "This model smokes crack, eats babies and and is wanted in three states" in your description, which would make the site no better than an outing forum.

There is a plan to allow for more data, but it's being rolled-out slowly and in a controlled manner so as to avoid the very problems that every such rating site in the past has suffered.

King of the Letter L wrote:
There is a plan to allow for more data, but it's being rolled-out slowly and in a controlled manner so as to avoid the very problems that every such rating site in the past has suffered.

As you know, I am cautiously optimistic about that.

I noticed what I take to be a problem:  scammers can join shootnotes, and there is no way to identify them as scammers.  For instance:

https://modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=565351

He can use his membership to buttress his credentials.  Not good.

King of the Letter L wrote:

Because you could put "This model smokes crack, eats babies and and is wanted in three states" in your description, which would make the site no better than an outing forum.

There is a plan to allow for more data, but it's being rolled-out slowly and in a controlled manner so as to avoid the very problems that every such rating site in the past has suffered.

So what I enter for the description is simply for my own use?

I guess I'm missing something then and don't really see the use in the "worked with" set-up beyond what I can already list in my MM profile. It seems like the only use for that is whether or not I recommend to work with that person again, and that's it.

TXPhotog wrote:
http://modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=565351

He can use his membership to buttress his credentials.  Not good.

He has an account, but nobody has vouched for him or said they've worked with him.

As such, saying, "I have an account on ShootNotes" is the same as saying, "I have an account on Model Mayhem" or "I have an account on OMP."

I think the root issue here is that someone with an account but nobody acting as a reference should be clearly noted as such. The double-edged sword is that saying so makes someone with great references, but who just signed up, look "bad" by inference.

Is this truly a case of "you can't have it both ways?"

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
I guess I'm missing something then and don't really see the use in the "worked with" set-up beyond what I can already list in my MM profile. It seems like the only use for that is whether or not I recommend to work with that person again, and that's it.

This is exactly what you have during this first phase of the beta.

So you have two choices:

1. Declare it of no value to you, and wait and see if the features and enhancements that are coming give you value. This is a perfectly fair and valid stance for you to take, if you wish, and I wouldn't be offended in the least if you did.

2. Acknowledge that this is an experiment in creating a solution to a very difficult problem and use the system for what it is, now, as part of the beta test. That test, right now, is in making sure the site works, the database works, and that we have a decent data set from which to test our theories.

Either way, the choice is yours, and the site is free. The worst that will happen is that it will fail, miserably, and I'll be on record as stating that I gave it my best shot and wasn't able to solve the problem. It won't be the first time I've failed. It won't be the last. On the other hand, I like success, so I intend to give it my best shot :-)

King of the Letter L wrote:
He has an account, but nobody has vouched for him or said they've worked with him.

People will.  See, the thing about a good scam is that you leave the victim believing that it wasn't.  He certainly will get someone, perhaps several someones, to vouch for him even as he picks their pockets with his sluggo routine.

TXPhotog wrote:
People will.  See, the thing about a good scam is that you leave the victim believing that it wasn't.  He certainly will get someone, perhaps several someones, to vouch for him even as he picks their pockets with his sluggo routine.

That is probably very true

TXPhotog wrote:

People will.  See, the thing about a good scam is that you leave the victim believing that it wasn't.  He certainly will get someone, perhaps several someones, to vouch for him even as he picks their pockets with his sluggo routine.

Okay, so let's examine that. He could also put that in his Model Mayhem profile. Many people do put "here are the models with whom I've worked, feel free to contact them for references."

ShootNotes simply makes the process easier, but in both cases, the person doing their due diligence must still, well, do their due diligence.

So I can solve the problem of "how do I consolidate my references" and I can even solve the problem of "how can I make a basic value judgment of objective metrics," but can anyone solve the problem of, "Okay, I take your word for it?"

That's not a rhetorical question, mainly because I think the answer is yes, but the solutions that we've come up with, so far, aren't perfect. That's the final problem that has yet to be solved, anywhere, by anyone.

Consider - you often point to sluggos and correctly identify them, but do models listen to you all the time? Even if you present verifiable and perfect data, do models rely and act on that data with perfect regularity?

Some problems are harder than others. Perhaps a 90% solution will make that incredibly difficult last 10% easier. Or, quite possibly, it will prove that the last 10% is subjective and one must resign oneself to that fact.

TXPhotog wrote:

People will.  See, the thing about a good scam is that you leave the victim believing that it wasn't.  He certainly will get someone, perhaps several someones, to vouch for him even as he picks their pockets with his sluggo routine.

I have to agree with TX about this, the person in question tends to post about emotive subjects and does gain some sympathy from it. He will manage to sucker some people into vouching for him.

If someone is later taken in by him, reassured by his "vouches" and is later scammed, then it is going to call Shootnotes credibility and effectiveness into question.
Granted, anyone with a modicum of sense would dig a little deeper and do the whole "due diligence" thing, others however will consider checking Shootnotes as due diligence and stop their checking after reading positive reviews here.

Given that, Shootnotes should take every effort to weed out scammers where they can and when one is exposed it seems logical to suspend or delete their Shootnotes membership.

Dreamshot Photography wrote:
Granted, anyone with a modicum of sense would dig a little deeper and do the whole "due diligence" thing, others however will consider checking Shootnotes as due diligence and stop their checking after reading positive reviews here.

Given that, Shootnotes should take every effort to weed out scammers where they can and when one is exposed it seems logical to suspend or delete their Shootnotes membership.

Given that, let me ask two questions.

First, how can the first point be stressed? That is, how can the point be stressed that ShootNotes makes it easier to check references, but is not a reference check in and of itself (at least as currently configured)? It's a tool, and will become a powerful tool, but tools are useless unless used properly.

Second, can you elaborate on what "every effort" would be, if one considers an objective process? Having a human make a value judgment is off the table. How, using objective data, would you identify a "scammer?"

I should be honest, these questions have been considered, and some potential solutions already identified for testing. But they're far from solved. The goal is to use the power of the system being set up as a tool (there we go again) to accomplish these tasks, but wanting to do it and actually being ABLE to do it are two different things.

All that said, this is EXACTLY the discussion I was hoping we would end up having. And I also should note that we're having this discussion before actually rolling out the trust algorithm so we're talking about things to try, not screaming about why something is failing. I sincerely hope that this, more rational approach is appreciated.

King of the Letter L wrote:
Some problems are harder than others. Perhaps a 90% solution will make that incredibly difficult last 10% easier. Or, quite possibly, it will prove that the last 10% is subjective and one must resign oneself to that fact.

I don't suppose that there is a perfect solution.  Life isn't that neat.

However, the benefit and curse of shootnotes is that it will take the place of personal due diligence.  Regardless of its stated limitations, people will use the "vouches" and eventual ratings as substitutes for their own research, critical thought and analysis.  It provides a simple, one stop solution for the pesky problem of having to actually think for yourself.

While that may not be your intent, it is the way the site will be used by a large percentage of those who go to it as a way of "checking references".  Given that, a step from 90% to, say, 92% by weeding out obvious or known scammers or sluggos seems to me to be worth thinking about.

It would be a shame if the practical effect of shootnotes were to validate bad people - and there is some danger of it.

King of the Letter L wrote:
First, how can the first point be stressed? That is, how can the point be stressed that ShootNotes makes it easier to check references, but is not a reference check in and of itself (at least as currently configured)?

Not a solution to the problem, but a worthwhile step:  put a honking big disclaimer on the site that people are forced to read.

KATHY   JEAN wrote:
(jaw drops)  After reading what Roger just typed, I wholeheartedly agree that the disclaimer's a helluva good idea.

Word.

TXPhotog wrote:

Not a solution to the problem, but a worthwhile step:  put a honking big disclaimer on the site that people are forced to read.

Agreed, that's an excellent idea.

"This tool is a hammer. It can drive nails, pry out nails, and force square pegs into round holes both when necessary as well as when ill-advised. It can also smash your thumb and break a window. It's a tool. Use it wisely."

Colorado Model Amber wrote:
Oh and when you have to put the date in when you've shoot with the photographer or plan to you have to put in the exact date 00/00/00 I've worked with a lot of people it was hard having to go back to my first shoot to remember the EXACT date of when we shoot. Like I'll remember the year but not the exact day. Why cant we just put in the year!? lol

The only reason for the format is the control I'm using for date parsing. I can use another one that is more forgiving and allows month/year but no date. That's on the enhancement list.

Dreamshot Photography wrote:
I have to agree with TX about this, the person in question tends to post about emotive subjects and does gain some sympathy from it. He will manage to sucker some people into vouching for him.

If someone is later taken in by him, reassured by his "vouches" and is later scammed, then it is going to call Shootnotes credibility and effectiveness into question.
Granted, anyone with a modicum of sense would dig a little deeper and do the whole "due diligence" thing, others however will consider checking Shootnotes as due diligence and stop their checking after reading positive reviews here.

Given that, Shootnotes should take every effort to weed out scammers where they can and when one is exposed it seems logical to suspend or delete their Shootnotes membership.

Is there a system that tallies the amount of retracted vouches? That could be much more useful that the vouches themselves.

Lulu K wrote:
Oh, but perhaps there is a way to see other members profiles without 'Lookup'. I'm just curious to see who else uses it heh. Might just be me being nosey, mind...

Also, perhaps a forum of some kind? Or would that be trying to be Model Mayhem too much?

I've deliberately not made a directory yet, to cut down on the potential for someone to simply click-through and serially-add people. There will be one, with constraints, in the near future, as well as a "personal address book" feature.

As for a forum, I might create one, but it would be ONLY for talking about ShootNotes issues, for the very reason you state - and hear this clearly - I am taking great pains to ensure that what I'm doing does not, in any way I can avoid it, compete with MM or any other existing site. That's so not my intention, it's silly. I want to work WITH the existing sites. I hope that this is painfully clear to all involved.

Nihilus wrote:
Is there a system that tallies the amount of retracted vouches? That could be much more useful that the vouches themselves.

Are they noticed by the trust algorithm? Yes.

Does the amount of time matter? Yes. Because anyone thinking that they could game the system by vouching for someone and then deleting it the next day would be... wrong :-)