Photographer
Nihilus
Posts: 10888
Nashville, Tennessee, US
King of the Letter L wrote:
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 :-) Sweet.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
Nihilus wrote:
Sweet. Some of the most fun we've had has been in wargaming our own system to find areas where it could be abused. 
Photographer
Lulu K
Posts: 85
London, England, United Kingdom
King of the Letter L wrote:
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. Ah right, I see. Just wondering 
And yes, I did figure you weren't looking to compete, but to just work along side and with the sites that are currently up for this kind of thing, especially MM. I just thought I'd say that as an afterthought so you knew I knew. Heh.
Photographer
- Phil H -
Posts: 26552
Mildenhall, England, United Kingdom
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)? It's a tool, and will become a powerful tool, but tools are useless unless used properly. King of the Letter L wrote:
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?" OK, at the risk of seeming an ass (which is not my intent), I am going to be blunt. On the home page of Shootnotes, it states that the website is a reputation system.
Now perhaps I have not grasped the purposes of the site fully, but to my mind, that statement of purpose, makes me think that it is meant to operate something along the lines of the buyer/seller feedback system on Ebay.
When I shop on Ebay, my decision on whether or not I do business with an individual is based on the feedback they recieve, good feedback means I do business with them, bad feedback means I don't.
Like it or not, if thats how Shootnotes appears to work, thats how people will use it. Humans are lax and impatient and if they can get all the information they feel they need in one place, thats what they will do.
Now if a buyer/seller on Ebay does something shady or illegal, users complain to the ebay powers that be. Those human powers that be then look into the complaint, make a decision and if it's not favorable, remove the offending buyer/seller from the site to help protect other users.
If Shootnotes is going to be effective, it needs a similar system in place to vet and if needs be remove the reputation profiles of people like the currently inactive MM rapist that TX mentioned.
Yes, you can put up a disclaimer saying that the reputations should not be taken at face value and could well not be worth a damn, but if that is the case, whats the point in having the site anyway?
The simple fact is, that if you are putting up a site to collate the reputations/safety/suitability to work with of say a photographer, it needs to be realised and accepted that folks are going to take those reputations at face value.
In short, they are going to be making judgment calls in respect of their safety based on what they read in the profiles and comments here.
If that turns out to be what happens, one cannot in good conscience allow a scoundrel to sit behind a fake profile heavy with good reputation, and chance to nothing but luck and blind faith that no-one is going to be taken in by it.
There needs to be a mechanism in place similar to ebays human jury that is empowered to make a judgement call in situations like this.
The other thing that won't help the situation, is if you roll out some sort of system whereby a model can rate a photographer (or any variation thereoff) based on reliability, trustworthiness, professionalism, etc.
Incorporating features like that is simply going to make it look even more like a one stop reference check in and if anything is going to make users less likely to do any further background checking.
It might be beneficial if the home page went into some detail as to what precisely the function of shootnotes is and clearly explain what it's benefits are likely to be over something like simply contacting photographer supplied references or the people of a models "worked with" list on MM.
If it is to serve merely as a collection point for all of an inviduals referee's, then it should say so and it's functionality limited to purely that of a contact links database.
If however, it's ultimate use is planned as being a tool that allows for example, a model to vouch for me and add a note saying that I am a trustworthy guy thats fun to work with, etc, etc, then it becomes a reference/feedback/referral site and that puts a moral onus on the site operator to weed out the bad guys when you become aware of them.
God forbid it ever happens, but if a model decides to work with a guy based on the comments she reads here and then gets raped or worse whilst on the job, the finger of blame will be firmly pointed at the site.
The headlines then will not read "Reputation site fails", instead they will scream "Website vouches for rapist" and will then go, to describe in lurid detail how Shootnotes enhanced his opportunity to pick up girls by providing references for him.
I don't have any real answers as to how you might deal with this and as I stated at the start, I'm not trying to be an ass, but I do think additional thought and discussion needs to be directed at this aspect.
Apologies if I sound negative, thats not my intent, I'm just trying to play devils advocate
Photographer
Creativity Farm
Posts: 1772
Westville, New Jersey, US
Minor page inconsistency problem... on the My account page, you can just edit the fields and hit one of the (ugly ) graphics to save, or I guess delete (wasn't brave enough to hit that). But, on the other pages (like shot with list) you have to hit edit first to edit your work, then save (or whatever it's labeled) when your done. Edit behavior should be the same on all pages, as should the navigation of edits (button or graphic). And if that's the biggest problem, you've got it made
Model
Amber Dawn - Indiana
Posts: 6255
Salem, Indiana, US
When I want to check the report someone left about me all I get is "Invalid report" Grrrr what's the point of leaving a report if you cant see what the person wrote!?!?!?
Photographer
Archived
Posts: 13509
Phoenix, Arizona, US
TXPhotog wrote:
If he were to activate his MM profile, he certainly could be on good behavior long enough to get some vouches and positive "worked with" statements. That would result in a good shootnotes rating. That's why I've always thought it was sort of silly to "check references" - any photographer can come up with a list of 5 models that they've had good experiences with, right? Even the ones who are serial rapists, murderers, or whatever. Whenever someone gets arrested for child pornography or whatever, the news channels interview the neighbors, who are of course shocked that their seemingly normal neighbor would be involved in such a thing.
It's the one shoot out of 100 in which the photographer decided to grope the model that we should be worried about - but that photographer has 99 positive worked-with listings, so what's the point of the system?
Photographer
Archived
Posts: 13509
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Dreamshot Photography wrote:
God forbid it ever happens, but if a model decides to work with a guy based on the comments she reads here and then gets raped or worse whilst on the job, the finger of blame will be firmly pointed at the site.
The headlines then will not read "Reputation site fails", instead they will scream "Website vouches for rapist" and will then go, to describe in lurid detail how Shootnotes enhanced his opportunity to pick up girls by providing references for him. Good point.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
These are all very good points, and no, nobody's being an ass, as I appreciate the devil's advocate positions. Progress is never made when people sugar-coat their points.
While I have a slew of features ancillary to the reputation system that I feel add value, the core of the system is the interaction that provides the data for the trust metric. And while it is, as I've said, just a tool, one side effect of a powerful tool is that it comes to be relied-upon.
Indeed, one could argue that if the site is relied-upon enough, that both proves that it's a success but also illuminates the problem we're discussing.
So it requires some thought and, as we're doing here, discussion. And again, this is the very reason that, at least through the end of the year, the testing is on very constrained data to see if these issues can, indeed, be solved and the site's idea made to work.
So please do keep up the pressure to do it "right" if that is even possible.
I'm going to spend the weekend cleaning up the site's ugly parts from beta phase one, adding a few easy-to-hack features that have been requested, and generally take a break from the tough math that we've been doing behind the scenes. My brain is very mushy right now. And I'll come back to this issue after the weekend.
I absolutely have to get the badges reduced in size and made more appealing this weekend. While the ugly badges are fine for the first few weeks of the beta, I'm hearing the message: this looks interesting enough to stick around, but please don't make me look like a dork on my profile while I do :-)
Photographer
Mikel Featherston
Posts: 11103
San Diego, California, US
King of the Letter L wrote:
this looks interesting enough to stick around, but please don't make me look like a dork on my profile while I do :-) As if I needed YOUR help.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Two issues.
I've been filling out a few "worked with" reports.
1. The "escort present" box is bothersome. I'm not sure what it means (and pretty sure that MY definition isn't important). What matters is what other users think it means, and what, if anything, your scoring algorithm thinks it means. And I don't know what that is.
In the case of each of the shoots I was reporting on, someone other than I and the model was present: makeup artist, hair stylist, assistant to me, and others. And in each case the model came without "an escort". So what do we put down in such cases to make a common set of perceptions from the data?
2. I have assisted several MM photographers on their shoots, from Bruce Talbot through some absolute noobs. The intent of shootnotes seems not to be for me to list them as "shot with", although I have, and can certify to their behavior during the shoot. Clearly things like "release signed" aren't appropriate to such cases, and yet it seems odd not to allow inclusion of such data. So . . . what is the site's guidance for such cases?
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
1. I'll make that more clear. Right now, it means that the model brought along someone as an escort independent of any other job on the shoot. It's the common usage of the term in "Internet modeling" usage. And it has absolutely no impact on the algorithm other than being collected for statistical analysis. That's a value judgment that I don't feel is fair to make.
2. Right now, in the constrained data set, photographers can say they've worked with models and vice versa. The next data set will allow you to add others who assisted (or whom you assisted) like other photographers, makeup artists, stylists, et. al.
There's actually a good reason that the data set is constrained right now for beta one, and the expanded data as outlined in the previous paragraph will be enabled in about four to five days, as we're currently at about 75% of the data we need to properly test the algorithm as it stands. (one of the few places where I say "we" instead of "I," as for the math part, I have friends who are assisting me who make me feel like I'm standing still when it comes to the math, and I consider myself pretty-damned sharp already).
And, again, thanks for this feedback, it is very appreciated.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Another small couple of issues:
1. There is no option initially to fill in the data for images sent date when creating a worked with record. You can do it by editing later, but that's a pain in the ass.
And it leads to:
2. After editing, I found that to get out of it, if I hit the "new" button, sure enough it would take me to "new". But if I wanted to edit a second record, it wouldn't let me do that. I could click on the "show me this record" arrow, and it would just give me the new record screen.
Photographer
George Lue
Posts: 8235
Orlando, Florida, US
I know this is being addressed with the Second Set of Worked with data but... : Sorry, for right now, photographers may not enter records for other photographers. This functionality will be added soon, however. Makes me a sad puppy.
On that note, will other participants of the shoot other than the photographer be able to comment (I know commenting is limited by checkboxes) on any assisting photographers?
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
George Lue wrote:
I know this is being addressed with the Second Set of Worked with data but...
Makes me a sad puppy.
On that note, will other participants of the shoot other than the photographer be able to comment (I know commenting is limited by checkboxes) on any assisting photographers? This is strictly a limitation of the data correlation set and is 100% artificially imposed by me for a very short time to facilitate testing.
The answer to your question above (all of them, actually) is yes. The testing going on now with respect to all of that is in the proper notification system, reporting, and repudiation.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Another small couple of issues:
1. There is no option initially to fill in the data for images sent date when creating a worked with record. You can do it by editing later, but that's a pain in the ass.
And it leads to:
2. After editing, I found that to get out of it, if I hit the "new" button, sure enough it would take me to "new". But if I wanted to edit a second record, it wouldn't let me do that. I could click on the "show me this record" arrow, and it would just give me the new record screen. Both usability issues that I'll address presently, thank you.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
BTW, George & I shot with 3 lovely ladies today (see new pic in my port) and we told them all about ShootNotes. They're planning to sign up. I'm going to go do vouches/worked-withs for them. Don't worry George, I'll go back & credit you when Chris rolls it out, and you can pester the ladies to comment.
Photographer
AndrewG
Posts: 5850
Mesa, Arizona, US
(Start with Big evil grin posted here).... ->
Ok.. I posted a "worked with" on ShootNotes. I posted a date of shoot and a date for CD "sent/given". Model cant add her "recieved" date. and on her "worked with" I cant post CD "sent/given".
There fore... is is going to an "assumed" that someone will look at the posts of both to check if both parties posted???
Photographer
The Polaroid Guy
Posts: 5606
Grand Prairie, Texas, US
Wow, i'v gotten a lot of hits.
Photographer
Fotographia Fantastique
Posts: 17339
White River Junction, Vermont, US
Warning Stupid Question Ahead
O.K., I have only been visiting this thread and SN itself casually.
Recently the 'worked with' feature has been implemented.
I'm sure different people will use the site differently, but I want to know if this is how the site is supposed to work (pardon me while I ask a dumb question):
'worked with' is for listing everyone you actually worked with
and 'vouch for' is supposed to be a subset of 'worked with' (those you both worked with AND recommend)?
And, for those you never worked with (flakes for example)?
Photographer
Fotographia Fantastique
Posts: 17339
White River Junction, Vermont, US
AdamtheJohnson wrote:
Wow, i'v gotten a lot of hits. I haven't 
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
AndrewG wrote:
(Start with Big evil grin posted here).... ->
Ok.. I posted a "worked with" on ShootNotes. I posted a date of shoot and a date for CD "sent/given". Model cant add her "recieved" date. and on her "worked with" I cant post CD "sent/given".
There fore... is is going to an "assumed" that someone will look at the posts of both to check if both parties posted??? The "other party" will be able to enter their data in a few days. When that happens, the field will report something along the lines of "other party has not yet responded." In short, there will be a difference between "haven't responded" and "no, not gotten it yet!" to make that clear.
Additionally, if the other party isn't a ShootNotes member, it will say so, meaning that it'll be clear that they *can't* respond yet, making it clear that you're not being dinged.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
Fotographia Fantastique wrote:
'worked with' is for listing everyone you actually worked with
and 'vouch for' is supposed to be a subset of 'worked with' (those you both worked with AND recommend)?
And, for those you never worked with (flakes for example)? No, and the question isn't stupid, it makes it clear that I need to make the instructions and description more clear.
To wit:
Worked-With is for those with whom you've worked. If you check "recommended" that means you'd recommend them and/or would work with them again. You liked them.
Vouch-For is for those with whom you've NOT worked, but know, and are willing saying, in public, "this person is okay." I've never actually worked with Roger (TXPhotog), but based on his posts here and his reputation in the real world, I'd have no problem vouching for him, for example.
If you enter a Worked-With but do NOT check "occured," that indicates that the shoot was canceled or did not occur. Right now, you can't say why, so presuming "flake" is bad. But in phase two, there will be a way to state the reason the shoot was canceled. This will not be free-text, but will be a list of possible reasons.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Chris, I noticed my blue ribbon was showing 6 Vouches last night but when I checked my profile I only saw 4 names Vouching for me.
Andrew's vouch seems to have been deleted, it's possible someone else vouched & then deleted it as well.
Will the number on my blue ribbon reset?
(and 2 of the 3 models from yesterday are signed up & active, I imagine the 3rd will be soon!)
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
SLE Photography wrote:
Chris, I noticed my blue ribbon was showing 6 Vouches last night but when I checked my profile I only saw 4 names Vouching for me.
Andrew's vouch seems to have been deleted, it's possible someone else vouched & then deleted it as well.
Will the number on my blue ribbon reset? Quite possible, even probable.
The number on the ribbon is currently just the number of vouchers, for testing. Indeed, the number will go away when the badges are redesigned, and will make its reappearance when the algorithm goes live closer to the end of the year.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
King of the Letter L wrote:
Quite possible, even probable.
The number on the ribbon is currently just the number of vouchers, for testing. Indeed, the number will go away when the badges are redesigned, and will make its reappearance when the algorithm goes live closer to the end of the year. Makes sense 
I figured that was the case.
Photographer
AndrewG
Posts: 5850
Mesa, Arizona, US
SLE Photography wrote:
Chris, I noticed my blue ribbon was showing 6 Vouches last night but when I checked my profile I only saw 4 names Vouching for me.
Andrew's vouch seems to have been deleted, it's possible someone else vouched & then deleted it as well.
Will the number on my blue ribbon reset? King of the Letter L wrote:
Quite possible, even probable.
The number on the ribbon is currently just the number of vouchers, for testing. Indeed, the number will go away when the badges are redesigned, and will make its reappearance when the algorithm goes live closer to the end of the year. How can I remove AndrewThomas' "vouch"
Photographer
Fotographia Fantastique
Posts: 17339
White River Junction, Vermont, US
King of the Letter L wrote:
No, and the question isn't stupid, it makes it clear that I need to make the instructions and description more clear.
To wit:
Worked-With is for those with whom you've worked. If you check "recommended" that means you'd recommend them and/or would work with them again. You liked them.
Vouch-For is for those with whom you've NOT worked, but know, and are willing saying, in public, "this person is okay." I've never actually worked with Roger (TXPhotog), but based on his posts here and his reputation in the real world, I'd have no problem vouching for him, for example.
If you enter a Worked-With but do NOT check "occured," that indicates that the shoot was canceled or did not occur. Right now, you can't say why, so presuming "flake" is bad. But in phase two, there will be a way to state the reason the shoot was canceled. This will not be free-text, but will be a list of possible reasons. O.K., got it.
Photographer
AndrewG
Posts: 5850
Mesa, Arizona, US
AndrewG wrote:
How can I remove AndrewThomas' "vouch"
Photographer
STUDIOMONA PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 33697
Avon, Minnesota, US
King of the Letter L wrote:
Did it all make sense? Or is there anything I could change or add to make it more clear? I started working on my worked with list in Shootnotes but that means I have to pinpoint the dates I worked with them first... I will have to go through my model releases now ,....grrrrr
edit: which means I will have to file them in alphabetical order first... I can do that.
Photographer
George Lue
Posts: 8235
Orlando, Florida, US
There is an issue when looking at the shoot report. Pretty minor.
Just viewing the report I can check and uncheck boxes. I've not been in any part of the worked with file (I assisted, so that's not available yet).
Truthfully it's cosmetic, but isn't there a way to lock down those boxes?
Edit: I'd also love to remove AndrewThomas's vouch.
Photographer
Postmodern Pinup
Posts: 47
Grand Prairie, Texas, US
It appears the system has a problem this morning? All of a sudden, I don't exist.. 
Photographer
MWPortraits
Posts: 7024
Kansas City, Missouri, US
I still can't figure out how to add a report for someone. :-(
Photographer
AndrewG
Posts: 5850
Mesa, Arizona, US
Mary E Wano Designs wrote:
I still can't figure out how to add a report for someone. :-( you mean a "Worked with"?
If so.. left hand side of main page.. click on "My Worked with List".
Then click on "Create new worked with entry" fill it in and then at the bottom.. click on ok or yep it looks good, or whatever the positive answer is.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
George Lue wrote:
There is an issue when looking at the shoot report. Pretty minor.
Just viewing the report I can check and uncheck boxes. I've not been in any part of the worked with file (I assisted, so that's not available yet).
Truthfully it's cosmetic, but isn't there a way to lock down those boxes?
Edit: I'd also love to remove AndrewThomas's vouch. Chris must be busy today, I'd like an answer to this one.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
SLE Photography wrote:
Chris must be busy today, I'd like an answer to this one. My daughter had a cheerleading competition today that ran much later than anticipated. I'm also knee-deep in internal bug fixes, but I'll get to this and a few other issues tomorrow as early as possible.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
King of the Letter L wrote:
My daughter had a cheerleading competition today that ran much later than anticipated. I'm also knee-deep in internal bug fixes, but I'll get to this and a few other issues tomorrow as early as possible. Cool! How'd the WonderSquid's squad do???
Photographer
DGB Photography
Posts: 682
FINKSBURG, Maryland, US
I was inputting information from a shoot that was to happen. There isn't a checkbox for flakes.
Will there be one? And will there be a "Does Not Vouch For" checkbox?
|
