I have noticed that I am often wrong in my decisions to publish or reject an image. So far I have decided how it corresponds to my idea of good photography. Now I started an experiment and marked all images, that were even halfway technically and creatively justifiable with "publish". Lo and behold, now my hit rate rose to over 90%. Should I now wave through everything that is not completely unsuccessful in the future? Can that be the goal of member curation? Is there a similar feedback for experts? That would be bad, because it ultimately leads to poorer image quality and egalitarianism in image selection. 

Greetings from Stephan Rückert

IMHO it is not an exam to pass with a high mark, I myself curate ( publish ) only to the images I find apropraite for publish and this means they are good and artistic photos ( IMHO ) irrelevant of my score , and if every curator is choosing only the best photos, we would rise the artistic value and level of the publuished images, which after all are going to portfolios rather the front page. Best regards.

That's the thing with "scoring systems"... Since we were all educated to achieve ratings, hit thresholds, be competitive, any scoring system triggers us to desire an achievement. 

BUT...

The goal of curation is not clear. Do we chose what we think is good enough for apearance in the artists portfolio? Well we can't, because we don't see the artist or his/her portfolio and can not know if it fits well.

Or do we chose what we think should be awarded? Well, we don't award anything, and obviously the common opinion can be overruled / does not count mauch.

Seems there is a bias in publishing everything that's not too bad to be considered. This way, if the majority agrees, the "score" in curation is high and members don't have big obstacles to fill their portfolios again.

I just wonder if partner shops appreciate the staged approach. In my case, everything "published" is taken by fineartamerica, for example. But if a lot of mediocre photography becomes published, they must be flooded with works potentially never being sold. I would not be surprised if they would take "awarded" photography only in future, for exactly that reason. 

Just my 2 cents...

Mike

Hi, good morning, it is an interesting information.Something has changed in the last months.If I cheking the accuracy,for a while now,the red  incorrect votes had exceeded the correct ones, now it seems that they are all wrong.Before most of the votes were correct.If I look at the graph it is not like the one I remember.I read that the algorithm has been changed, but there are no more the photos that there were before.When there was the button for sending opinions(or feedback) about the new version, I complained about the quality of the choices,as a landscape photographer.

I also asked for the opinion of an artist, showing photos in curation, who judges better than me, (with completely different ideas from the general opinion) but she is not a photographer.In the old version, out of the 400 photos for day, 2 or 4 or 5 of the ones I voted for were in the top ten of the week.If the judgments are wrong as shown in the graph, then perhaps they are not needed.

So I tried to collaborate more with the critics, because it seemed to me a way to explain the reasons for yes or no.The criticism is anonymous and the person who wrote 20 lines of commentary is as good as if he had written one line.Of all the work done, it seems to me that nothing remains,

this is the lesson.Maybe knowing the number of prints sold could only confirm the goodness of the choices.

Regards