Comment to Posting Ratio

There was a recent post in this forum by Alan LaFaver who was concerned he was not getting enough comments. Some of those who responded to Alan's post noted that his comment to post ratio was not good and noted it should be at least 5 to 1 and better yet 10 to 1.

My question is at what number of comments does this "requirement" become moot. Let me single out two of our members who I feel are strong contributors to NPN: Sandy Richards and Phil Hodgkins. By coincidence both have a comment to post ratio of "only" 3.8 to 1. Yet Phil has commented 6772 times and Sandy, a prodigious 10,363 times.

So, I'm curious what NPN members think should be the minimum number of comments before it no longer matters what the ratio is.

Let me single out two of our members who I feel are strong contributors to NPN:

Hi Allen, although this subject comes up very often with regard to C/P ratio it never really seems to have a finite answer. Yes, there is the recommended ratio as you've mentioned, and yes, the more appreciated ratio might even be better at the second number you've mentioned. In the end it might be seen more as a "participation ratio" if you will. I feel this is a bit in line with your positive statement I've quoted above.
I think in the past it has been pointed out that the folks who merely only post without commenting at all, or very little if you will, really do not add much to the site and yet some how anticipate getting a nod back. I think in the beginning there is a bit of a learning curve and some folks not too sure of how to join in. However, in the end there needs to be input from each member or it is just a bunch of nice images scrolling through the system.

So the higher ratios are great, but not always the only participation to the site being seen as a positive input overall IMO.

I was one of the people who commented on Alan's post and suggested providing comments at a ratio of 5 to 1 should be a goal for all of us. It is a suggestion, not a requirement. There is no way to enforce a requirement like that.

The real value in commenting is having to think through an image and look at it critically. Hopefully, the more one comments, the more adept at providing valuable comments one becomes. The danger in just looking at comment to post ratios is comments that are just "Great Shot", "Love it", "Wonderful", etc. etc. etc. all count in the comment counter, yet, those kinds of comments are worthless for a photographer to grow.

There is no way to put a number on the "minimum number of comments before it no longer matters what the ratio is". What really matters is for all of us to be honest in a constructive way, think about what you like and don't like in an image, share your thoughts and post images that you are looking for input on.

My post to comment ratio is 25.54 to 1 and my comments weren't just the "great shot" type of comment. I haven't posted an image since 2011 partly because I got burned out by making so many thoughtful comments and I didn't post if I could not comment. It was simply taking too much of my time to make 25 thought out comments when I posted. My problem was I wanted to help and hated to see a post without comments.

Making just 5 to 1 is easy.

My comment to post ratio is about 21 to 1. I make thoughtful comments and sometimes "way to go comments". Nothing wrong with "way to go" comments if it is a nice shot worthy of a compliment. I know it is impossible for everyone to comment on every photo worthy of praise or needing a critique but if a person comments on my post I always try to comment on theirs. That's what we are all here for. To get feedback on our pictures. It is just the old "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I thought that if I commented a lot and had a high post to comment ratio I would get more comments in return but it doesn't seem to work that way. Basically I have just quit worrying about how many comments I get. I post a photo from time to time and if it gets comments good if not thats OK.

How does everyone calculate comment to image post ratio? If you use all posts, I thinks that includes your image posts as well. .... or do you use Posts? ..... or am I missing something? Just want to make sure everyone is comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges. I also consider the quality of the comments more important than the quantity. Many comments are also gallery centric. I usually only comment in Landscape and M&N since those are the types of images I take and I also moderate those galleries.

Eva, I assume most like myself are taking the information from the numbers listed next to your Registration date. These numbers are totally different between ANY gallery listing and ANY forum listing.
In looking at the numbers they are accumulative in the galleries and accumulative in the forums. Again, the numbers are separate accumulations in the two different areas.
So, the C/P ratio most would be looking at are the numbers listed in the galleries.
This would be your info: Registered on 01/04/09, 911 Posts, 11919 Comments (about a 13:1 ratio.) if my math is right....

Thanks Paul for the info. Just wanted to be sure.

Here's what I would like to see...

More topics, comments, and images (where appropriate) in the discussion forums and the Regional Groups.

Sure, most of us post images and comments in the critique galleries, but there's a lot more to nature photography, and NPN than the major critique galleries.

In my opinion, participation at NPN is more than posting images.

What do you think?

--P

I go to Forums>All Topics regularly. I don't post images in the critique galleries very often at all. The discussion topics are what brings me to NPN. I'm sorry to see that posting there seems to have slowed over the years.

As far as topic to comment ratio in the discussion forums, I don't think anybody is counting.

I tend to participate more in the photo critiques than I do in the discussion forums. I am learning more about photography from the critique forums than any other method. I think I can honestly say, from a frequent participant in the critique forum, that I often comment on photos from members who do not critique much at all. I would also remind them of the benefits of participation and encourage them to join in. Isn't that the point? To me, it's more about the level of interaction than it is about the numbers. I guess there is a benchmark, but who cares, Participate, learn, and give back. What could be more satisfying? I'll admit that I'm retired and have the time to participate. I'll also admit that I will sometimes have a "way to go" comment, but that doesn't mean I have not considered the shot and could offer nothing to improve it. Any way the site is great and what was the point of this thread ?

What Gary said!!!!!

In my opinion, participation at NPN is more than posting images.

That was the point I was also trying to bring out in my original response, Preston.

My comment:

So the higher ratios are great, but not always the only participation to the site being seen as a positive input overall IMO.

Maybe I am one of the only ones who doesn't look...but I have never looked at another poster's ratio. We all paid...we all display....If you don't interact you won't get much out of the club...Expecting a ratio is simply asking people to make the old cliché one liner ....good job comments....Which in some cases is fine...but some don't critique...they only go after that ratio to be accepted and in doing so really don't add much to the conversation anyway....Just my 2 cents.