Parts, that is ... if 'you' (speaking generally here) wish to read it in it's entirety. Linked above.
The parts..
Nik; aka Nikoneer towards the end of that discussion (as it now sits) put forth this post:
"I generally start each voting with a 5 then add or subtract for the the various visual elements that all images, whether they be photographic or computer generated, must adhere to to be successful. (I do give zeros and tens occasionally, but only after consideration and proper critique.) Color, contrast, focus, composition, depth of field, what LynEve calls the "Wow" factor, its use as a desktop (sorry, but vertical images don't fit most monitors without being adjusted after downloading), interest, authenticity, and so on. If an image excels or fails in these categories, voting can actually be quite simple and successful, as long as the voter is willing to take the time to do it properly. If we are to keep a voting system, I feel it is far too simple a procedure as it is now. It's too easy for a voter to glance at your image, for as short a time as a second, then pass judgement on your hard work (and it is hard work, just ask a fractalist - I don't create them myself but my good friend tealeaves Lori has taught me well). Many people say the effect of the VB should just be discounted and not be concerned about. I know you mean well but truthfully, the c-index is as much a reflection of the effect your work has on others as the comments they leave are. If we are to keep the voting feature it could be modified by making it a list of elements, some of which I've listed here (we could add to it or modify it). These elements would have a plus or minus box, adding or subtracting a single number until a final number is reached. If the image fails the majority of elemental votes, it would receive a low score, and deservedly so. Excelling in these elements would garner it a high score, again, deservedly so. It would require some thought be put into the individual judgement rather than just "drive-by" voting. A box for identifying the voter may or may not be useful but, if it's a part of the voting procedure, it would not need to be information open to the general membership, but to the mods only. It would be a way for Geri and the mods to see a tally of that particular member's voting record. If a submitting member received extremely low votes on their image and the image obviously did not deserve them, a question could be raised with the mods and they would have the option of looking at who voted zero, or some other low number, then looking at that person's voting record. If it appeared that the voter gave a high percentage of zeros then the vote in question could be challenged. I haven't figured out what could be done about it at that point but isn't that what these discussion threads are for? For the compilation of ideas and not for putting another member down just because they don't feel exactly the same way you do? I'm sure Geri would appreciate it. So how about we just think of a better way to give a numerical value, if that's what we want, and refrain from getting upset about it. Caedes is supposed to be a community... let's work together."
Towards the ends of stimulating a discussion and engaging those of 'us' that might have some ideas as to how to improve the C-Index.
That is what this thread is for, working towards improvement of the maligned (rightfully, or wrongfully so) .. C-Index. ____________________________________________________________
Here are some snippets and/or entire posts that followed.
Mythmaker's response to Nik's post above:
"Nik, I appreciate your basic concept and it's intent, however, the specifics of it would bother me, just because every now and then I see images in which one element, say *imagination/conception/originality* (Take your pick.), strikes me as warranting a much higher vote for the image than it's broken down technical components might suggest. I do think that technical stuff matters, in the long run of our photographic trajectory I'd hope we all accumulate more of that knowledge but I want to be able to award a fantastically original concept a big PLUS even if it's not so well carried off because the artist has not accumulated the technical knowledge (yet).
Now, my point, underlines that we don't all approach the "how" of our voting in the same way and that's fine with me. I would also like everyone to do their voting with careful consideration, if we all did we all would be winners, images would get fairer numerical feedback and every voter would discover themselves learning as they voted.
Rather than your detailed breakdown model (Just thinking on the run here.) how about keeping the current voting process but adding two additional boxes (On the vb page for each image you vote on.) titled "strongest element" and "weakest element" which are short comment boxes, so even if you only put one word in each, the creator of that image would get a series of (Still anonymous)feedbacks from everyone who voted that might add up to them knowing WHAT to look at when they review their image in light of it's c-index, if they care to.
Ok, thinking more about how that might be abused and what to do about it... Say one of our unworthy no voters used those comment boxes to say something like "stinks" in both boxes and that feedback then goes to the poster, the poster on the page they get all this vb feedback on (wow, I'm making a lot of work for the website engineers.) can then "complain" or draw the mods attention to those clearly valueless and unjustified comments and that voter gets some kind of penalty, suspension from downloading or uploading or voting or something, so their laziness or malice has a consequence to THEM.
I for one would quite like to get a list of strongest and weakest elements for each image I post from those who voted on it, I often wonder why some images got such strong votes and other images did not but I don't really have a clue WHAT to look at in my images to try to work that out after I've got the c-index feedback."
Casechaser:
"I like Mikel's idea of adding the comment boxes. I might suggest, instead of fill-in-the-box fields, have drop downs for both "strongest element" and "weakest element" with five to seven well chosen answers. Using drop downs rather than fill-ins may standardize the responses to what may be considered the important elements while preventing abusive responses from those inclined to leave valueless comments."
Nikoneer:
"I agree that the current voting does nothing to guide the artist in terms of how to improve his/her craft. Before Geri allowed us to see the actual votes all we would get was a single, arbitrary number that didn't tell us anything. At least now, with the breakdown of votes available to us, we can see that it may have only been one or two people who didn't appreciate what we submitted, rather than a general consensus. But even with the vote breakdown, that water is exceptionally muddy and confusing. The more detailed comments we get are much more helpful, just as thought-out comments on these threads are more helpful, like yours, Mikel. I would imagine that if enough of us put our heads together, those of us who really want to help Geri find a solution to this voting conundrum, we will succeed. Your idea of highlighting the "strongest" and "weakest" elements is good, particularly if a text box would be available for a short description of that element or the reason for the vote on it. That would definitely help the individual artist and it would illustrate to the malicious voter that what they've been doing is now under scrutiny and will no longer be tolerated. Good ideas, Mikel. Keep 'em coming. That goes for the rest of you folks out there in TV-Land. 8]"
Cynlee:
"I am a skeptic. I just don't see how adding more questions to the VB is going to make voters, especially zero voters, more discerning and selective in their choices."
Nikoneer:
"If they have to take more time to vote, Cindy, actually thinking about it, that could make some difference. It would actually be more like work and I think a lot of these negative voters are basically selfish and lazy. They only care about themselves and if they had to jump through a few hoops they might be unhappy enough to leave and take their damaging effects to another site. Also if they knew their negative voting was being monitored and that there would be consequences for irresponsible voting and critique, that might also curtail the problem they create. I don't think any of us want to be "art nazis," or "big brother," or anything like that, but if an adjustment like we've been discussing is made to the voting it might be a little rough at first but would likely level out to become a smoothly running feature of the Caedes site. A feature that would be fair and helpful to everyone... everyone that is serious about their craft, that is. If the site is worth being a member of, it's worth saving its integrity."
Mythmaker:
"Cindy, I don't expect to make those people who don't want to do better, do better. But some form of accountability tends to encourage some people to lift their game.
I imagine someone who votes on a lot of images might get bothered by the additional "workload" of best and worst feature comments on every image they vote for, but most of us only vote on ten or twenty images every day or so, so it wouldn't be a big time impost for most members.
Another thought I just had, if the artist could see that this anonymous voter voted zero and their comment (If it was setup so that you could see the vote and the comments together.) was clearly empty or spurious, it might help relativise those votes for the easily bruised soles here. Likewise if someone votes very high but their comments suggest they don't really "get" the image, you could relativise that feedback also.
I'm staying with the "voter adds THEIR OWN best and worst feature comment" rather than the suggested list of comments because the original impetus for my idea was to provide a way to add feedback that is outside any standarised response range."
Cynlee:
"So, the setup would not allow the inclusion of a zero vote if the associated comments or comment choices were left blank?"
Casechaser:
"I think that if we navigate into having these blanks to fill or drop downs to select, then they would be necessary for any number given. I would like to know best/worse on all pictures and on all grades 0-10."
Mythmaker:
"My understanding is the same as yours Cindy, that the software currently diminishes or eliminates the effect of zero votes from those who's voting pattern demonstrates that they don't engage the images as part of their decision making process for their votes. Free speech is a fair enough reason to tread carefully in that area so I think a system, such as my suggestion or something else, that adds accountability and consequences to that pattern without a "disciplinary" approach being invoked, might be worth considering.
Yes, effectively my suggestion would mean that you HAD to give at least a one word "best" and one word "worst" comment on each image you voted on in the VB and if you were not willing to do that, you don't get to move on to the next image in the vb and if you can't progress thru the vb then what comes next never comes to you. :) If you seek to dodge that by putting thoughtless, irrelevant or even malicious words/comments in those comment boxes, then you do get to move on but the artist will then get to see that the zero vote came from someone making such clearly thoughtless, irrelevant or malicious comments and will thus be empowered to both recognise the vote for what it is - completely irrelevant to their creative efforts or success AND to refer the malicious comments to the mods if that was part of the overall design. (I'm assuming of course that while we the general members won't know who voted what, the mods will have access to that info and so will be able to respond accordingly.)
There is a thread for making suggestions about new things to add to the website, I guess at some point I should wander over there and try to add this idea there, no brief way to explain it though. :)
Maybe I'll wait a bit longer while we chew on it here, see how refined and clear we get the concept."
J_27004:
"Unfortunately not everyone likes to leave a comment as to why they voted that way.. I would like to suggest that there be kind of like questionnaire where you have eg. (have boxes beside them to click on)
Contrast: Excellent good poor
Composition: Excellent good poor
That way voting is still anonymous (therefore no vandetta's as previously seen) and no malicious comments."
Mythmaker:
"Hi Jacqueline, I think perhaps one thing was not clear to you about my suggestion - the comments made as part of the VB process could be single word brief and would also be anonymous, just as the votes are.
As to avoiding malicious comments, any time someone says something clearly malicious to me it tells me something about them and nothing about me, so the comments don't bother me. However I realise they do seem to bother some folks and I do think some kind of feedback process that discourages expressions of malice (Any kind, unfair zero votes or malicious comments.) would be good for the community vibe at large. Thus my idea of there being an easy way for the artist, on receiving the anonymous votes and related comments from the VB, to refer the clearly malicious comments or words to the mods for their consideration and response."
coram9:
"As for all the suggestions of voting on different aspects of an image, remember they also have to be applicable to fractals, illustrations and CGI images as well." ____________________________________________________________
Carry on ... add your ideas/thoughts on how to improve the scoring system currently in place..
____________________________________________________________
Resurrecting parts of Mikel's ; aka Mythmaker discussion thread. Namely that of; "Voting Zero".
Parts, that is ... if 'you' (speaking generally here) wish to read it in it's entirety. Linked above.
The parts..
Nik; aka Nikoneer towards the end of that discussion (as it now sits) put forth this post:
"I generally start each voting with a 5 then add or subtract for the the various visual elements that all images, whether they be photographic or computer generated, must adhere to to be successful. (I do give zeros and tens occasionally, but only after consideration and proper critique.) Color, contrast, focus, composition, depth of field, what LynEve calls the "Wow" factor, its use as a desktop (sorry, but vertical images don't fit most monitors without being adjusted after downloading), interest, authenticity, and so on. If an image excels or fails in these categories, voting can actually be quite simple and successful, as long as the voter is willing to take the time to do it properly. If we are to keep a voting system, I feel it is far too simple a procedure as it is now. It's too easy for a voter to glance at your image, for as short a time as a second, then pass judgement on your hard work (and it is hard work, just ask a fractalist - I don't create them myself but my good friend tealeaves Lori has taught me well). Many people say the effect of the VB should just be discounted and not be concerned about. I know you mean well but truthfully, the c-index is as much a reflection of the effect your work has on others as the comments they leave are. If we are to keep the voting feature it could be modified by making it a list of elements, some of which I've listed here (we could add to it or modify it). These elements would have a plus or minus box, adding or subtracting a single number until a final number is reached. If the image fails the majority of elemental votes, it would receive a low score, and deservedly so. Excelling in these elements would garner it a high score, again, deservedly so. It would require some thought be put into the individual judgement rather than just "drive-by" voting. A box for identifying the voter may or may not be useful but, if it's a part of the voting procedure, it would not need to be information open to the general membership, but to the mods only. It would be a way for Geri and the mods to see a tally of that particular member's voting record. If a submitting member received extremely low votes on their image and the image obviously did not deserve them, a question could be raised with the mods and they would have the option of looking at who voted zero, or some other low number, then looking at that person's voting record. If it appeared that the voter gave a high percentage of zeros then the vote in question could be challenged. I haven't figured out what could be done about it at that point but isn't that what these discussion threads are for? For the compilation of ideas and not for putting another member down just because they don't feel exactly the same way you do? I'm sure Geri would appreciate it. So how about we just think of a better way to give a numerical value, if that's what we want, and refrain from getting upset about it. Caedes is supposed to be a community... let's work together."
Towards the ends of stimulating a discussion and engaging those of 'us' that might have some ideas as to how to improve the C-Index.
That is what this thread is for, working towards improvement of the maligned (rightfully, or wrongfully so) .. C-Index.
____________________________________________________________
Here are some snippets and/or entire posts that followed.
Mythmaker's response to Nik's post above:
"Nik, I appreciate your basic concept and it's intent, however, the specifics of it would bother me, just because every now and then I see images in which one element, say *imagination/conception/originality* (Take your pick.), strikes me as warranting a much higher vote for the image than it's broken down technical components might suggest. I do think that technical stuff matters, in the long run of our photographic trajectory I'd hope we all accumulate more of that knowledge but I want to be able to award a fantastically original concept a big PLUS even if it's not so well carried off because the artist has not accumulated the technical knowledge (yet).
Now, my point, underlines that we don't all approach the "how" of our voting in the same way and that's fine with me. I would also like everyone to do their voting with careful consideration, if we all did we all would be winners, images would get fairer numerical feedback and every voter would discover themselves learning as they voted.
Rather than your detailed breakdown model (Just thinking on the run here.) how about keeping the current voting process but adding two additional boxes (On the vb page for each image you vote on.) titled "strongest element" and "weakest element" which are short comment boxes, so even if you only put one word in each, the creator of that image would get a series of (Still anonymous)feedbacks from everyone who voted that might add up to them knowing WHAT to look at when they review their image in light of it's c-index, if they care to.
Ok, thinking more about how that might be abused and what to do about it...
Say one of our unworthy no voters used those comment boxes to say something like "stinks" in both boxes and that feedback then goes to the poster, the poster on the page they get all this vb feedback on (wow, I'm making a lot of work for the website engineers.) can then "complain" or draw the mods attention to those clearly valueless and unjustified comments and that voter gets some kind of penalty, suspension from downloading or uploading or voting or something, so their laziness or malice has a consequence to THEM.
I for one would quite like to get a list of strongest and weakest elements for each image I post from those who voted on it, I often wonder why some images got such strong votes and other images did not but I don't really have a clue WHAT to look at in my images to try to work that out after I've got the c-index feedback."
Casechaser:
"I like Mikel's idea of adding the comment boxes. I might suggest, instead of fill-in-the-box fields, have drop downs for both "strongest element" and "weakest element" with five to seven well chosen answers. Using drop downs rather than fill-ins may standardize the responses to what may be considered the important elements while preventing abusive responses from those inclined to leave valueless comments."
Nikoneer:
"I agree that the current voting does nothing to guide the artist in terms of how to improve his/her craft. Before Geri allowed us to see the actual votes all we would get was a single, arbitrary number that didn't tell us anything. At least now, with the breakdown of votes available to us, we can see that it may have only been one or two people who didn't appreciate what we submitted, rather than a general consensus. But even with the vote breakdown, that water is exceptionally muddy and confusing. The more detailed comments we get are much more helpful, just as thought-out comments on these threads are more helpful, like yours, Mikel. I would imagine that if enough of us put our heads together, those of us who really want to help Geri find a solution to this voting conundrum, we will succeed. Your idea of highlighting the "strongest" and "weakest" elements is good, particularly if a text box would be available for a short description of that element or the reason for the vote on it. That would definitely help the individual artist and it would illustrate to the malicious voter that what they've been doing is now under scrutiny and will no longer be tolerated. Good ideas, Mikel. Keep 'em coming. That goes for the rest of you folks out there in TV-Land. 8]"
Cynlee:
"I am a skeptic. I just don't see how adding more questions to the VB is going to make voters, especially zero voters, more discerning and selective in their choices."
Nikoneer:
"If they have to take more time to vote, Cindy, actually thinking about it, that could make some difference. It would actually be more like work and I think a lot of these negative voters are basically selfish and lazy. They only care about themselves and if they had to jump through a few hoops they might be unhappy enough to leave and take their damaging effects to another site. Also if they knew their negative voting was being monitored and that there would be consequences for irresponsible voting and critique, that might also curtail the problem they create. I don't think any of us want to be "art nazis," or "big brother," or anything like that, but if an adjustment like we've been discussing is made to the voting it might be a little rough at first but would likely level out to become a smoothly running feature of the Caedes site. A feature that would be fair and helpful to everyone... everyone that is serious about their craft, that is. If the site is worth being a member of, it's worth saving its integrity."
Mythmaker:
"Cindy, I don't expect to make those people who don't want to do better, do better. But some form of accountability tends to encourage some people to lift their game.
I imagine someone who votes on a lot of images might get bothered by the additional "workload" of best and worst feature comments on every image they vote for, but most of us only vote on ten or twenty images every day or so, so it wouldn't be a big time impost for most members.
Another thought I just had, if the artist could see that this anonymous voter voted zero and their comment (If it was setup so that you could see the vote and the comments together.) was clearly empty or spurious, it might help relativise those votes for the easily bruised soles here. Likewise if someone votes very high but their comments suggest they don't really "get" the image, you could relativise that feedback also.
I'm staying with the "voter adds THEIR OWN best and worst feature comment" rather than the suggested list of comments because the original impetus for my idea was to provide a way to add feedback that is outside any standarised response range."
Cynlee:
"So, the setup would not allow the inclusion of a zero vote if the associated comments or comment choices were left blank?"
Casechaser:
"I think that if we navigate into having these blanks to fill or drop downs to select, then they would be necessary for any number given. I would like to know best/worse on all pictures and on all grades 0-10."
Mythmaker:
"My understanding is the same as yours Cindy, that the software currently diminishes or eliminates the effect of zero votes from those who's voting pattern demonstrates that they don't engage the images as part of their decision making process for their votes. Free speech is a fair enough reason to tread carefully in that area so I think a system, such as my suggestion or something else, that adds accountability and consequences to that pattern without a "disciplinary" approach being invoked, might be worth considering.
Yes, effectively my suggestion would mean that you HAD to give at least a one word "best" and one word "worst" comment on each image you voted on in the VB and if you were not willing to do that, you don't get to move on to the next image in the vb and if you can't progress thru the vb then what comes next never comes to you. :) If you seek to dodge that by putting thoughtless, irrelevant or even malicious words/comments in those comment boxes, then you do get to move on but the artist will then get to see that the zero vote came from someone making such clearly thoughtless, irrelevant or malicious comments and will thus be empowered to both recognise the vote for what it is - completely irrelevant to their creative efforts or success AND to refer the malicious comments to the mods if that was part of the overall design. (I'm assuming of course that while we the general members won't know who voted what, the mods will have access to that info and so will be able to respond accordingly.)
There is a thread for making suggestions about new things to add to the website, I guess at some point I should wander over there and try to add this idea there, no brief way to explain it though. :)
Maybe I'll wait a bit longer while we chew on it here, see how refined and clear we get the concept."
J_27004:
"Unfortunately not everyone likes to leave a comment as to why they voted that way.. I would like to suggest that there be kind of like questionnaire where you have eg. (have boxes beside them to click on)
Contrast: Excellent good poor
Composition: Excellent good poor
That way voting is still anonymous (therefore no vandetta's as previously seen) and no malicious comments."
Mythmaker:
"Hi Jacqueline, I think perhaps one thing was not clear to you about my suggestion - the comments made as part of the VB process could be single word brief and would also be anonymous, just as the votes are.
As to avoiding malicious comments, any time someone says something clearly malicious to me it tells me something about them and nothing about me, so the comments don't bother me. However I realise they do seem to bother some folks and I do think some kind of feedback process that discourages expressions of malice (Any kind, unfair zero votes or malicious comments.) would be good for the community vibe at large. Thus my idea of there being an easy way for the artist, on receiving the anonymous votes and related comments from the VB, to refer the clearly malicious comments or words to the mods for their consideration and response."
coram9:
"As for all the suggestions of voting on different aspects of an image, remember they also have to be applicable to fractals, illustrations and CGI images as well."
____________________________________________________________
Carry on ... add your ideas/thoughts on how to improve the scoring system currently in place..