Let me first begin by saying I love coming to this place. I enjoy each and every one of my friends and love viewing and seeing thier works of art.Thank you Guys!

I thought about this for a while and debated on whether to say anything about it or not.

I am a bit confused and a bit upset about this matter.

I have a few questions about the voting system. I had an observation that makes absolutely no sense at all whatsoever.

I had an image I posted on the weekend - Juliet, that on Mon morning it had a score of 90 with 7 votes. This totally thrilled me.

On Monday night it had a score of 88 with 14 votes. I was still thrilled .Now once again that is 14 votes.
This morning(Tues) it had a score of 88 with 14 votes. It still had once again 14 votes.

At lunch time it had the same amount of votes, which was 14 and now there is a score of 79

I see again this eavening the score is 79 and the votes are at 14.

What gives with that? This makes absolutlely no sense at all whatsoever.

How can something with 14 votes have the score drop and the vote count has not changed? I know that is a good question ..

Anyone care to enlighten me. This will no doubt get me kicked out of here for asking this and have everyone peeved but please do not be. I know that this place is more that the voting system for sure. It is my friends that keep me here.


Ruby

I think the score is updated after several votes - like the first score is only shown after so many votes. The number of voters is always shown but the score rating might not be updated until later, which means the score can change by quite a lot. I don't think it is worth getting upset about really - one group of people will vote totally different than another group of people. I pay more attention to the comments left by people which give a better indication of the quality of your photographs. :) Patti

I think the answer could be that the c-index is not based entirely on the votes. I don't think the exact formula has been mentioned anywhere though - it would cause people to cheat a lot more easily. So...that's why I think the rating changed even though the number of votes stayed the same. (I'll faint if the c-index debate comes up, so please spare me and do NOT start it again anyone)

If I remember - whilst tallied votes show up in your control panel instantly, the index score is only calculated once every 24 hours which would explain the discrepancy you described - hopes this helps.

*tip-toes past, and leaves my two cents in the ad-infinitum jar*

It is not that I am as much concerned about the score as the variance in the score with no vote change ... I understand that perhaps more is factored in however.. this was not the first time I seen this happen ... Perhaps one should do away with the voting system altogether.. I myself love reading the comments and support everyone gives me and it is one of the reasons I come here everyday .. The other is to admire all the beautiful work on here everyday..

categories exclusion ... the voting system is due for a change .. "soon" .. (*cough*) .. this will result in more favorable scores due to more favorable eyes guiding their mouse pointers to more favorable numbers

we need only wait for the weighted results we have been waiting for...

Ted said yes, but I said "No Way Ted"

My name isn't Ted!

Everyone who has pointed out that the c-index is only updated periodicly is correct. It is possible for the value to change due to this.

As Phil mentioned he thinks it is tallied every 24 hours, that could be. I don't know what the timing is. I do know one thing, it sure needs an overhaul.

To see an image drop by 11 points and the vote count not change and see this repeatedly, makes one scratch their head and go what the ???.

But I should add it only happens on the higher scored images. I personally have seen this happen on about 4 of my shots. Could have been more I am not sure. I just have been keeping an eye on this since I first noticed it.

I seen no discrepancy with any of the others at all. It only happened if the mark made it above 85. I have also seen my images sit without a score for a couple of days with 14 votes on them and then see some get out at 5. So there you go.. Not a perfect system And yes the views and downloads would be the same so that is not a big factor.

Perhaps I am not holding my nose quite the right way. It is like this ..nice work ..Here is your mark of 90 ... then before you know it is down to 79. Guess I put my shoes on wrong. It is indeed puzzling and makes one wonder why this system that causes so many people grief is even in place.

Once again this is not about the score, it is about the principal of the matter.

Well, I think I like what Keifer had to say about the matter, i.e. a new system and I can't wait to see something like that unveiled, but I thought mods selecting for the perm gallery was that sort of thing. I try not to put too much stock in the c:index especially if I feel good about something I've posted and it gets a mediocre or poor index, but you have to admit, it does encourage you when the index is high. I don't put much stock in it because I've seen what I thought were really excellent images come away with what I thought were lower indexes than they deserved. I guess there is no explanation for taste, some people like one thing and others like another and that's how it goes.

A couple of hours ago one of my recent pictures sat on 83 with 8 votes. It was 83 with 6 votes yesterday.
Suddenly it is down to 63 with 14 votes.
I can not begin to understand it.
The last 6 voters must have had a completely different opinion of it to the first 8, or someone must have disliked it so much they voted very low. I guess thats what random voting is all about.
Sometimes I hate the C index - it affects my mood lol
Just as I hate it when my perms get archived.

I just felt like a moan :)

they should change it to the "no-see-um" index

I think what you just experienced was an "update" ... as *caedes said, up there, on Sept. 05 ...

quote .. Everyone who has pointed out that the c-index is only updated periodicly is correct. It is possible for the value to change due to this.


keeping anything "live" (or close to it) uses too much server resources ... the "members online" list is updated every 10 minutes (last I heard) .. it used to be LIVE (or close to it) ... the "Top New Images" on the front page seem to last for 5 or 10 minutes .... all of these are delayed because of the time it takes the server to maintain the info

Yes I realised it was an update as it went from 8 votes to 14, and I realise also that it's the votes that make the difference. I was just surprised they made that much of a difference :( I was surprised it went so high, even though I consider it one of my best pics yet (ok I realise that what I think is of no consequence :) ) but then I was surprised it went so low. And it will go lower yet - they always do.
As I said, I just felt like a moan. Boo Hoo. Might as well stick it in the archives already lol

Yeah, I agree, I'd rather just have the comments. The c-index has become fairly meaningless. I go by the download numbers and the comments.

The c-index is quite uncertain due to the small sample of caedes-users who vote on an image. But the only way to make the sample bigger would be to make us vote for more than 10 images for every upload and that would be annoying. So I think that 10 is a good compromise.

But that doesn't make the voting system a bad thing!

I think that the voting booth is the strongest feature on this site (besides the images of cause). In the voting process there are two parts: The voter and the votee. And who benefits the most? The voter!

I think that it is great that you have to look at all kinds of images and have to have an opinion on them. I have learned a lot about all kinds of art since I signed up here at caedes.

So my point is: Take it easy on the c-index on your own images and enjoy your voting on the images by the other users.

Maybe we all need to look at the user stats. There are close to 300 people on the site at most given times. Many of these are just beginning and may not have the expertise in critiquing photography/fractals that you do. This has been discussed to the bitter ends and I think the solution that Caedes came up with re: the random voting is the most logical and fairest of any. We all begin somewhere :=).
As Keith said...maybe just don't look @ your C-index.....I don't and it works okay for me :).That is my random thought!!

We all need a moan at time so I guess that was mine for the week. :)

Contrary to the impression I may have given - I like the voting system and really enjoy voting - it gets me to look at varied pictures and appreciate them, and I also learn a lot from viewing the work of others.

The only thing I do not like about the present system is that so many fine pictures get archived (and I dont mean my own) because of a low C-index being the prime indication of its quality. One only needs to look around to see that many C-Index numbers do not appear to reflect the quality of the work.

Mimi - I dont look at my own C-Index very often, I just like to check in now and again to see if any of my pictures have been made permanent. Not many do, but when it happens it is a great thrill, so I guess the C-Index does matter :) even if it is not the only criteria used for selection.

Yeah, all my images should have cindexes of 90+...i think the system is messed up.

I've been a member on caedes for a long time now. My activity on the site has been up and down and recently non existent. However I was active when the c-index was amended to the current system. I believe its given images a more realistic score. Truly brilliant images do get the high scores (however reare they may be), and the mediocre images are appropriately allocated a lesser score. The system is not perfect and I'm looking forward to see what future updates will bring, however it is a system that works very well compared to the old c-index system and other voting systems on other websites.

I think it can be said that Caedes will forever have a voting system and that there will always be some people who are unhappy with it. The exact formula cannot be given to us for reasons mentioned before.
So a reasoned conclusion can be that at a low number of votes may produce a fluctuating c-index, when the image gains more votes the c-index will level and remain constant.

Well blimey, that was a bit of a rant. Welcome back me!

-Alex

any surpises now that you are back these descussions continue raziel?

so let me guess.... people have been debating, complaining etc about voting and the CI since both were introduced to the site?

Haha, I hadn't actually realised this discussion was that old. I apologise from dragging it to attention again.

You'd be right Third. Its a brilliant procrastination too avoid doing my coursework. Huzzah!

-Alex

But not all images with a c-index below 50 are truly mediocre. That's the problem. It doesn't really reflect quality. It reflects a number of things, but it's not necessarily only quality.

For example, someone who's sick of voting on flower photos might get a truly stellar flower image and vote low because they're sick of it. Someone who doesn't like the color orange might vote really low on an image that's mostly orange just because they can't stand the color, even if the image itself is really good. Someone who doesn't like fractals might vote really low on a fractal that's actually very good just because they don't like fractals. Or vice versa, and so on. You can't completely get rid of biases when human beings are involved. That's impossible.

And that's also why they make 'chocolate' milk. It's all subjective, but the images that score really high do garner a concensus of opinion and meet some kind of visual standard and great image quality and composition. True, not all below 50 C:index images are mediocre and not all above 50 C:index images are terrific, which is why it's pointless to cry over spilt chocolate milk.

I'm not crying. Just trying to make the point that it doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean.

I know you weren't crying. It was just a bit of levity and I only meant that as it stands, the C:index is only a general indicator and since Caedes seems to be moving to a more statistically valid 20 vote system, the index will be more representative of overall communtiy opinion, but as you pointed out there is always going to be some sort of personal bias. ;0)