I know what c-index means, but I am unsure about how it is displayed. If I were to look at a picture and it said, "c-index: 66:100," does that mean that the image is rated at 66 out of 100?

"Larry, Lauren, Moe etc" --> Those are fractals that look good and i know take a lot of work...

...i was referring to other fractals (i wont name them)...however there is a reason i don't vote much: i simply dont like it for one, and i'm not very good at it.

Noah ... word to the wise.

Try and choose your words more carefully. That's all.

I got what you were saying ... but, even then its' a harsh indictment against those that are starting out ... in earnest to try ... try and aspire to the levels of the great fractalists on the site.

Vote low, but ... then take a piece of your own advice ... tell them what you like and what they could improve in your humble opinion.

p.s That last part was not intended as a sarcastic barb either.

Alright, I will share a little something ... my way of scoring in the booth.

Everyone starts at 5.

Yep.

Then, add in individual scores in my mind for interest, originality, technical proficiency and personal appeal. Worth one point on that latter aspect.

So, a 10 from me means ... IMHO ... it was superior in all respects and I liked it personally. That doesn't necessarily mean subject matter, as in I only give sunrises a 10. No.

If the image speaks that little bit more to me, it gets that one additional point. Not really quantifiable in any physical sense.

I have never, ever, ever ... given out a 0 or a 1 and I will go so far as to include 2 and I am being perfectly honest.

To those that are frustrated ... I say this ... I ... appreciate your efforts and talents. And I am not alone in this, I can assure you.

And no need to disect my approach below ... it is subjective ... but, I offer it as a way to rethink and I do agree that you can ... can find positive aspects rather than taking one big broad brush and painting a whole genre with it.

'K, I'm done. I think.

*checks*

Pretty sure, I'm done ... I'll get back to you on this.

I's in a writin' mood. :oP

I agree with Les (heaven help me.. lol) but thats how i do mine too .. I start at 5 and work around that.. i've never given anything under 3..

Lol.

Yes ... if you agree with me ... be very afraid. :oP

Gee i definately need a holiday.. i'm agreeing with Les... lol

"I got what you were saying ... but, even then its' a harsh indictment against those that are starting out ... in earnest to try ... try and aspire to the levels of the great fractalists on the site."

...people say to be honest, i didnt name any names. Nobody starts out being the best. A lot of the fractals are made by people starting out, nothing wrong with that, they will improve.

*edit*...that came out wrong...anyways...if sum1 told me i s**k at anything, i wouldnt mind, and then that owuld make me try harder....nobody on this site has done that yet. (feel free to bombared me with pm's about this, i need some encouragment).. :-)

But I'm not starting out new, I've had a lot of experience and would like to think I at least halfway know what I'm doing. For me to see my c-index ratings continually dropping when others continually tell me how much I'm improving is confusing to say the least. To be honestly it is totally depressing. I just think that those of us that work with fractals are continually shortchanged by pigheaded individuals that just blatantly state that "they hate fractals". Either give us the choice of selective voting or do away with the voting PERIOD!

Sorry for the change of subject, but it kind of has to do with ratings. Under the most active users page, how do they rate those, because some of them have karmas of "massive" but some of the people ahead of them have like 18. Im confused.

And about the previous subject, I think that us photograpers dont always know how much effort it takes to make a good fractal. And I really like fractals too! But if some of the other people on the site knew how much effort it took, then they might have a better appreciation for it. Then again, some people's tastes are just not meant for fractals. I like some of them, som I do not. It depends on the fractal.


Im just saying if there was a little more knowledge out there, there would be more answers.

Exactly! Try working with Apophysis yourself, and tell me then how easy it is to create a great image. Or any of the other various free fractal programs out there. If you can't do that then you have no right to vote low on fractals. I'm not targeting anyone specifically here. Just consider this as a challenge. I just got my first digital camera so I guess I can see firsthand how challenging it is to take a great photograph now, too.

I have spent literally hours on certain photographs until I am satisfied, to say nothing of the effort required to actually go out and get the shot. Sometimes they work and are received well, sometimes they don't and they sink into oblivion. Sometimes totally untouched shots do better. I will never have the skill or expertise that some of our very talented members have.
Same with fractals, but the effort I put in is never reflected in the results, and I never expect high ratings.
By the same token I do not expect people to vote in a miserable way because they 'don't like photos' or 'dont like fractals'
To look at an image and not to know if it pleases your eye or not seems very odd to say the least, whether or not you 'understand' it.
Noah, I think you are being very harsh with your comment about 3 times mutation button and then rendering. Maybe some of them look like that (very likely mine do) but it is a very broad statement and unfair on those who put a lot of effort into their work.
I think voting should be a priviledge, not a right, and certainly not a chore. I have learnt a lot from my time in the VB, by taking the time to really look at an image and begining to appreciate various aspects, be it a fractal or anything else.

QUOTE: .. photograpers dont always know how much effort it takes to make a good fractal

ANSWER .. it takes far MORE effort than that which is required to depress the shutter button on a camera set to P

Bow your head as the fractal artists walk by

Quote from Noah "Same thing with flower pics, flower pics for example are too frequent and i could go outside and take a pic of one."
OK, Noah off you go and see just how easy/difficult it is to get a worthwhile shot !! See if you can get a c-index in the 90's for a flower pic - its not THAT easy!! and even if you get one in the 80's dont assume it will be in the perms - many aren't. AND I do not feel good about your suggestion that it is as easy as you seem to think.

Keith - again a generalization - it takes talent to get a good shot by pressing the shutter with the camera set to P - not many have it - I dont - but a true artist with a gift for seeing a good capture where others would not, should not be denigrated for doing just that - its not just the effort required - it is the skill to deliver a shot of value that matters in the end.

I hope I know the effort required for both genres = fractals, photos or whatever. I know I have put in the hours on both and to be classed as one or the other and perceived not to understand the effort required for the one less uploaded is slightly upsetting.

And I DO bow my head as the factalists walk by - thats why I take the time to vote and comment. Same with photographers - both the experts and the starter-offers.

Just for the record I have just got home from my office end of year party so you are all lucky I did not spout forth in greater length lol :)
Goodnight.

ps - you should all be glad it is not a matter of 3x
mutation and render - it were that easy you would be inundated with apop atrocities from me - consider that and be very afraid. In fact I have a folder ull of failures I may just unleash upon you to taunt and terrify you in the VB. That would make my flower pictures (which I happen to LIKE, and take seriously, (and its your bad luck if you "hate" flowers) seem like a treat)

ANSWER .. it takes far MORE effort than that which is required to depress the shutter button on a camera set to P
Yeah...
Always knew that photography was SUCH an easy thing! I mean, things are just out there aren't they - all you have to do is get off your .... and there they are - people, landscapes, abstract natural designs - I mean, I don't know why everyone doesn't make a huge living out of doing something so simple? Strange isn't it?
I bow my head a lot - but usually it is to my surroundings... and those rare artists who produce the perfect picture.

oh dear .. I forgot the obligatory smiley again in my rush to be glib

yes .. I understand the challenges of photography .. I used to consider myself a photographer

Once a photographer... always...

Keith, Just send Noah out to get a decent flower pic and you are forgiven the obligatory smile.
See- I can post short messages sometimes.

I do have a favourite fractal-man! Trouble is, he doesn't get many visits (perhaps because his images are not 1600:1200) - and the weird thing is, when you put his user number in as a search, nothing is shown.
I'd be really interested to know if my feeling that he is a 'different' fractal maker is true, or is it that I see the 'photograph' in his images.
His number is 24167170 and name is Steve.
Maybe I'm just a jinx to his work - hope not.

OK...I'll join this discussion for a bit (no doubt, Caedes moderators will be thrilled.
<G>)
I have literally spent hours moving dots and triangles and changing formulas and color gradients, etc. with Apophysis. I have NEVER used the mutation button to create an Apo flame that I've posted here (in fact, I find it to be a useless tool in general), and I know that the vast majority of fractal artists here likewise put a great deal of time and effort into crafting the flames they post here.

I've also spent considerable time constructing fractals with programs like Ultra Fractal and TieraZon (among others), and know that others have too, and I'm sorry to see that non-Apophysis fractals seem to receive even LESS respect here than Apophysis fractals.

Bottom line...my personal liking or disliking is NOT my major consideration in deciding what score to assign to images here, nor are fancied stereotypes regarding the amount of effort/time someone puts into an image, whether it be a fractal or a photo. Whether an image takes ten minutes or five hours, its quality is determined by other factors, IMO, though most quality images take a while to compose.

Granted, personal taste will be a factor in all of our votes to some degree but, when I rate images here I do my best to assess image quality apart from my own likes and dislikes. For example, I, PERSONALLY, am really not into flower photos. Nonetheless, I can quite easily recognize a well composed and well captured photo of flowers and I cannot imagine punishing photographers/artists with a low score on such images simply because I, personally, am not that fond of flower pictures.

That said, I think the problem goes beyond the handful of people who rate images unfairly low for whatever reason, though that IS one problem here. I doubt very much that very many people literally rate images in the 0, 1, 2 or even 3 range on a regular basis. However, my understanding is (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong) that votes are adjusted by statistical formulas to make votes on all images fit into a normal standard distribution curve. So, if you tend to vote RELATIVELY high (7, 8 or 9) on photos and RELATIVELY low on fractals (4, 5 or 6), those votes will be ADJUSTED so that the scores you give images overall span from 0 to 10 statistically. Granted, that is an oversimplification, but my understanding is that scores are not simply AVERAGED but, rather, WEIGHTED and then averaged to get scores on all images to span the distribution. If that be the case (again, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong and explain how averages here are calculated), then your RELATIVELY low score on a fractal or a flower photo may be weighted to yield and even LOWER rating statistically. Likewise, HIGH scores would be weighted as well, so that your 9 or 10 score might be reduced - - DEPENDING upon your overall PATTERN of voting.

Such statistical manipulation of scores is not, in itself, good or bad. The question is, does it yield results that accurately reflects the relative quality of images here? I, personally, have significant doubts that it does. But, putting my doubts aside, such statistical manipulation may prompt people to blame other voters for very low ratings that may actually be at least partly the product of statistical manipulation.

I see anger and frustration in the above comments and I, too, feel it in relation to how images are "rated" here. In fact, I hesitate voting because it bothers me that my votes may be adjusted in a way that doesn't accurately reflect how I view an image. Bottom line, I think member votes should be taken at face value and not manipulated statistically. Wen

How can I CHOOSE not to vote???

Dont upload any pics :)!

Ah well, goes without saying - but some who have expressed this preference, DO upload - so how?....

If you are a member of the Caedes Cadre, you do not have to vote. Wen

I DID wonder, not receiving any reminders to do so.
Perhaps this is the biggest mistake?
Those choosing to be members of the Caedes Cadre, probably have more commitment to 'quality' than a temporary visitor? Is this why some images are not (in my opinion) getting the recognition they deserve? Perhaps some people, who couldn't give a ... - are just ploughing through voting in order to upload??
OK This might seem inflammatory - but could be true nonetheless?

*cough*

Could we just settle on their are errors in the voting sytem, and if it will change it will take some time, and when caedes works on the selective voting then he will get a bunch of headaches just so we can see a change in c-index score (so it makes you feel better b/c you got a higher score)...(that's basicaly what it is). The c-index is just a number (like age!).

If you really care about how good your image is, just work on your art a bit more. I think we are getting too caught up with this matter. (i've just realized it) *ducks*

Oh btw, i just woke up, so i'm not in the bestest of moods. ;-)

Oh btw, i just woke up, so i'm not in the bestest of moods. ;-)

Really? I didn't notice the difference!

edit* --> oh yes, i got in the 'just had to say something - you're-wrong' mood yesterday...or something like that....ermm, yeah.

Noah, I really don't care that you just woke up & might not be in the " bestest of moods". Neither am I since one of my images got a 12.

Don't beat yourself over it when you know it deserves more...other ppl will also notice the error.

Well I doubt it will change.. the c-index is a waste of time getting all hot and bothered about its been said over and over again and the result is always the same.. people get upset, angry etc to the point it gets blasted with the elephant gun.... there are more things in this life to get pissed off at than the 'C'... (yes I said the "P" word =P ) and as I have said over and over again.. when you first came onto this site and posted your very first few images did you come on here to get the highest c-index or the best number of votes??? or did you come on here because you loved doing art and wanted to share it, make friends with other talented artists, learn new ideas, get tips and help??? I know I came on here to learn and share my work.. because I enjoy doing what I do.. I'm not here for figure.. i'm not here for the number of votes, i put my work here to share, learn and help other new artists... guess i must be the only one on this site who couldnt give a damn if an image is under 20 or isnt in the 80's or 90's.. maybe just maybe you should sit back and think about why you became a member on here in the first place.... (funny how nobody ever answers that question...)

Now talking about sitting back... 4 hours and thats exactly what i'll be doing...

Happy holidays... now stop all this fighting over the damn c-index & voting and enjoy Christmas..

Well said Jacqueline. :c)

Thank you Piner good to see at least one other person on here has a brain.. ;)

Do I get credit for refraining from joining the fray? 8•P

We all have brains - problem is some dont use them.

And I had my office party last night so I'm 'not in the bestest of moods' either

In fact I think I may go off and shoot a flower or two.

I may meet Noah along the way

Probably not though lol


Jacqueline - you are not the only one here "who couldnt give a damn if an image is under 20 or isnt in the 80's or 90's.." and really I think the question of why people joined in the first place IS answered when it is stated how much has been learned, appreciation for help and inspiration etc. I know I have said it many times. Perhaps no one reads it.
Maybe I am not really here at all. I do feel a bit invisible today.

Well that was an interesting 24 hours. Now that that is out of the way, i think we need to do something about the c-index. *ducks, yet again* (i'm joking)

*Points the loaded elephant gun in Noah's direction*

In the end, what does it really matter what score you get on an image, or even if it gets promoted to the permenant galleries or not... sure it's a nice feeling when it happens, but it's not very important... surely this is just a hobby, something for fun... we need to stop getting bruised egos and realise it's just a number which is largely decided by people we don't know and will probably never communicate with. It's not a contest...

I've changed my mind - I could give a damn - my Skyscape just got a 50 and its worth more than that :)
But my ego is intact, and I agree its not a contest, just as well because I have never won one and am unlikely to.
When being here stops being fun then I will no longer be here.
Now I am going to look after my self inflicted sore head which is more important than the c-index. If it had one it would be a 5 or thereabouts. Sympathy please.

Bye

Ok on another matter that is related to this thread where i said: "Same thing with flower pics, flower pics for example are too frequent and i could go outside and take a pic of one."

Alright, so guess who won the artist spotlight? ...you can read my comment on it. ;-)

agree with you there Sam..

Its still dissapointing to get a low rating. And its not just fractalists. One of my photos was given a rating of 8. And it wasnt because it was new. There were 19 people that voted on it. It was just to share, and I thought it was an interesting photo. If 19 people voted on it and it got a rating of 8 does that mean that I got 1s and 0s? Was my image that bad?? If you figure 10 out of 100 is a rating of one, minus the other part of the voting system that I don't really understand, then I didn't even recieve all 1s. I recieved less than that.

You cant check it now, because I took it off of the site. It was on ok shot, and I realize I am a beginner, but an 8??? I was too embarassed to keep it up any longer.

You cant say that the rating doesnt matter, because it does. It is eithor the reflection of the viewer's liking, or an accident that the number was hit, but that doesn't happen 19 times. The point is that the ratings do affect people, and its to everyone.

Well it doesn't matter to me any more... I guess I've developed an immunity.

We've come full circle. Who's in for another ride?

Re-post the image and say what you expected the score to be? Ask why ppl voted low, and you might get a reason why.

"Re-post the image and say what you expected the score to be? Ask why ppl voted low, and you might get a reason why"

This is all part of the issue.
If you get a c-index of, say 30, it is obvious that the picture/image was not generally well received. If, when this happens the comments received are all favourable, it becomes confusing. The people who voted low should at least have the decency to leave a comment suggesting improvements or giving a reason for their not liking it. And I say that with some guilt because I do not always do that myself.
A grading of 1-10 leaves room for confusion and I sometimes wonder if A B C or D would be a better way to go.
A for outstanding (and there are many that have that elusive x-factor, sometimes they are not technically excellent but they TELL you something).
B for pretty good,
C for average,
and D for why did they bother uploading it.
(and one persons D could easily be anothers A, depending on what they 'like' and understand, and whether or not they took the time to try and appreciate the significance and value of the picture)

As I have received no sympathy for my sore head I am going to bed.

Sleep well Lyn...your headache will go away soon ;=)

Wait...but the ppl who comment on your images are usually your friends, and b/c they say nice things, other ppl arnt going to say "why not do..." etc etc. The voters who vote low are most likely newer ppl or dont take voting as seriously as some so they just want to get that over with.

The request for comment forum would let you know WHY your image recieved a low score.

And now that i made your headache worse: go to bed. *goes back to fiddling with terragen 2*

I DO use the request for comment forum for that very reason, and have learnt much from there.
Yes, the majority of my comments are from 'friends' but not all. by any means. Just as I comment on friends' pictures but also make the effort to comment on other pictures (doesnt everyone ? maybe not)
I do not agree that friends always say nice things only.They can say very "un nice" things in a very nice way, that is why they are friends.
In my opinion the request for comment forum is not used nearly enough. I intend to utilize it further, it is a great help, and I appreciate those with knowledge and expertise who take the time to respond. The danger is being seen as a 'moaner' when in fact it is a desire to understand the reasons , and an effort to improve.
What I do agree with in what you say. is that some people just want to get their voting over with, and as I have stated before, I think if it were a priviledge rather than a requirement to vote then it would be used in a more responsible and thoughtful manner.

Ooohh my head :(

Your poor head Lyn ......voting was a privilege at one time and it was abused and in an ugly way. That is why it is a requirement. It was done that way by request of quite a few members on this site so that the abuse would be curtailed. I hope this helps and certainly hope your head feels better soon as well ;=)

I think most people tend to comment when they like an image, and probably don't bother when they don't like one, they just move on to the next one. So it would be normal that you would end up with many more positive comments than negative ones, does that make sense?

Yes :)

Shhhh! Quiet applause for Lyn... :-O
Chinese Proverb: Philosophy Quotes
The miracle is not to fly in the air, or to walk on the water; but to walk on the earth.

kate,
perhaps a little bit of introspection on your part might be a good thing right about now. why exactly are you here,and what, do you suppose, is really at the heart of the comments you make? there's drama to be had in countless other places, most of them in the world of online chat. perhaps that might be a more appropriate outlet for what you have to share.

First, tomorrow is Christmas Eve... let me pause to wish everyone here on Caedes.net a wondrous Christmas and an equally wondrous 2007! ......Secondly, a special thanks to Caedes and those who give of their time and energy to administrate and maintain this site . . . and last, but not least, I salute the artists who share their superb work here. Thank you for sharing the fruits of your artistic endeavors!

As for the topic of this thread, by DEFINITION, "...the c-index is a number between zero and 100 that aims to give a rough idea of the quality of an image. The primary use of the c-index is to enable users to sort galleries in order to bring the best images to the top......"

To suggest that people who receive c-indexes of 30 or less shouldn't let it bother them is to ignore the fact that the c-index is supposed to be a reflection of image quality. If such is not the case, then there seems to be no real rhyme nor reason to bother calculating the index, let alone posting it on every image page, let alone allowing people to sort images based on c-index scores.

Two artists have voiced dismay over c-indexes of 14 and 8 respectively. *14* and *8*. Think about that....Of course it bugs people to receive what's equivalent to a failing grade on their images. I don't think this is simply about "ego," as some suggest. It's about having a rating assigned to an image that says that people who looked at it basically thought it stunk, and this comes from people that supposedly are artistically inclined with a relatively decent sense of artistic quality.

In addition, the variation between the flavor of comments left on image pages and the relatively low c-scores on a number of the same images IS indeed often extreme. Why do people find it so surprising that people are confused by the gap between the two?
If ten people whom I respect as artists leave a big thumbs up on one of my images, and NO ONE leaves any negative comments, I would not expect to see a c-index in the 20s 30s or even 40s, yet, when it comes to fractals, such a variation is quite common, and it does trigger frustration in artists who are looking for reliable external feedback on their work.

While some here have responded to the above "issues" with the claim that, "it's not going to change, so get over it," I would have to say, just because it may not change, doesn't mean that people will not continue to find it a point of contention here. When people spend considerable time composing images and take the time to share work they consider to have artistic merit, of course they are bothered by c-indexes which would seem more fitting for a first grade finger painting. People here take their work seriously and are offended when others do not show enough respect to do the same.

But, points of contention aside, this site rocks in soooooo many ways, and I look forward to seeing the creative works of a very talented group of artists here in the coming year!
Wen

Just discovered this discussion...
Mmmhhh... if my calculations are good, this is the 103th forum on the same subject :-/
Same requests, same arguments...
I will search for a more original forum!
You are freely invited on a very high quality website. Why not enjoy it such as it is?
c-index is not what you hope? And then!!!
Think about people in Africa, or elsewhere, who can't buy an internet access.......

pierre..you forgot to remind them not to let the door hit them in the butt on the way out:P

"I know what c-index means, but I am unsure about how it is displayed. If I were to look at a picture and it said, "c-index: 66:100," does that mean that the image is rated at 66 out of 100? "
The original genuine question seems to have become lost in this discussion. I am not sure when a discussion turns into an argument, but I have no wish to argue, and was not aware I was doing that. Discussion is good, whether for the 3rd, 103rd or 1003rd time.
Discussion is the only way to peace, whether it be here, or on a world scale. Discussion here will not buy internet access for those in Africa, but anything that leads to better understanding of one's own thoughts, hurts or worries is not bad, if respect is maintained and a willingness to see the points of view of others.

"You are freely invited on a very high quality website. Why not enjoy it such as it is?"

I believe most here do enjoy this fantastic website and looking around, I have seen many comments saying just that.
To be part of a community where there is the freedom to express viewpoints and ideas is a priviledge many do not even have in their own lives . That is far more worrisome than having no internet access. Far more important than a number on a c-index, and we should all be grateful we have the freedom to do so, without fear of ridicule.

Peace everyone - this is the season of peace and goodwill. :)

Hi Lyn
Perhaps this will explain it - as I see it anyway.
If ... in the top level photography gallery, ie not the new images gallery ... 66 people out of 100 got a mark of 66, then your adjusted score would be 66. However if over that amount got a mark of 66, then the 'weighted' score would be less, say only 63. However if only 1 person got a mark higher than 66, then your weighted score would be something like 95 - hugely different to your straight average of voting scores.
Most distributions of scores are normal - say 95% of people get between 45 and 70. It is those scores over this which are at the top and the weighted score would reflect this.

There is nothing wrong with the c-index or any thing like that. Making people to vote for images in order to post any. Thats a good idea. But the concept has to be a bit modified. Like it was mentioned before also there should be a catergory to choose. I dont wanna vote of some stuff but im forced to. So I dont enjoy doing it and mite pass asap. Thats wrong.

its good to know you can go away for a month and come back to find the boards full of refreshing and original lively debate from when you left :-)

Yes, it's like a dead fish. The smell lingers for years.

Mmmmm.... fish.... *drools*

I do NOT smell :)

I'm gonna guess her last name is Fish... LOL

I'm not dead either.
"Lively debate" about the wonders of fig newtons can be had in another thread.
:) :) :)

I have seen on another site voting related directly to the comment left against the image. At first I thought this was a good idea, since it concentrates the mind wonderfully prior to voting, BUT what seems to happen is that only comments are left when the vote left is a high one. No comments are left when someone does not want to vote on an image (presumably don't like it etc). So you get a load of 8-10 votes plus comments and none elsewhere. A failure there as well!
I still reckon voting should be a privilege not a chore! Those who have to vote before uploading will inevitably feel it a pain, because of dowloading etc. I choose to go in and vote - its a good way to see different random images and scrutinise them well. I often go in and make comments afterwards (though I've noticed too many who don't acknowledge that fact, even if you've asked a further question).
To archive or not on the basis of c-index scores is, I think, not right. I do feel that decision should be taken not knowing the c-index - which after all is the random (perhaps ill-judged or to the artist (personal)) view of the voter.

Kate, it has been stated many times before, archiving images is not based on the c-index.

OK.

The C-index is as important as you make it out to be. I can honestly say that, to quote the most cliche cliche, - Frankly, I don't give a damn. I have multiple images that have a C-index of 15 and below. I also have a few that's in the high 70-90 category.

Does it mean that those with a lower C-index are worse images? No. Does it mean those with high C-index are great images? No. The whole point of the site is to share your artistic vision and creation... it's not a place to come post your latest work, wait for the scores to come in and expect a pat on the head.

Let's recap a few facts:
Does the C-index influence which images get archived - Nope
Does it govern which images goes to the perms - Not really
Does it mean that you are a bad/great artist - Nope
Does it give an accurate rating of your images - Definitely not

Stop worrying about the C-index. It truly doesn't mean much. Focus on your works and know that even if you have a C-index of 0 that you expressed yourself and shared your vision with others. Base the value of the work on the comments you received... the people who are willing to spend the time to comment are those that mean someting.

ok, i suppose here's where a truly dumb question comes into play. if the c-index is so meaningless, why does it exist? if it's not a gauge of quality, nor a yardstick by which to measure acceptability into the permanent galleries, what true purpose does it actually serve? what would happen if (gasp) no voting took place at all? what about just making the site about comments, suggestions, critiques etc?

nah...makes too much sense..it'll never fly..

ps- it would be nice if just this once the people who agree with me in private actually came out and said as much..instead of doing the 'one-step-back' ala bugs bunny, foreign legion,etc..

The c-index is useful as a guide for people to quickly be able to find the most popular images. Personally I don't think it's "meaningless" but it's also true that people place way too much focus on it. The attitude seems to be "I don't like my score so the system needs to be changed to make my score higher". This is a pretty nonsensical attitude if you ask me. I think if you sort any gallery by c-index the images that are at the top of the list are always stand out images, and the ones at the bottom usually aren't too crash hot so it must be working to some degree. But then again just because something isn't popular doesn't mean it isn't "good", I think that's the point Crusader and others are trying to make.

There are other sites (such as devaintart) where there is no voting system. Caedes has always had one and IMO it's an integral part of the site. I strongly doubt it will ever be removed.

In space .. nobody can hear you vote

what is the sound of one hand voting

if a vote fell in the forest and nobody was there to see it .. did it affect the index

if little johnny jumps off the voting booth, does that mean YOU have to do it too


.:*~*:.@.:*~*:..:*~*:.@.:*~*:..:*~*:.@.:*~*:..:*~*:.@.:*~*:..:*~*:.@.:*~*:.


the c-index exists so that "visitors" to the site can find the "better" images faster. It also was intended to provide the artist with some feedback ... the method of arriving at the c-index number has changed at least 3 times in an overt way .. and possibly more behind the scenes

personally, I think my head would explode if there wasn't a means of ranking images ... and NOT because I want to compare my scores with those of others .. I NEVER have .. the score to me is a means of determining how successfully I achieved the goal of satisfying those that actually WANT that type of image ... a c-index of 50 tells me only half were satisfied with it ... but .. half of those voting didn't want it in the first place .. and DINGED it out of spite (in some cases, yes)

in the past .. voting took place right on the image page .. it was likely that only people drawn to the image would vote on it .. plus the friends and family factor ... scores were easily in the 70-90 .... and ... even with the favorable circumstances of the voting method .. people conspired to RIG it even more .. (yes, sad, but true)

While it's possible the site might go backwards .. I doubt it ... there has been mention that *caedes was considering splitting the voting booth photos\computer ... whether he still feels this way is anybody's guess ... but I think an attempt to continue with the current method via a nudge here and there is more likely than changing horses midstream again

just think of the threads that get started after that ... "I saw johnny sneaking into our booth"

But... but... but... If the c-index has no real purpose and doesnt show the true value of an image how can those images be classed as "more popular" in the gallery? there are some great pieces of work with low ratings.. why cant the popularity contest be chosen by the number of views and downloads instead of the voting.. that would stop all the back stabbing and whining about voting...

I know some members enjoy looking at the images that come through the VB and that they see images that they havent seen before.. but they can do that by actually going into the new images gallery and browsing through it themselves..

two words... "captive audience" for the vast majority of caedesians, voting is obligatory in order to post an image. at least, that would be my guess...

Basically it comes down to one thing. Caedes wants a voting system and it's his site. If it were my site, I'd do what I wanted on it too.

i sort of wondered how long that angle was going to take to get trotted out..

Well, if people will insist on beating this dead horse...

*smacks Phil for raising this thread from 1/2dead*

ahhh...but I am glad that we are still talking about this!

Only because - I am new. I take my voting very seriously. I take my Comment Request's very seriously. I am honest in my feedback. I vote on things I don't enjoy as much as the genre I am most involved in, and I vote on how the piece touches me.

...and the c- index is extremely important to me. It is also breaking my heart.

Terri, a word to the wise, even though I have a hard time heeding it sometimes.....Given that most agree that the c-index does not provide a reliable index of image quality, do yourself a favor and don't allow it to "break your heart." I've watched sadly as a number of people that I consider good artists have opted to leave Caedes because they got tired of having their images regularly trounced on with ridiculously low c-index ratings. I too have considered leaving because it's just not very satisfying to take the time to share images that are clearly not well received in the voting booth. But, then, I've thought about it and, IN PRINCIPLE, have resolved that I won't allow such a truely meaningless statistic to drive me off this site. If I leave, it will be for other reasons, though I agree with Jacqueline that there are better ways to gauge the quality of images here. As Sam has pointed out, Caedes wants a voting system and it's his site, no matter what any of us have to say about it.....Wen

Thanks, Wen, for the encouraging words.
I forgot to add the good part of having the c-index: it makes me want to be better and better...and I have already learned a great deal from reviewing works from those who do get high marks.
And wow! I had no idea that Caedes was a real person! The things you discover on the boards...
;)t

Here's an idea pick out a number you can live with on the C-Index scale lets say 60,once you do that delete all your images below 60 and bam you now have a C-Index rating you like.That is if the numbers are the bottom line for you.

I think you've hit your head;-)

How about this as an alternative?

+bob, Many of us would have few images left if we deleted those under 60. I have had occassional purges and coincidentaly on a couple of occassions have receive comments on a 'to be deleted image' at the last moment which convinces me to leave it be, as someone is obviously getting pleasure from it.
Many of my permed images are in the 60's and one is 57 which is a nice reminder that it is not only the 70s and 80s and above which are considered. However I DO understand the disappointment when an image particuarly liked and in the 80's is overlooked, especially is it is a personal favourite I had high hopes for. Terri, don't let it break your heart. Mine would be as dead as the aforementioned smelly fish and dead horse if I did :)

I think I need to explain my "meaningless" comment a bit more. The quality of the C-index score is only as good as the quality of the voting. Unfortunately the first C-index system worked for a while and then people started manipulating it to boost their scores. The new system was implemented to compensate for that, but now people are starting "elitist" voting, purposely voting low on genres they don't like. The fact that people have to vote on images before they can upload also comes into play, since I'm sure there are quite a amount of people that are randomly selecting a number just to get the voting "over and done with".

Do I think the problem is with the C-index system? No. The problem is with the members and the way they vote. Until everyone realizes that the quality of the C-index score is only a good measure when they give well considered, honest and unbiased (both about genre, style, fit as desktop etc) votes, the C-index rating will remain a problem regardless of what Caedes does.

Very well stated KJ. Thank you.

Crusader wrote: "Do I think the problem is with the C-index system? No. The problem is with the members and the way they vote....."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I must respectfully disagree, KJ. Blaming the voters for a clearly unreliable index of image quality isn't gonna solve the discord related to the c-index. I don't know how the index is currently calculated (I would like to know), but I'm not convinced that the problem is reducible to "the members and the way they vote." WEN>

The way people vote is based on their knowledge, their skill, their ignorance, their time, their attitude, their generosity, their meanness, their interest in a particular type of image, and also their mood. It is still interesting that (in my opinion, warped though it may be) there are no 'bad' images in the upper echelons but there are 'good' images in the lower ranks.
I have already stated how I vote here How I Vote. I guess everyone has their own way of doing it. Most of us are not experts, and never will be and I believe that most of us just do as best we can. The suggestion of low voting on genres we do not care for I find sad and upsetting, but human nature being what it is, I dont think anything will change that.

The reason the way the c-index is calculated is not common knowledge is to try to prevent as much as possible vote cheating/manipulating which is the reason it had to be changed in the first place.

Wenpeder: " I don't know how the index is currently calculated (I would like to know), but I'm not convinced that the problem is reducible to "the members and the way they vote."

You are entitled to your opinion, but I definitely think that is where the real problem is. Let me start off with saying that I'm not aware the specific formula used to calculate the C-index. Only Caedes knows that, and as Samatar said, it will most likely not be made public because people might try to manipulate things again.

That being said let's take a little example:
5 voters vote on an image 2 votesr doesn't like the genre or is in a hurry and just chooses a random number):
7,6,8,3,2 = 26/50 = 52/100

Same image, except last 2 votes changed to be on par with ratings:
7,6,8,6,6 = 33/50 = 66/100

Now those calculations are assuming that the total score is just divided by the total number of votes ( x10). Of couse this is not the real way the C-index is calculated. I use it to illustrate how just two low votes can dramatically change the outcome. So, most definitely it is how the users vote that affect the outcome of the C-index.

Now take into account that most images with a C-index have around 14 votes (in my gallery at least) then it becomes clear that one or two votes can dramatically change the outcome.

Of course, given time and more and more votes, the C-index will become much more representative of the real rating the image should have.

LynEve I was just making a joke.
I have been coming here a very long time and to be honest Caedes is and pretty much always has been one of the few sites around that has always tried to make the users happy.Yet all people do is constantly complain about being treated unfairly.
People were complaining about members padding the vote so it would look like an image or images was better than it was,now people constantly think a conspiracy is in the air if an image gets a low vote.I'm telling everyone its not the system,its never been the system.The main problem is with the C-Index isn't the voters its the people receiving the votes.
The way I look at it is if you are posting stuff and all along you are getting a index value that you consider decent then the next image you post get a low value I would think that maybe that image might need
improvement.Now on the other hand if the majority of the stuff I posted never got a very high index value that would lead me to believe I might need to improve
in order to get a higher value.
The thing I don't understand is why the C-Index works for some people and not others,for instance the Fractal VS Photography argument.It has been said that fractals always get low values based on the fact that people don't understand them or like them.I have posted fractals on here that do very well,and some don't do very well at all.
If you are an artist that always gets low values rather than blame the "flawed" system why not work together with other artists and try to build a better image?
I don't thing there is a conspiracy to vote low on stuff,sure there is probably some bad apples in the bunch but over all I think people vote pretty honest here.The problem with that pesky thing called freewill is people have a tendency to do what they want.

I like having the VB because it forces me to look at images I might not have considered looking at because I wasn't aware of them. I could go to the new image page, but that would be a less random way of doing it and I would probably only look at the ones with thumbnail appeal and miss a genuinely fine image. As long as people have different tastes, an image will rub them one way or the other and that can't be altered. Overall though, after twenty votes, which I believe is the ultimate goal, the index will be more statistically accurate and the index will reflect more closely what the content of the image deserves. I don't think it is that hard to pick out a genuinely excellent post (fractal or otherwise) and I'm glad to see that they show up in the perms regardless of their index. I'd say if you get anything around a 50 index, be happy and just keep trying to improve your skills. You'll never please everyone obviously, but in general you'll get an idea of what is visually appealing to others. And the c-index is just a 'general' indicator. This is art, which has certain standards for what may constitute the best way to proceed with an art form, but the final appeal is subjective. It isn't quantum physics.

Insofar as the c-index provides me with feedback, it is a source of despair rather than anything else. It mostly suggests I should give up. The primary reason for this is not that I think my work is good and the c-index wrong, but that simply knowing an image needs improvement is uninformative unless one knows how it needs to be improved.

I think that maybe for some people, a low c-index can be informative. Maybe people can compare it with their other images etc. But I haven't found a good way of interpreting the scores I get because (1) in absolute terms, I'm not sure where to go/what to work on next/etc. and (2) in relative terms, I frequently fail to see why image A is rated better than image B when I think it should be the other way around.

This is not to say that I expect the site to provide some sort of tuition to would-be desktop-makers. I don't. I just think that the c-index is not a good form of feedback. If it serves other useful purposes, fine. Keep it. Just don't pretend that it provides useful feedback in general, although it may provide such feedback for some people.

One reason I'm fairly confident about this is because I see what other people's images score. At least where fractals are concerned, there are some extremely odd results.

Fractals obviously do statistically score lower than photographs, say. There could be all kinds of reasons for this. The average photograph might be better. The average voter might like photographs more as a genre etc. What really undermines the purpose of the c-index for me is that it doesn't seem to score images anything like sensibly (and I know this may just be my view of it) within a category either. At least, not within the fractal category.

I don't know if this makes sense or not, but the claim that it is a "'general' indicator" begs the question: a general indicator of what? and is that thing useful?

Yes, my images score low so maybe I am blaming the system, but I'm not claiming my images should score higher. Very likely they should not. But I think I can compare my images relative to each other and say the c-index doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it is providing invaluable feedback which I don't know how to interpret. Maybe not. Also, I think I can claim that it doesn't seem to work in the case of many of the fractal artists whose work should stand out on this site but which often earns dreadful scores in the voting booth. When I see the ratings on some people's images, I really know it is hopeless, and I think that does indicate a problem: the c-index is deeply misleading and therefore potentially counter-productive.

I am not saying it is worse in the case of fractals, but those are the images I generally look at and I have some knowledge of the c-index situation in that domain.

- cfr

this can be summed up by a quote from"Men in Black":

"now..a person can be smart, wise, or whatever. but people...people are stupid"

Why give up?Because you have a low C-Index value?
margali maybe you could find another artist you admire or just and image that "you" think is good and ask that artist some questions on the how's and whys of what they did.As far as why image A is rated better than image B who knows, some things there are no answers to but im sure this hapens to allot of people.The main reason the C-Index doesn't seem to score images anything like sensibly is because its based on personal opinion.
The way I look at it is if the only reason you are making "ART" is to please other people then yes you are going to be disappointed 99% of the time.Lets face it beauty is in the eye of the beholder.So my whole point in my post above was if you are a C-Index junky then you need to give the voters what they want in order to get their approval.But if you like making images for the enjoyment of making images then why would you be willing to give up something you truly enjoy just because "Joe Blow" didn't like it?I for one am not willing to do so.

Margali.. this site is a wonderful place to learn and improve.. all you have to do is ask any of the fractalists and they will always help with tips, suggestions, show you how to improve etc... personally I dont take any notice of what the c-index rates never have done, I couldnt even tell you what mine have, I go off the number of views, downloads and some times comments.. If your really serious in wanting real feedback do what I did, I emailed 5 images to the local art centre and asked them for their professional opinion, they were very helpful and very critical (which is what I wanted), If you cant do that.. take some to local stores or markets and have ago at selling them... that too will give you an unbiased critic..

I want to ask you the same question I have asked everyone who talks about the dreaded "C" word... when you came to Caedes and posted your first images did you come on here knowing about the C-index? is this why you posted your images to get a high score?.. I dont think you did, you would be like everyone who first came to Caedes, to share your art, your creativity, to learn, to improve... am I right? I think that people should sometimes take a step back and remember why they came on here in the first place, and think about how much they have improved and learned from here..
I think too that all this focus on numbers and who has a higher rating than whoever is taking away from what this site is all about ART, CREATIVITY, QUALITY and SHARING...

*ok i'll stop now and get off my soap box.. (waits for the backlashings)

To me the C index is meaningless. I'm more concerned with-

The number of views/downloads.

so if there are say 77 views and 60 downloads, then I'm happy.

Just my opinion anyway.

Michael.

Yeahhhh someone who thinks like me... =DDDD

know what's weird? some of my highest ranking images have the lowest views to downloads ratios...go figure..

If you wanted a high views to downloads ratio you could upload something with really small text in it so everyone has to view it full size in order to read it... :-P

The main thing I don't like about that ratio is that many people beleive "download" means someone actually saved the image onto their harddrive, rather than just clicked to view it full size.

My point is not that I am about to give up, but that *insofar as the c-index provides feedback or a general indication of the quality of an image or whatever* as is frequently claimed in its defence, that is the feedback it gives me. Since I'm far from convinced the c-index does any such thing, it is scarcely a source of despair. I find it a bit depressing sometimes since it is after all presented as if it were such feedback, but if I were to take it seriously in my case, I should take it seriously in general. But that would require me to reject many excellent images created by others as examples of relatively low quality when they are clearly of relatively high quality. But that would be absurd.

Fortunately, it is possible to get other forms of feedback - even if you are not in the sending/selling leagues - or to ignore the whole thing.

But, yes, it annoys me. It annoys me that I have to contribute to misleading statistics by voting. People are far too easily convinced by statistics and know far too little about what it takes to understand them. (Indeed, any statistic not calculated according to a transparent formula is at least seriously questionable. It might serve a useful purpose in administering the site, but I doubt it can provide meaningful information - no more than knowing the "average" does unless one knows whether it is mean, mode, median, etc.) Anything that encourages even greater reliance on numbers without also encouraging some understanding of what they mean is, in my view, pernicious.

This site thus has much in common with politicians, the press, pressure groups, lobbyists etc. etc. It is just that I'm contributing to it in this case. And yes, I realise this is over something absolutely trivial, but it contributes to the culture of innumeracy and is thus harmful in at least a small way.

- cfr