i was looking on the image rankings, and saw that the top two images were my images "axiom" and "articulation"... if you ask me, i don't think they are worthy of being the top indexed two on the site.. does anyone agree?

i (along with many other people here) dont agree with the way the cindex system works. But its not an easy fix. read more here

Well Andy, I certainly think they are as nice as any images on this site, but the story with the new formula really lies in the weight of the downloads/views ratio. Both of your images are well rated (from voting), probably in several favorites galleries, and have a very high downloads/views ratio by recent standards. That mix adds up to a high c-index, as it should.

I think the more out of place images are ones like (The Original Skyscraper) which somehow has an un-heard of downloads/views ratio of 1203/1374. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a wonderful image. I just wonder how it came to have such a ratio that more recent posts would never have. I can only guess that viewing/downloading habits used to be different, since that image has been around a long time. Then again, other old images don't have such a high ratio. Recent images, though, suffer from a declining ratio, particularly when they are top images (sorry to repeat part of a post from another forum). I have an image (Lakeside Splendor), for example. It was previously a 99, but it has more than 1200 views and fewer than 400 downloads. Therefore, even though (Lakeside Splendor) has a raw voting average of 94 and (The Original Skyscraper) has a voting average of 84, the latter has a c-index of 94 while for mine it is only 90.

The new formula really didn't change around the order of most images, it just sort of shifted everything. That's not really true for the images that used to be 99's though. They have pretty much been shuffled from head to toe. The silver lining to that, however, is I think everyone on the site realizes that everything from the mid 80s on up now is a top-quality image and the various c-indexes in that range just sort of seem like they're picked from a hat. Certainly all of the images with top c-indexes now would have been 99s under the old formula and are rightfully some of the best images on the site. I wouldn't sweat the order too much :)

Depends entirely on taste. Any system that involves ranking what is best and worst is going to be highly subjective. If we got all the site members to rank their favorite films, for example, you can be sure that many of us would disagree with the ones that were ranked on top/bottom etc. Personally I feel that photography seems to be underratted at the moment; as someone pointed out a few days ago, all the Top New Images were CG. But as with anything, you should only pay so much attention to what is most popular. Only the individual can decide what is appealling to them; the majority can't decide for them.

Samatar, that's not true at all. I just went through the top page of images by c-index, it's majority photography, there are very few works that don't use photography, and out of them it's mostly fractals. as for the true computer works, many of them are overrated, it seems the people who come to Caedes are mostly clueless of computer generated effect, both 3D and abstract.

Sam is right, if you sort new images by c-index, (generally) the top images are highly saturated with fractal images or computer generated, usually with 1 or 2 photographs at the very top.

Just a thought to throw out there.... maybe a separate c-index ranking list for CG images?