I have to admit that of all the challenges that caedes.net has faced, maintaining a quality inventory of images is the most difficult. Originally, I would only post an image to the site once it had been on my own desktop for a while. This worked well to keep the quality high (at least from my perspective), but it certainly limited the number of images that would go on the site.

You may ask "why do we need a set of 'permanent' images?" The truth is that the majority of the site's visitors come just to get good desktop wallpaper. They never upload an image. The inventory of quality "reference" images is a way to bring in new blood and ensure that the site doesn't wither and die. It is also a testament to the maturity and history of the site.

So the problem is that we must choose these reference images out of the pool of ~100 images that are uploaded to the site every day. Furthermore, we must admit to ourselves that any such choice is going to be based on extremely subjective evaluations of each image. So it is impossible to have a "perfect" system. My objective is to only create a fair system which is good enough at picking out exemplary images. It will never be perfect.

Therefore I invite members to submit ideas on how this can be accomplished. For this discussion I ask that we put a bit more time into our suggestions by using the following numbered format:

1. Explain how the system works.

2. Explain how the system is fair (all members have an equal opportunity).

3. Explain how the system prevents abuse from both single malicious users and organized groups (as much as is possible).

4. Hypothesize on how practical the system would be. Would it be able to reject enough images? Can the decision to keep or reject an image be made in a reasonable time frame? Will the idea scale well as the number of contributors increases?

I would like to keep this discussion organized, so let's avoid simple replies of "Your idea sucks and your dog has fleas" unless it is accompanied by a well reasoned rebuttal.

Thanks, I look forward to reading through this.

My thoughts? I think there are far too many images here that don't qualify at all as desktop wallpaper. When I receive these images in the booth, I rate them as low as I can. I thought this was a place to come for desktop images and not just to upload whatever you want to. If I am wrong please feel free to correct me. This has recently become a real issue with me due to how another member was treated in this respect. If its wallpaper you want then it should be wallpaper you get! Sorry if this offends anyone!

I guess that goes a long way to explaining why some of my images tank! lol

Sorry girl, you misunderstood. I am talking about the off size, really bad images that couldn't possibly be considered desktop material. I have never tanked any of your images!

I was only joking, Frankie! :0)

Perhaps – as the membership has grown significantly over the years – each member could be allowed to nominate a handful – say two or three images that they would like to be showcased in a permanent gallery. These could be substituted by the user periodically – say once every six months if they want so that they can decide themselves what the best work they have is and use that as a leader for people to visit the rest of their gallery. This would lead to a more even balance in the perms as well as – hopefully - make them less over saturated, easier to navigate and more evenly balanced amongst the community.

It could also inspire people to make more changes in their styles and experiment with new things perhaps in order to keep things fresh.

That just leaves the question of how to govern snaps and prevent the tide from fully turning the place into Caedes Space. People can argue semantics all they want about art and wallpaper but at the end of the day – nobody if they were being honest with themselves would want a snap of a complete stranger’s distant relation either hanging on their wall or on their desktop.

Self moderation and governance in this is clearly hasn’t worked as was the case of tighter restrictions that just provoked a torrent of PM based whining. Finding a happy balance that allows for experimentation and beginners but precludes idle banalities will, seemingly, prove to be the biggest challenge.

It occurs to me that if the moderators were more discerning with the pictures they let onto the site, most of the above issues would be resolved. Just a thought. Don't let it on unless it passes some basic criteria, such as not being a snapshot. Hard but fair?

yeah we tried that. see comment about howls of protests/PM message barrages :-)

Perhaps warning those members who couldn't take "no" for an answer against such behavior, and then banning/suspending individuals for subsequent acts, would've killed two birds with one stone, no?

What about laying down some basic rules for getting a picture posted, such as the aspect ratio/size. Then, have a trawl after (at most) 7 days to remove the dross (and yes, I have posted some of those too). Better quality pictures then stay the month as now. The only alternative is to let the site become more of a social networking site that it seems to be heading towards.

we already have various guidelines such as the code of conduct and snapshot warnings for image uploading - sadly they get little or no attention paid to them even though people acknowledge they have both read them and are complying with them. its usually the same people who then get fully bent out of shape and start pm'ing caedes when their photo of their best friends bosses cousins daughters best friend gets rejected as a snap and not 'art'.

LMAO

I'm not laughing at you Phil, I'm laughing at how you said what you said, which was funny btw, & I'm laughing ironically because what you said is so sadly true. If that makes any sense to anyone but me.

Well, personally if any of my pictures didn't make it but I received an explanation, I would accept it. If it made it to the new gallery then I would feel a great sense of accomplishment, which no doubt I will feel if ever one of my pictures makes it to a permanent gallery. In the mean time I suppose we will have to put up with the snapshots. At least they don't get through to the permanent galleries.

nope it makes sense to me too Lauren.. and I actually agree with Phil's last comment (scary)

Late to the party per usual. Been reading and reading and reading. Finally had to chime in on Phil's suggestion:

>>Perhaps – as the membership has grown significantly over the years – each member could be allowed to nominate a handful – say two or three images that they would like to be showcased in a permanent gallery. These could be substituted by the user periodically – say once every six months if they want so that they can decide themselves what the best work they have is and use that as a leader for people to visit the rest of their gallery.<<

Now that's brilliant.

And Caedes - thank you. For the site. For never closing that eye. For always wanting to see farther.

Members nominating their own images would make it much easier for the mods also. Trawling through the new images gallery trying to decide on promotions takes up a huge amount of time under the current system.

"Trawling through the new images gallery trying to decide on promotions takes up a huge amount of time under the current system."

I don't understand why :) Each time I vote I trawl through 40 images, and evaluate each one.
Assuming there is a maximum of 150 images uploaded per day (it is usually less), divided amongst the image mods it should be tolerable. Couldn't the obviously suitable images be earmarked for future evaluation each day ?
We are told the the voting rating has little bearing on the final choices so why the need to wait for the final scores?

:)

Why aren't there just more mods?

"Until then I'm happy to hear further specific recommendations", said the eye in the sky.

Perhaps, another thread is in order to discuss the points raised and questions asked?

And no, not being facetious here whatsoever.

That said ...


Lyn ...

Yes, 'we' trip over our own words periodically. Various references and statements have been made regarding the C-Index. I would hazard a guess that this would be the definitive statement regarding our infamous number:

It is not the only deciding factor as to whether or not an image is promoted to the permanent galleries.

Implicit and inferred in those words, is that it has some bearing.

Annnnd ... which as you now know, "permanent galleries" is a bit of a mis-moniker. As the galleries are culled from time to time as well.

Your time and efforts expended on your end in your participation of this aspect of our site, namely voting ... is greatly appreciated. In a perfect world and on a perfect site, every member contributing their time in this activity would be wonderful.

And to be clear here ... the statistics and theory support the calculation of our beloved number. I am simply saying it would be great if every member voiced their opinion. Nothing more here.

"Assuming there is a maximum of 150 images uploaded per day (it is usually less), divided amongst the image mods it should be tolerable."

As to what is tolerable? In terms of the numbers of all things considered? Number of images submitted daily, number of individuals who are involved in the decisions and so forth?

'We' are trying our best to keep the site clean from rips uploaded, adult related material material, drug related imagery and anything else that I believe you would approve of in terms of content and context that is suitable for our community and their collective viewing pleasures.

"Couldn't the obviously suitable images be earmarked for future evaluation each day ?"

Perhaps. Good idea to think upon and come up with a possible way to accomplish that. Don't forget here ... you are now talking about changes in code potentially. Potentially. Which cannot be done on the fly, so to speak. If you have another idea in mind ... please post it to this thread here.

"We are told the the voting rating has little bearing on the final choices so why the need to wait for the final scores?

:)"

Asked and answered above. :o)



Cindy.

Good question.

And seeing as this is where things tend to go awry, as in ... those of us that make efforts to answer questions and queries raised, in a timely manner in efforts to provide an answer to a member's interrogatives ...

I am going to refrain from speculation, my own thoughts and what is in the end ... my own personal observations and opinions regarding your question ... and defer to the only one that can definitively answer that.

*caedes.

Bear with, till you have your answer.


Does the above answer as best 'we' can, your questions? If not, by all means ... feel free to post and start up another thread of discussion ... and please ... let's let this one revert back to it's intended intent.

I thank you both for taking the time to show that you care and express your thoughts. I sincerely hope you appreciate my time in answering as best I could your questions.

*leaves behind a plate oatmeal raisin macadamia nut ... cookies*

/\ Private stock ... but ... don't linger at the table, alright?

Thank you for taking the time and replying to my question so quickly

Not to mention spring flowers - and yes I posted one too (metaphorically slaps wrist). There does seem to be a dearth of good interesting pictures, and those that do arrive seem to get ignored with few comments, unless full of bright colours and an animal, or a set of coins.

Actually, these pet snapshots are archived after ± one week.

If I might ask.. are any changes actually coming? Have any been implemented?

Hey Rob ... nice to see you back. Can't say if any changes have been implemented yet ... *caedes will need to address that.

There is a new "Community Gallery" set up that seems to be working out very well. Any new suggestions are welcome.

Again, welcome back. :-)

Thank you Sherree. Saw the Community Gallery. Was wondering if *caedes had any larger-scale changes in mind, or had the whole idea been abandoned/put aside.

Hmmmmmmm ... good question Rob. I've been wondering the same thing myself.

I have some ideas of what changes I want to make. Right now I'm trying to get the site's code synchronized with my personal repository of code that I use to test the software. I have to do this before I can make any large changes to the site.

Ok. Care to offer a preview/idea in the meantime?

Rumor has it, that it’s a BIG skillet!! To cook BIG pancakes!!

The pancake thang kinda ran its course; it just isn’t as funny now…sorry, I’ll try to refrain in the future!!

You still lurking about R-dude?!?!

~doorbell rings~

Aunt Jemima, come on in…let me take yo do-rag…stay awhile!!

Wha?? Well she wore one…that’s how the craze got started!!

Well the biggest feature that I'm looking forward to is an addition to the comment system that will allow people to trade high quality critiques in a market type system.

We also have something in the works that will drastically decrease the time it takes newly uploaded images to appear in the galleries.

Very cool. Can't wait. Thanks for responding.

A way to do quality critiques sounds good.

Annnnnd ... coffee break is just about over. Here you go:

1. How the system works:

Keep the voting booth intact ... and voting as a requirement for non-Cadre members to participate in ... in order to post/upload work

It has been suggested that the easiest method for judging is to start each photo/image with the maximum possible score and subtract one for each major element that is weak. When the element fails, subtract two.

There are only three categories to consider - subject interest, composition and technique.

Each image starts off with a value of five.

If it is found to be 'weak' in any of the three categories ... a point is deducted. If it 'fails' in any of the categories ... two points will be deducted.

The algorithm, can be and is very simple.

For example, the photo/image is worth five points and one point is deducted for each major weakness in the three categories considered. If a picture is weak in each of the three categories it should only receive two points. If it is weak in only one category it may receive a four. When a picture is not only weak, but rather fails, in a category, two points may be deducted and it receives a three.

Any images that have a final award/score of less than two points from the voting booth. Archived.

Those above the established base number, and being somewhat arbitrary here, three (3) points ... after these preliminary judging/voting rounds by the general membership ... and on any picture/image that has not been culled ... is forwarded/placed before the image mods to render a final judging/decision.

That decision? Whether or not an image is to be placed in the permanent galleries.

This will save time on the part of the image mods in their not having to go through entire galleries in their efforts towards adding to the permanent galleries.


2. Explain how the system is fair (all members have an equal opportunity):

Participation in judging/voting then becomes mandatory at all levels of membership. All inclusive. General membership and image mods alike.

An aside:

Having just seen the membership at work in the judging of the recent contest and having viewed the results ... they did an exemplary job. The cream, did indeed, rise to the top.

So, perhaps another system altogether that could be used intermittently and in support, when there is a bottleneck of imagery to be sorted ... random selections or 'judging' panels comprised of the general membership that vote on a week's worth of imagery. With the above criteria in mind of five points to start off with ... then, deductions with respect to the three categories of considerations mentioned.

Maybe the membership does wish or would like to have a bigger stake and say with regards to what imagery makes into the permament galleries?

Might be a good way of prescreening future Aediles and/or image mods (Senate members) as well?


Reiterating, the aspect of voting to upload is kept intact.

Which I happen to believe is beneficial to the individual artist.

Exposure alone to photos/images over a period of time and the membership's work ... could result in:

i) Inspiration. Serving as concrete examples of techniques not yet known.
ii) Or ... provide a source for reflection on the comparative quality of the viewing member's against their own work.

3. Explain how the system prevents abuse from both single malicious users and organized groups (as much as is possible):


Wellll, where there is a will, or collective wills ... there's a way.

However, that said, inherent and as noted above there is a safeguard/check in place ... the image mods have the final say as to whether or not an image ascends into the permanent galleries.

Suggestion to combat any abuse/attempts to manipulate the process:

Maintain a 'watchlist' on the Senate/Aedile's forums.

If a questionable image makes it past the first round of judging by the general membership ... place that artist's name on that watchlist.

Then, corroborate where the 'votes' have their origins. If individuals or groups are found to be behind the 'manipulation' of judging/scoring ... cross-reference the votes/scores awarded with the names of the voting members involved. Shouldn't be too hard to write a script to do so and glean who voted on which image. Could be friends ... or foes.

And on that note, consider precluding members from voting on their friend's list imagery.


In either situation ... issue a warning for the first substantiated instance and place he or she, or them ... on notice. If the activity does not cease ... suspend upload privileges for a period. Repeat offenders ... ban them from the site.

Do not underestimate, the draw and privilege of being able to post to the site.


Adopt a zero tolerance policy.

In all regards.

The site administrator's and/or image mods' decisions are final. No ifs, ands or buts.

End of story.

4. Hypothesize on how practical the system would be. Would it be able to reject enough images? Can the decision to keep or reject an image be made in a reasonable time frame? Will the idea scale well as the number of contributors increases?


Adjusting the base number that allows an image to proceed in the process and determination of ascension to the permament galleries, as needed. Three (3) points was a suggestion as a start ... if necessary, up it to four (4).

If need be, there might exist a two-tier base number; one for photos, and then one for CGI works. Since a common argument has been made publicly many a time over ... "I don't understand that kind of work, and I am not qualified to vote on that genre". The Relative C-Index already takes this into consideration. Extrapolate on it, use it.


And/or ... increase the number of image mods as a further 'adjustment' to keep pace with the raw number of posted/uploaded photos/image ... should that number increase.


Maintaining the 'voting' requirement for non-Cadre members would be a means towards ensuring that the site's 'workload', in the matter and determination of a photo/image's ascension into the permanent galleries ... is distributed or spread out.

And as a result ... take some ... some, of the onus off of the image mods.

Addressing this singular point; and I quote, once again;

"Can the decision to keep or reject an image be made in a reasonable time frame?"

I don't think that a month's timeframe or timeline ... is a hardship on anyone. I am of the understanding and impression, that as things sit now ... two to three weeks max ... and an image has 'cleared' the voting booth.

Then, it is incumbent upon the image mods to make the permanent selections.


With the above system in mind ... the voting booth becomes more of a tool towards the end of cutting down on the image mods time spent in the determinations of whether or not a photo/image is placed in the permanent galleries.

Repeating a section above;

This will save time on the part of the image mods in their not having to go through entire galleries in their efforts towards adding to the permanent galleries.


The images on display in the permanent galleries would be a reflection on them to an extent, more so, I believe ... than it is now. Or, at least the perception as I understand it.

Onus is placed back on the membership to take some pride in the site.

That should be a good thing.

Hmmm. I'll have to read through this a couple more times to be sure I understand it, but is this a trial balloon that is being sent up or is this actually going to begin soon? Seems a bit complicated with making lists of voters and votes and all that. We could just let the software decide on the images. lol Can that be programmed? :) And how would this affect the commenting? If we couldn't vote on our friend's images, we would have to dump our friend's list I would imagine to make it equitable all around, but part of what Caedes is all about, despite the emphasis placed here on art for art sake, is the friendships and comraderie that is felt among the members. (Ref: UK and USA get togethers, offtopic discussions boards, etc.). In addition to the photography, it is the social network that keeps Caedes.net from becoming 'just another wallpaper/stock image website'. Is it wrong to think of Caedes.net in this way? Has the initial intention of the creation of this site metamorphed considerably since its inception or are we trying to redefine what Caedes.net represents?

I guess we are trying to do as we have always done - encourage people to do their best whatever level that is - and share it with like minded folks - for sure many have and continue to try and twist it into a clique orientated 'club' but that is about as welcome as the flu. we need to have a system that is completely equitable and immune from abuse (please - anybody who even tries to - dont dismiss that comment as irrelevant because it is so blatant these days its not funny).

for me, this place has always been about the community spirit AS A WHOLE. everyone deserves a fair shot - friends or otherwise - instead of just cherry picking the select few and leaving the rest to rot in the vine.

it's not Flickr, it's not Facebook, it's not DeviantArt - it's something different. we ought to work as a collective to keep it that way.

it still amazes me how many people try to distort and manipulate this either for their own agenda or just because they think it's cool to 'push the envelope'. the rationale and the rules for the site are pretty much the same as they have always been. there is no big conspiracy or secret rules - it is what it is. for that reason alone you will find a brick wall of intolerance for trolls and morons who think its funny to try and twist that. it's not big and it's not clever and any sympathy will be in short measure in that respect.

I don't like to think that I belong to a 'clique' because there are members here that I like to communicate with because we have common goals and interests and it seems that I add new friends to my friend's list all the time. I don't 'cherry pick' my friends, we just sort of gravitate to each other. I am an amateur photographer and I have learned lots of things here in the last two and a half years and if someone needs assistance or a question answered, I try to find those answers for them. No matter how much you try to unsocialize the site, we are going to be drawn to those we have things in common with and others will be drawn to us. At least, that is how it appears to me. Maybe I am naive if there is something more sinister going on behind the scenes, of which I am not aware.. I noticed Phil, that you mention trolls and morons, and I wholeheartedly agree and believe it is every good member's responsiblity to deal with those people and do their best to ostracize these pitiful human beings and report their behaviour to the mods as quickly as their game is discovered.

Believe me, I am all for keeping the spirit of Caedes as it was intended and pretty much as I discovered it a few years ago. I must like it here or I believe I would have wandered away quite some time ago.
I will pick from all the fruit and not allow any to 'rot on the vine'. That was never my intention and many of the good folk here also have that same intention, because we can all remember what it was like when we first started posting too.

Sorry - I was making generalisations not specifics :-) but i'd disagree with your interpretation of me trying to unsocialise the site - my intention is the exact opposite - it is the the fact that it has become 'unsocialised' that is my main issue. gravitating towards friends is fine - it's natural too but sadly, as is the case in most things in life, there will always be people who take that to extremes in a negative fashion.

If only we could plan for every contingency. But would life then be very interesting? lol Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to unsocialize the whole site. You did say that it is about 'community'.
It's just that as a mod, you are privy to things the average member has no clue about and you seem to make reference to such things without specifics and it makes me wonder, that's all.

they are just generalised observations really :-)

@ Les:

I like your plan. A lot. But I do have a question. If I understand your explanation correctly an image would begin with a baseline of 5 and then add or subtract a maximum of 2 points for each of three catagories. That would put the range at a negative one (for a truly horrendous post) to a positive 11 for an increbibly talented post.

Allow me to make an assumption that very, very few pictures would warrant either a -1 or a +11.

If you will allow me to extrapolate the numbers by ten and increase the baseline to 50 and add or subtract a maximum of 20 points per catagory we can then come up with a reasonable comparison to the current c-index. According to the chart here the vast majority of posts score between a 45 and a 65 with the numbers falling off on either side. I would kind of assume (yes I know I'm making a lot of assumptions here, please feel free to correct any incorrect assumption) that in order to be permed it would be reasonable to expect a post to be either +1 in all 3 catagories or +2 in one and +1 in a second. That would equate to about an 80 in the current c-index..and by refering back to the chart referenced above you can see how few posts achieve that mark. There are some darn fine posts that have been permed that aren't anywhere close to that number.

If you drop the level to a 70 (or a 7 in your original hypothosis) I'm not sure where I see it saves the Mods a lot of time, brcause then we are into a fairly significant number of posts again.

Let me say in closing that I DO like your premise...I'm just a bit concerned that by setting the bar to high we may miss out on some excellent posts.

By Les "Maybe the membership does wish or would like to have a bigger stake and say with regards to what imagery makes into the permanent galleries? "

For most of us that is what we assume we are doing by voting as we do. But we all understand that the final choice is the decision of the choosing mod and it has been proved time and time again that an image voted in the 30s by members can be considered perm-worthy by one individual and conversely one voted in the 90's, not so. I can understand uncertainty in the mid range but no one achieves 90's merely by, as has sometimes been suggested, favouritism by friends lists. If that premise were true, no one would get low scores.

I don't think the 'timeline' is as relevant as the number of votes - 25 votes gives a better balance than, as sometimes happens, a mere 14.


one more thing . . . "and voting as a requirement for non-Cadre members to participate in ... in order to post/upload work"

I have never understood this - why not everyone? To not be required to vote should not be considered a 'perk' or reward. It would make more sense if the requirement were reversed, that it be regarded as a privilege.

Another way to go would be to specify a number of possible perm slots per week and just get everyone to vote for those - as you mentioned re the competition. Then those who do not vote can have no complaint about below standard images getting in. Just tell us - 'vote for your 10 (or however many) images' I believe that as members we are a good cross section of the wider community - and are able to judge what is suitable as a wallpaper image. The final decision would still rest with the mods. The rest of the images would be unmarked, saving concern at low scores and comments and advice taking on a greater value.

I have to say that I am impressed with Eve's take on this issue and it seems very uncomplicated and makes a lot of sense.
It seems quite equitable and I have to wholeheartedly support the idea of requiring ALL to vote, not just ten images from the non-paying members. Then we would get to the 20 or so votes necessary for a statistically legitimate accounting of the overall membership's take on any particular image and get there much more expeditiously. The paying members already have the perk of being able to load two images in twenty hours anyway and some members would pay just to support the site on principle to keep it viable and moving forward. To say that you can get out of voting by paying a fee just doesn't seem in the interest of "encouraging people to do their best no matter what level that is".* It seems to say that you don't have to support the overall communal goal of sharing and encouraging if you don't care about anyone's images but your own and can do just that by simply belonging to the cadre and paying a fee.
There must be some other perk that can be offered to those who pay to post two images and we could all offer some such suggestion as to what that might be.

*Phil

removed with apology to all

Well, it seemed this thread was off the table for some months until Les put forth a plan for changing things a bit. Don't read any of this, Rick, if you think it drivel. No one is compelled to read the threads, that's for sure.

You are right that no system will satisfy everyone, but if we have a consensus that there might be a better way to present a fairer, more equitable way of getting the best images to the permanent galleries from which the public at large can cull an attractive, well composed image for their desktops, wouldn't it be worth a little time and effort to hear from the members at large on how it could best be derived?

No one is disparaging the work of the mods. We are all aware of the time and effort they put into this site. And, no one is attacking them.

Please try to read what all the members have to contribute to this discussion without being defensive.
Certainly, all of us, know more than any of us.

So ... we are all in agreement, then?

My suggested 'system', rocks ... and/or rules?


/\ Just kidding, of course.


@Rich ... check your PMs.

Think you missed some of my words and the overall intent/workings of my proposal.

Can't blame you though, where me and words are concerned. Verbosity? Thy name is Les. :oD

However, next time ... time and opportunity permitting ... that is to say, if you have a spare month or so ... read all of them. :oP


@Rick:

Yeah, mention the 'C' word and things tend to get a little passionate, let's say ... at times. Well, most times actually where 'it' is concerned.

I can understand, to an extent obviously ... how it can be upsetting. For lack of a better descriptor.


It wasn't my intention to stir the pot once more, simply added in my thoughts on this particular subject/request from *caedes. As I had not before during the previous discussion(s).

And I can't take credit for the proposed system entirely. Came across the information on the concept of deducting points, while doing some googling on voting with regards to photography contests/competitons.

You are correct Les, upon re-reading your post and the PM you sent my analogy to the current c-index fails as you are discussing only subtracting points from a baseline, not adding them also.

I can support Les's Idea whole-heartedly, for whatever that's worth.

I also have a rather radical idea as why the c-index, for some of its obvious flaws, DOES indeed work overall, if anyone is interested.

Rich

I'm interested, Rich.

For all of the complaining about the c-index (and yes I have certainly done my share) I think in the end, the MAJORITY of the time it does what it was mant to do - give everyone an idea of how there work compares to others on this site. Yes there are some great posts that get undervalued and vice-versa, but when you really look at the chart I referenced above you see that the vast (see it here) you realize that distribution does follow a geometric curve. (As an aside you used to be able to move your cursor under each column and see how many posts actually fell into that range, but it appears to have been disabled). If i remember correctly there were +/- 10,200 posts thta had a 50 and about the same that had a 55, with the numbers tapering off on either side, until you just a few hundred that achieved a 90 and a few hundred that achieved 10's.

Now for my (I assume to be wildly unpopular) hypothosis. A member posts a picture that us well done, they have labored over the composition, the settings, the lighting, spent hours doing post-production editing and have a shot they are (justifiably) proud of. They post it...and get a 50. Righteous indignation abounds! "A fifty? It's WAY better than that!" It probably is - on any other site. To me, this site is full of incredibly talented people that devote an awful lot of time and effort to their craft and take it very seriously that something which may rise to the top on many other sites in the norm here.

In other words, the problem is not with the c-index it is with the incredible amount of talent present here, and thta's a'problem' I'll take any day! Go to anyones gallery and sort it by c-index and then take a good honest look at posts that are scoring in the 50's. There are some excellent, excellent posts there, which raises the bar when someone (anyone) scores a 70 or 80 or 90. In other words, a shot with good composition, good technique and is interesting - well it gets a 50. That's where the voters have put the baseline. In order to score higher it needs to be EXCEPTIONAL in one of more of those catagories.

If the stats showed a curve in one direction or the other - a majority of really, really low or high scores i wouldn't say the c-index is working. But the avarages are right where they out to be, in the middle, it;s just that OUR middle is far higher than some other sites.

None of this should be construed to mean I don't like Les's idea - I like it a lot and think it is quite workable; nor should it be construed that I don't think the changes that *caedes is looking to make should be made. I am simply putting forth MY own opinion, that despite having some flaws, and blowing the occasional post - over all the c-index works.

Rich

I was wondering why this interesting thread hadn't been picked up again... when I had a look just now, there were 4 posts here I hadn't read, all dated 4th October. There could be any reason for the omission; maybe I marked it read without realizing some new ones had popped up? Then again, it's possible that others haven't been notified of the most recent posts either, and that's why it's fallen a bit quiet.

I'm not sure yet what I feel concerning this topic. All I can add right now is that my voting is generally 'gut feeling', viewing 50 as average snapshot. I see 50 as being something almost anyone with a modicum of skill could turn out.

Having read Les's piece above, I decided on an experiment... I would have a voting guide, allocating points on colour, focus, composition etc. Most of the time it's bang on target with my 'gut feeling' (which is to be expected, perhaps), but sometimes I will end up with far fewer points than I think is fair, or rather more.

It certainly makes you think more about the strengths and weaknesses of any picture... it may be a pretty sunset, but does the horizon slant? Is there a lot of grain when you look at it full size? These points (and more) should be considered.

Another thing I was wondering... from what I read before, I believe that the statistics are processed using a formula only known to the owner of the site. Perhaps that formula is what gives the c-index graph such a smooth curve? I don't know how it would look if the images kept the original votes given by the membership.

Tootles -- a 50 is not average. Fractals on this site generally get voted lower than photos, yet judging by the comments on this one, it should have gotten a 50 at the very least. Yet it got a 32, apparently because everyone who didn't like fractals or pastel colors voted on it rather than the people who actually like that sort of thing.

The C-index as it exists seems to be a vote as to how much mass-appeal your image has. It does not at all seem to be a straight-up quality vote, although quality certainly counts in mass-appeal. Don't get me wrong, I think mass-appeal is a fine thing to measure, because it is useful as an artist to know that, but it's kind of disparaging to say that if you don't get a 50, you must not have "a modicum of skill".

this came to light in the past and I did a quick bit of research and found that very few fractal artist members actually voted regularly at all which led me to the conclusion that if you weren't prepared to participate in the voting then you weren't really in a position to complain about the outcome. the only way you will a get a balanced and even result if more people vote more often from every discipline.

It's been brought up before and I think it would be a fine idea to making voting a requirement for all members...no excemption for Cadre members. I think many of us would pay the $3.00 even if we had to vote - or to look at it in a more positive way, most of pay the $3.00 out of respect for the site and what it is trying to accomplish, not just to get out of voting.

I'd agree. I'd still pay the 3 bux a month. I spend that on a cup of coffee (starbucks junkie). Honestly, there's been lots said about the C index, for, and against it.

I've said something for each position, for those curious enough to squirrel through old posts.

Without pointing to any particular artist, or gallery, I'd like to suggest something.

Go to different members' work, and sort by C index. Then go through some of the lowest scoring images. I think you'll be (sadly) surprised that quite a few artistic, and well executed images don't have scores that perhaps they should have.

Perhaps then, you'll get a truer sense of the scoring, and voting pattens here. I, along with lots of others here, have, or still do, fall into the trap of associating a low score with perceived quality of an image. It's a grimy road to follow... my counsel, if you're interested, would be to avoid it. Even if you, or anyone else IS correct in viewing a score as being too low, or too high (yes, I'm serious), what good will it do?

None.

One additional thought.. as this thread was intended by *caedes to come up with ways to better the site, can we perhaps try to do that? Even if it's by how we interact with each other, and react to the happenings, and comments made here?

Just my $.02

I would not mind at all if voting was a requirement to upload a pic for everyone, I do it at work when I have nothing else to do too.

Even if voting was made a requirement for all members, I'm not sure how far that would help fractal art in the voting results.

Out of curiosity, I kept notes of my last voting session... voted for my full allowance of 41 images, and only 4 of them were fractals. That shouldn't have been surprising, as (at this moment) in the New Images gallery there are 7 pages of abstracts and 78 pages of photographs. :-)

If, as an abstract fan, one only has time to nip quickly into the booth to vote for 10 to 15 images, it's not impossible that no abstracts will show up in that selection. It can be a bit depressing.

Are there many abstract artists using this site at all? I don't know.

Something else I noticed (on another issue)... widescreen wallpapers! We need more in the Permanent Galleries. When I changed my settings to 'my screen shape' and looked in the permanent Caedes Gallery, there were 0 results out of a total 130 images. There are 4 results in the permanent Computer Gallery (out of a total 983 images). And in the Abstract gallery there are 26 results (out of a total of 1440).

I don't know if there's anything that can be done about that, as such, but I thought I would point it out, as that kind of experience would be disappointing to a casual visitor looking only for widescreen images.

All food for thought, maybe. Time I crawled off to bed...

Tootles

Firstly, I have to say that this site is great, despite mine or anyone elses grumbles and gripes about it. You can't please all of the people all of the time as they say.
But Mr Caedes has done a brilliant job of creating a wallpaper site with an incredibly high standard of art, both photographic and digital. Most wallpaper sites verge on the pornographic, so this site is truly unique in that it is more mature and respectable. I for one am proud to post my work here.

Now, the question of maintaining quality can be answered the easy way or the hard way.

The easy way, as I've mentioned before somewhere, is for users to look at their image and ask themselves:

Would this really make a good wallpaper?
Will other people find my image of interest or is it just of 'personal' interest?
Is my image unique/interesting on an artistic level?

Obviously, this mainly concerns WALLPAPER sized images as this is/was a WALLPAPER site. The expansion of image sizes opens up an altogether different can of fish, but the same questions can still be relevant.

This brings me to the hard way.
The site could/should be split into different categories, as follows:

DESKTOP WALLPAPER (Permanent Galleries - with Voting*)
Photography Wallpapers (with the existing sub-categories)
Digital Art Wallpapers (i.e. Abstract, Illustration, 3D, Landscape, Space and add Horror, sci-Fi, Fantasy plus any other categories not yet catered for)
Photo Manipulation (as it's a cross between the above two)
Rework
(and any others I've missed)

Then:
GENERAL IMAGE GALLERIES (Permanent Galleries - with voting*)
Photography (categories as above)
Digital Art (again, as above)
Photo Manipulation (as above)
Rework
(etc.)

The New Image gallery could stay as is. Now, the main difference I am proposing (other than a complete restructuring of the galleries) is in regard to voting. Each person uploading only votes in the category they are uploading to, i.e. photographers vote on photos and digital artists vote on digital art. I believe this would prevent the 'not understanding the process of creation' scenario and give a fairer result to the c-index as is.

As Tootles pointed out above, digital artists are drastically outnumbered. My proposal may encourage more digital artists to post on the site.

I know that many people may think that this will divide the photographers and digital artists more. I don't think this will be the case if the New Image gallery stays as it is and, at the end of the day, each respects the others art form. We are all artists with a common cause - to create the most beautiful and stunning images we are capable of, which is what this site is widely renowned for.

Another issue I have found in the permanent galleries, is a bit more tricky to approach. I don't want people to think I am moaning for the sake of it, as I feel it is likely a great number of number of artists become disillusioned with the site because of this issue. If you check through the permanent galleries you will find the vast majority of the images belong to a small minority of members. For example, I scanned through 10 pages of the Abstract Gallery and found that, out of a total of 120 images, 62 images belonged to just 3 members! I'm not saying that their work isn't great and doesn't deserve to be there. It just seems that a greater variety of artists making it into the perms would be more encouraging to other members. After all, everyone has their own gallery so a bit more variety in the perms wouldn't do anyone any harm.

Did I mention that this is a great site? And is this as long as one of Les' posts?

Longer.

Thanks for all the comments so far. I have been following the discussion closely.

"And is this as long as one of Les' posts?"

Uhm ... perhaps a tad ... a tad ... longer?

:oP


Small 'semi-official' (this has been mentioned elsewhere on other discussion threads) rebuttal to the issue of digital and photographic artists:

And I am not trying to be dismissive of your thoughts/suggestions Paul, regarding the division of voters. Not at all.


My understanding is, that as 'we' progress with our creative endeavours ... although 'we' might not be familiar with the software used in the creation of a digital piece or the genre itself ... 'we' can learn to appreciate and view any image in an objective light.


That is to say, and simply stated ... a good image is a good image. Composition, interest, colours (or lack of) et al.

Then again on the flipside, there is the existence of the C-I which substantiates your thoughts.


And rest assured, no offense taken.

In fact, your time and involvement/efforts towards the site's betterment ... are greatly appreciated. :o)


@Tootles:

Kind of did an experiment myself with regards to 'sorting' by 'screen shape'.

Some tweaking of that option may be in order. As in, simplifying the choices available.

Kind of scratched my head a bit, tell the truth on some options. Although 'My screen shape' worked well.

*shrugs*

/\ More of a tic, than being indicative of anything. :oP

LOL @ Cindy's post.

Quote
"My understanding is, that as 'we' progress with our creative endeavours ... although 'we' might not be familiar with the software used in the creation of a digital piece or the genre itself ... 'we' can learn to appreciate and view any image in an objective light."

I fully agree, Les. I never intended to suggest otherwise.

Quality art is appreciated by the majority regardless of how it was created. But there is always going to be the situation of not being able to please all the people all of the time - that's just human nature.

I remember a comment my art teacher made at school (many, many moons ago)... 'With art, people know what they like and like what they know'. Which is incredibly true.

A slight tangential aside to Paul's suggestions above ... and on the note of attracting and keeping more digital artists:


Would creating some additional spaces on the front page for more featured images provide a boost to the digital artists?


Perhaps, being representative of all categories is not feasible ... however, and for example:

One spot reserved for CGI, one for abstracts/fractals, one for photography, two from the permanent galleries, etc.. Or, some combination.


And I am sincerely not trying to be argumentative here, Paul.

"With art, people know what they like and like what they know."

Would this quote, not also be in line with keeping your teacher's words;

"Familiarity breeds content."


Meaning, and going back to the subject of segregating voter groups ... that by creating these somewhat ... somewhat, insular voting groups ... in effect, exposure is decreased to an extent to other genres of art.

Personally, I have seen some types and genres of art gain more acceptance in the voter's results since my time here as a member. Nothing drastic, however ... change has been noted.


"2. Explain how the system is fair (all members have an equal opportunity)."

It is my unofficial opinion, that the site is setup and encourages ... and would like to continue to encourage participation and that of an 'all-inclusive' environment.

And I do believe the following myself ... the number of digital artists as they stand of this writing, represent a much smaller proportion of the membership. So ...

If, the division of voting groups were to occur ... any thoughts on that population number being too small to give an accurate, or should I say, more accurate 'reading' in the voting booth?

As well, the question would remain ... how would the voting groups be divided? Members assign themselves? (Some problems there, methinks.) Or?


Careful now, I am armed with a full pot of coffee. There, you been done told. :oP

(/\ Just kidding, again. :o) )

Let us see ALL the votes under an image. When people vote on an image, let them explain why they are grading it thusly, either with pre-selected choices for composition, color, etc. or with free text. Either/Or. That would certainly be a learning experience for all and if not, then show the name of the voter and we can ask them ourselves why they didn't approve of an image.

that would make for some uncomfortable situations, for various groups, and also leave the door open for those with less than ideal self control to be less than.. civil.

in theory, I agree. but without some firm, in place controls, it would be total mayhem. and sadly, far too much goes on already.

*clarification.. it isn't far too much mayhem, its far too much of questionable behavior.

Well, wouldn't the suggestion I made alleviate some of the questionable behaviour and make us act more adult like in our evaluations in the VB? It might not go over as being comfortable to start with, but if we really want to improve and aren't sure what's required, wouldn't this be a helpful way to get suggestions? If we went the anonymous route, at least, that might alleviate some of the loss of self-control. I know you can't account for every possibility, but shouldn't we at least TRY something else?
I get the best idea of how to improve when I ask for it directly and make it clear that my intention is to grow as a photographer and that is all.

"Let us see ALL the votes under an image."

Cindy, that information was available at one point. As in, the member could view the numbers assigned and spread of votes/numbers, but not the voter who cast that number.

Does not ... I repeat ... does not, work.


I did address your point, in that part of the thinking behind my suggested system would ... hopefully, in addition to comments received ... provide some added creative fodder for thought to the artists on our site.

In that, the number/received ... would have some more additional information to be gleaned by our site's artists, with respect to composition, interest and technique.

Then why don't we try it, Les? I would welcome a change. I find it discouraging to post. It seems that the vote depends on who likes you and how clean your monitor is right now.

the bare bones fact is this.

on another site, the score given an image by each individual is clearly identifiable. and maturely processed as objective input of a positive, or even negative opinion. by most.

sure, there's a couple of malcontents there. but by and large, most of the members there can take a hard, negative (as in disagreeing, not uncivil) critique.

here, for as many wonderful people there are on the site, quite a few have demonstrated relatively thin skins. I for one would love to see each vote on my work. it would tell me if everyone thought a low scoring image.. sucked.. or if most thought it was 'eh.. ok" and one or two just really hated it. but sadly, far too many here already can't handle, or handle poorly, the info they're already receiving about the scores of their images.

and then, there's the underlying fear of what that score will do to an image's chances of being placed in the perm gallery... and that's not entirely unfounded.

maybe one day, when people show they can act a bit more objectively, and.. maturely, who knows.

I am unclear as to what you are asking Cindy.

Are you referring to making the vote numbers and the respective voter's name be made public?


That aside for a moment ... some changes are underfoot.


And this particular discussion thread and ideas/suggestions contained within ... has not had any stamp of approval, nor disapproval by *caedes meted out.

He's reading, listening ... rest assured.

*points back a few posts*


I have taken notice that when you have expressly expressed in your image's accompanying narrative for some feedback, it has been forthcoming.

Perhaps, as an interim measure on your part ... persist in that vein.

And I understand the aspect/element of motivation. Or, perhaps, demotivation in this instance.

Keep shooting, and happy shooting.

Thanks, Les. Now that's the kind of input for which I am looking! I'll keep an eye on that here on out because you were able to see what I was missing due to my own subjectivity.

Care for a cookie? Spot of tea, perhaps?

:o)

;o) Turkish tea with a little cardamon please or perhaps mint tea if you have it? lol And thank you.

Ahh, just so happens I do indeed have some cardamon. Good good stuff.

Be ready in a bit ... get comfy, take a look around the place.

;o)

having a clearly visible audit of an individuals opinion has to be the way forward. you just have to look at some of the ringmaster jerks who were booted from here for vote attacking and see how they behave on sites that employ this system.

at the very least you can see who is being honest and who is blowing smoke.

sure there are groups of people who do that on a regular basis with no sense of personal shame but at least in that way you could see their 'input' for what it is truly worth.

I would agree with you Phil, but I would also like to see some implemantation of a Les's idea /\. I still consider myself very much a novice at photography, so if I look and see that certain people gave me a certain score it still doesn't help understand WHY they gave me that score - or what I need to do to improve my scores. However, breaking it down by catagory as Les suggested at least lets me know what my strengths and weaknesses are.

~~And the peanut gallery chimes in with "What makes you think you have ANY strengths?", yeah, yeah thanks folks!~~

Asking for honest opinions is only marginally successful, I would like to incorporate some sort of catagorical scale.

that would would work for sure - as would people expending as much time coming up with their own unique critique rather than just dismissing other peoples considered opinion on an image as inconsequential whilst offering nothing but fluff themselves.

At first sight I liked Paul's (Artytoit's) idea of dividing the site into different categories, as there would be certain benefits if it could be pulled off. People with a particular interest in digital art wouldn’t have to go through ten photographs to every digital art image in the voting booth, and if there's more of a 'club' atmosphere, digital artists might want to be more involved.

I also like Les's idea of allowing extra room for featuring different types of images on the main page... combining these two suggestions could have an impact.

My reasoning is that there's a possibility people would appreciate digital art more if the best examples were more in evidence, and digital artists might become more involved if they felt there was an accepted place for them on the site.

Les asked: "As well, the question would remain ... how would the voting groups be divided? Members assign themselves?"

Tricky one. (Scratches head). We would be talking about two separate sites, wouldn't we? Which isn't the idea.

Perhaps it's enough to give digital art a higher profile. If it became more popular/populated as a result, other problems (such as in the voting booth) would hopefully iron themselves out.

A couple of other suggestions:

I would love the option to obtain a bigger image size in the voting booth, as I sometimes suspect there are faults which can't be seen clearly in the smaller images.

Frequently arising issues involve colours, image quality and monitor calibration; there could be a help section on the site dealing with those? Maybe a rudimentary calibration test, or links to helpful sites. Also some information on the correct resolutions for different wallpapers, as so many images are nearly right, but not quite. ;-)

The idea of being able to see each member's voting profile sounds interesting – I would like to see that.

I took a hiatus from Caedes for a time. The main reason was that I was spending far too much time critiquing and little time working. I enjoyed the camaraderie and wanted feedback on my own images as I was just getting back into photography after some long years away.

When I initially joined, I read the suggestions for critique, which begins with, "The comment area below the caedes.net images is for reviewing the author's image. Much like a review of a restaurant or movie, you are expected to give a balanced reaction to the work. This reaction should be mature, polite, and backed up by details, proof, or examples. The purpose of the review should be to help the author advance in skill by offering your own knowledge and/or talent."

This little paragraph sums it up well. It kept me coming back and spurred me to join. However, it's pretty obscure and I only stumbled onto it while looking for some other information.

Now, I'm one of those who give honest and fair critique and hoped others will respond in kind - not just look at my images and say they look good just to be nice - but to give me a fair evaluation. It's interesting that after joining a local photography club, spending a lot of time with professionals and out on the road shooting over the past year, I was downright embarrassed to look at what I'd uploaded to this site for others' "enjoyment." Ha! The good news is, it tells me how far I've come. By the same token, I was astounded to read some of the comments on those less than worthy images and deleted a number of them tonight. Most of the comments on my images are as others' have stated, sweet and sappy, whether the image deserved it or not.

I have a couple of points to make after my little diatribe.

First, I would love to see clear instructions posted to the front page of this site so everyone will see right up front what's expected. I must admit, one of the things I was disappointed about was not getting good constructive feedback. I even created a critique tutorial of sorts (not a very good one but trying to make a point.) After awhile, I grew weary of doing all the work and not getting honest feedback for my labors. This is not to discredit of any of the fine people I called "friends" here on Caedes - all well-meaning folks who enjoy the scenery. But if Caedes is to be a quality image sharing venue, it would be helpful for everyone to view with a more critical eye for their own good and the good of all. At first it may feel uncomfortable, but in time, most people would find critiquing an enjoyable exercise.

Second, I don't think there should be any kind of reward system for posting comments. It would be helpful if the rules for critique were enforced in that it would draw those who are serious about (a) sharing good work not just uploading family snapshots (which with the current system still happens - there are sites specific to that purpose if people want to go there,)(b)serious about improving their own craft, (c) serious about helping others improve.

In my estimation, one ought to leave constructive comments or none at all. It is after all, a site devoted to art. Art by it's very nature cries out for comment - what is the artist trying to say? What does this piece mean to her? What does it mean to you? How does it move you? Or does it move you? If there isn't something in an image that stirs ones soul, it's not art, it's just ordinary. All who come here whether voyeur or artist, photographer or fractal designer, are drawn by art.

I'm a lousy organizer and don't have a clue how to pull it all off. But I know from experience with other clubs and organizations, guidlines and enforcement are what keeps things on track. Even artists want guidelines to follow, regardless of how free-spirited we are.

Finally, I want to address the issue of voting. This I find to be much too subjective. I have a difficult time myself because art and photos are all thrown into the same hat. I'm not probably the best judge of fractals since I don't understand what's involved in creating them.

When I critique a photograph, I know some basics to look for: compostition, exposure, lighting, interest, color, sharpness, technnique, etc. In my mind, I tick off points for things that degrade the overall image - is the horizon dead center, is the image out of focus or depth of field amiss for the subject, is it an intersting subject, how's the exposure, is it too busy, is the contrast and lighting right, are the shadows and highlights within acceptable ranges, etc. I start at ten and count down. Whatever I tick off points for brings the overall score down a notch.

It annoys me that there is no information given for each image. I wouldn't want personal indentifying info, but something indicating whether it's original or "borrowed." I don't think it's right to judge a stock image someone uploaded unless they've done something creative with it, in which case, it will help me in my evaluation to know - ie: "modified stock image." There's no way to know whether an image in the voting booth is the member's own or something he snatched off the web. It seems to me this should be defined OR, better yet, all snapshots, family photos (unless artistically composed for art's sake) and stock images without creative enhancement should be eliminated from the voting process.

CG scenics are fairly straight forward and can be evaluated much like photography with artistic license.

When I look at a fractal, I can only judge by whether it's pleasing to me eyes or not. I tend to vote 0 or 10 on those. I have no idea what kind of work went into creating it. It would be good to have seperate voting booths for art and photography so people who relate to their chosen field are giving fair evaluation to their peers.

Or another possibility would be to give definite guidelines for all to follow when critiquing images of any sort - what should we be looking for in a fractal or CG scene? For instance, something created by Nathan Smith is obvious to me because his work is outstanding - I don't have to know anything about fractals to see the asthetic value. But I can hardly be objective with his work - it's all 10 to me. I don't need to see his name - I know his style. There are others who's work I'm not attracted to and I don't understand it - it's more than abstract and seems to be a distraction to me. They're going to get a 0 or very low score from me every time. Am I judging fairly? Perhaps someone who knows what fractals are all about would be a much better judge.

I know this is long but I'm glad this string was stared and I hope you (Caedes) will still benefit from my thoughts though this dialogue is outdated. I've joined up again for six months to see how it goes and pray that with all the comments from serious users, you'll be able to make some improvements that everyone will benefit from. I appreciate immensely that you care enough to ask and listen to your users.

And I hope some of this makes sense.

Bless you friends. I look forward to sharing with you all again. anne :-)

I just thought I'd jump in quickly and highlight what I think may be the best part of a great post by Anne.

"In my estimation, one ought to leave constructive comments or none at all. It is after all, a site devoted to art. Art by it's very nature cries out for comment - what is the artist trying to say? What does this piece mean to her? What does it mean to you? How does it move you? Or does it move you? If there isn't something in an image that stirs ones soul, it's not art, it's just ordinary. All who come here whether voyeur or artist, photographer or fractal designer, are drawn by art. "

As others have stated here, but probably not as effectively as Anne is that even if you are a novice (as i consider myself to be) you don't have to have a hard, factual suggestion for improvemnt to offer...but we can certainly let the artist know HOW the post made us feel. I know I appreciate that just as much in a comment as a suggestion about what aperature to use!

Thanx for such a well presented commentary, Anne!

Thank you Anne for returning to the site and sharing with us your fresh, insightful views as well.
Very much appreciated by me :=)

Hi Anne, welcome back.

I'm stuck on this line:

"what I'd uploaded to this site for others' "enjoyment." "

It very clearly states the purpose for which most, if not all images are supposed to be posted here for. Nicely said.

Perhaps, that purpose has been strayed from a bit, and there's been an ongoing and increasing tendency (in my opinion) to lean more towards a scrap-booking, or showcase frame of mind (pun intended :P)

Yes, there would be, for some I suppose, a level of discomfort in offering more constructive, and less "supportive" commentary and critiques. In the long run, though, the site would definitely benefit as a whole. Thoroughly agreed.

And just one slight point of contention..

"have a difficult time myself because art and photos are all thrown into the same hat."

ouch..;-) while not every photo is a work of art, photography can be, and in many cases is, quite the art form.

ok, I feel better now :o)

i keep reading all of your opinions and while i agree with most of them i'd like to suggest the following: go back and read the first statement made by caedes, himself. it is clearly worded. my question to you is are we getting waaaaaaaay too deep? i guess what i'm trying to find out is if we are trying to make the site such an artistic one that many will feel that they should drop out? are we asking too much of the members.........some people (including yours truly) make a real effort and spend a great deal of time trying to present an image that is good. frankly, each photograph "does something" to some of us and "does nothing" to others. that's OK but do we need to tell the artist how we feel either way? i just wonder how much time the true artist/critic needs to dedicate to "getting it all done". are we no longer a wallpaper site? (not trying to make anyone angry) JMHO jen

Well...we certainly have strayed from the original point. Les also started a related thread here. Some of the recent comments (including my own) may more properly fit in there.

Thank you Rich for bringing that to everybody's attention. However, let me state for the record that that attitude is also one of the reason several fractalists, including myself, have chosen to depart this fair site. Why beat your head against the wall when you know people are going to attack you in the booth ?

Quite frankly, Lauren, there ought not be any wall. Yes, a higher score, representing a greater level of expressed approval is nice. I too struggled with putting that into proper perspective. From time to time it still, for various reasons, proves to be a pebble in my shoe.

The thing is, though, we really aren't, or at least shouldn't, be posting images with the goal of attaining a high score. Rather, as Anne expressed it, it's supposed to be about sharing.

Just thought I'd put that out there.

I was looking at some critiques at this site and they don't seem any different from those posted here.

The critiques may not be different, but the photographs in the galleries seem to be of a higher quality.

Again some great discussion folks.

Rob, I quite agree with you. Photography is and always has been categorized as art. I wasn't clear in my point, which is that the criteria for judging a photograph can be quite different than those for judging a painting. Well, I shouldn't say that now that I think about it because the rule of thirds, depth, color, contrast, form, shape, emotion - all apply in the same way. I've always felt disappointed by CI system but if I'm willing to step back and be objective, those low numbers are nothing but beneficial to me. It tells me I need to improve. And if I don't get the critiques I'd hoped for, by golly I can look at the image again myself and say, what did others see that gave this image a lower score than I thought it was worth? Believe me, the sting in a live competition is a whole lot more humbling! I sat there in my photo club one day while one of my favorite images was up for review and the evaluator ran it into the ground. I just wanted to crawl away and die. Fortunately, it's all done anonymously so no one knows who's image is being beat up but it hurts all the same. I could have left the club and never gone back. I chose to suck it up and take some good advice from people who have a lot more experience (and lots of awards to their credit) so I can improve. It works. Humility is a good thing.

Eat some humble pie now and again if you really want to grow some hair on your chest.

I guess where I really have the most difficulty in voting is with abstracts - always have - so fractals are a difficult area for me. I don't want to grade someone too low out of ignorance - although I must say Lauren, I remember viewing your fractals in the past and was quite impressed :-) So really, I'm just babbling.

Cindy, you're right, people are not saying anything constructive about the images on the site you posted. However, in their defense, the quality of the imagery I saw there on a quick browse through photos is certainly more professional than most of what I've seen on Caedes. How do you tell someone to improve on perfection? Those guys are paying $50 annually to share their work. Caedes is free or $36 a year for more privileges. I'm intimadated by thay kind of quality.

I'm done, really. Moving on to imagery now...Happy viewing Caedians...It's good to be back. anne

Are you saying, Anne, that if Caedes cost more to post, we'd get better images? Maybe. What other reason would there be for the images there to be of higher caliber?

I post to another site. They work like this. I put a picture up for posting. If its good enough I get it into my portfolio. There is no limit to how many pictures I can upload in a day, but there is a limit of how many pictures I can have, and they have to be of a certain quality to even get into my portfolio. The better pictures then go into the equivalent of the permanent galleries, and really good ones get into the editors choice or the master galleries. There is voting but that is just amongst the artists to give an indication of quality between ourselves. It has no bearing on who gets into the galleries, and no one really bothers to vote. The quality of pictures is very high. I only have 11 pictures on this site. I believe all who post there accept that if a picture is rejected for quality or content reasons then that is accepted. It is however, not a site for desktops - more photographs - and it is not a community trying to help each other like Caedes, it is a showcase for some talented photographers. God knows why they let me in, but I have 3 pictures in the Galleries so I must be doing something right. Interestingly, only one picture is the same as the ones I have in the Caedes permanent galleries, the other two are Caedes rejects.

The main galleries in Caedes are good quality. I believe there is some limitation to the breadth of the work going into the galleries, but if we are presenting desktops then that may be the case. I may produce good thought provoking photographs, but to be honest they are not necessarily good desktops. I think Caedes lacks visual art pictures, not necessarily photographs. Looking at the abstract->surreal gallery shows some wonderful pictures but there are so few of them. We need to encourage more artistry like this but as has been stated by the fractal people above, they get swamped by masses of mediocre photographs and low CI ratings.

No voting system will work. CI may be the best of all bad ways of giving indication of quality. personally the fact that it does not guarantee membership or otherwise of the permanent gallery is its saving grace. personally I trust the moderators' taste for this, and it seems to work. I would like the CI not to have a place in the permanent galleries, because images that get a low CI then get a low CI in the permanent gallery and visitors assume that it means something when it does not really and if they use it they can miss out on some extraordinary pieces. The quality of the permanent galleries removes the need for this means of selection as all images are of a certain standard to begin with.

Thats my input.

I'm really enjoying going through these comments and great suggestions. I think that there is a strong interest in improving the quality of commentary. This is my primary goal for the site right now.

Any idea on an ETA for changes or new features, or is it still in the blackboard phase?

for some odd reason, i thought that when an image was archived it could only be seen by the artist who took the shot. since i now know that not to be true and since unfortunately most of us have many more photographs in our own galleries than in the permanent galleries, i'd like to make the public aware of how easy it is to see these "other" images. my suggestion would be an explanatory note on the front page or in the perms section stating "most of our artists have wonderful images that are not in the permanent gallery. these may be accessed by simply finding one image that you like by an artist and then visiting that artist's gallery". maybe we'd all feel better having our galleries recognized.

I am close to finished in merging all the site's code and html between the "live" site and the development code on my laptop. After that is done I'll be able to work on the new features.

Ok, thanks for the info. Might I request/suggest an entry in "site news" when time allows, as to what you're up to?

Superb! Very interested in seeing the results, as there has been a lot of excellent discussion on the topic.

On a personal note, i'd like to thank everyone for the way you welcomed comments from a relative newcomer such as myself and the way the conversation remained civil and respectful throughout. And of course a bug thanx to *caedes himself for all the time he has to put in on the site!

Here's another late arriving comment... just found this thread!

I found Caedes only because I had posted a pic to another site and had it either rejected or placed on hold 'til I posted more. I did not care too much for this line of thinking and thus searched for another site to put up pictures as a way of saying thank-you for all those I had been bringing down (no matter from where!) Caedes posted my first upload... same picture... and has had me as an addicted user since... because of that sense of family that someone mentioned earlier. I know that I have learned much re. working on images to improve what the camera has done because of those talented artists that have made Caedes their home! I have a suggestion that I hope would not involve more work for anyone... other than 'caedes! How about two (2) categories in New Images... all images must be viewed, judged acceptable morally and placed into New Images anyway...!
The two sections of New Images could be 1.Those within Caedes guidelines and 2. Those outside Caedes guidelines!
Naturally, the powers of 'Caedes would decide on the final titles of these sections (should the idea fly.) :o)

Con, why would *caedes have guidelines if there were images to accept 'outside' of the guidelines?
*caedes has made mention of the fact that there are legal & moral issues involved when a site is less than family commentated.
That is his wish at this time, to keep the site family oriented hence the reason for the guidelines and Code of Conduct which each member checks when they upload an image certifying that image is within that code of conduct.
Therefore, if ideally each member checks and would be totally and brutally honest about their image being within the code of conduct, here would be no need to judge, view & morally accept any images. :=)

Goodmorning Mimi... perhaps I didn't express myself correctly and/or use the correct terms, but I probably was referring to the statement 'Please note that uploading non-artistic snapshot images is strongly discouraged' and maybe even the idea that uploads should be Wallpaper¿

I think that I try to adhere to the first statement but know that I don't even try consider the second (because everyone's idea of wallpaper is different- I have only the mandatory Recycle Bin icon on my screen and if it could be hidden by the background... Glory Halleluia! while others want areas in their background where they can easily see all of their icons!) Most important of all... for me... I am interested in 'Screensaver' Images. My statement re. outside the guidelines is simply my judgment of 'some' of the images posted... which could easily be different from those of the poster... but I don't view them as being either 'artistic' or 'interesting'. I do know that everyone appreciates different subjects, effects, colours etc. I believe that Caedes accepts pictures deemed 'outside' its guidelines because of comments I have read. I also believe 'they' do so because they feel that a 'membership' with a positive attitude is perhaps more important than 'one' with a totally submissive character.

And also, even my own appreciation of an image changes... whether it is mine or not, after some time I may no longer care for it.

As far as the morality of the posted pictures goes... I would never wish for a change in what happens here! I believe I have never seen an immoral picture posted at Caedes whereas I have seen/see them at Fl???r even though they are trying to keep them from their site as well. Yes... I am admitting to browsing there as well. There are even other sites that I visit on occasion... during lean times! While Caedes (for me) is the best it is not the only site! One thing is certain... I am always proud to direct people to www.Caedes.net! :o)

:o) A word of warning... please do not ask me any more questions... I just may answer them! I do not believe I know anything. But I do believe in 'caedes knowing what he/she wants to have here! :o)