Caedes

Desktop Wallpaper, Art, etc.

Discussion Board -> Desktop Wallpaper, Art, etc. -> Lies, damn lies and statistics

Lies, damn lies and statistics

::crysophilax
05/11/08 10:38 AM GMT
It's Sunday morning, I am up early and a little bored. So, having read various posts, including Overrated, I copied the top 100 active members table and did some analysis on it. Some interesting facts emerge.

VOTING
15% of the top 100 contribute 50% of the votes. This is VERY SKEWED, as they only contribute 15% of the pictures.
30% of voters contribute 75% of the votes. Also VERY SKEWED.
1 person makes up 8% of the voting, 626 votes. How can this be if there is a limit of 40 votes a day?
4 people control 20% of the votes cast!

UPLOADS
uploads are quite even and show no particular bias. Obviously some people contribute more, but there is no skewing of the statistics as seen in the voting.

UNFAIR UPLOADS
30% of the top 100 DO NOT VOTE ENOUGH!
12% of the top 100 NEVER VOTE and upload 20% of the pictures.

COMMENTS
This is based on an analysis of my own pictures and looking at the recent posts of some of the top 20 active members, and is therefore not a valid sample, but there are some interesting facts that come out.

Of the last 10 pictures I have uploaded, only 1 person from the top 50 most active members who is not on my friends list has left a comment. This shows an obvious bias amongst members to their friends, although to be fair, of the top 20 people there is a large group of self contained friends (as seen from the comments left on each others pictures), so they probably do not have time to post outside of this group anyway.

CONCLUSIONS

My analysis of these results shows that there is an obvious bias in the voting system to a few members who vote a lot. Of the top voters, the majority appear to be friends - as deduced from comments left on each others pictures. The limited number of this group will - if the bias in commenting is reproduced as bias in voting - inevitably create a bias in the voting system, simply because of the large proportion of votes they wield. This bias will not be limited to self promotion, but also to one of artistic taste.

The lack of public votes in determining the content of the permanent galleries is the saving grace of the system in terms of the content of the permanent galleries. Unfortunately, the bias in the voting system is carried into the permanent galleries as the C-Index, however, since so few pictures make it through to the permanent galleries any statistical bias appears to be largely lost, except for pictures which have artistic merit but do not conform to the tastes of the major voting group. These pictures tend to languish with low CI's even in the permanent galleries.

End of analysis.

You may now start slating me.

0∈ [?]
Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855) Crysophilax's Gallery and Web Page

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
&purmusic
05/11/08 11:28 AM GMT
Wellll ... your analysis, although quite thorough, detailed and well thought out ... is a tad flawed.

**The "Most Active Member's List" is not the entire picture, insofar as the numbers or raw data is concerned.

I am glad that you did see that the C-Index does not carry as much weight as some think, referencing images in the permanent galleries.

Regarding images 'languishing in the permanent galleries'?

The site defaults to a random selection unless the visitor or viewer changes it to sort by date or C-Index for example.

Would you care to suggest some improvements to round out your words? Suggestions are gratefully received and considered.

And no, I am not being facetious in the last part. Not at all.

Don't know if you saw this prior discussion thread, it did get mired in some 'debates' at times ... however, peruse and read through it. Particularly note the opening post and take it from there.

And then there is this additional discussion thread that is somewhat relevant as well. Again, it did get a little heated at some junctures ... still, there are some good ideas contained within.

Look forward to reading more of your thoughts once you have had some time and opportunity to digest those discussions. Sincerely.


**An aside: I, myself am unsure of the exact derivation of the "Most Active Member's List". It has been mentioned that each of the three categories has an attached weight in determining the final placement of members on that list.

Again, myself ... I have been on and off that list from time to time. And it doesn't capture the whole picture. For example, with no uploads and a modicum of time spent in the voting booth compared to some ... I was not accounted. That is certainly not to say that I wasn't active though in commenting, to name the other obvious and last category. Just an f.y.i., that's all.
0∈ [?]
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
::crysophilax
05/11/08 12:48 AM GMT
I appreciate that the Most Active members list is not the entire picture and that there are other members who post, vote and comment that do not make the list. However, there must be a reason for this list to exist and however it is weighted it does seem to represent some form of list that represents active members. Just clicking the 'show active members' link on the left gives a list that invariably include the people at the top of the active member list. In this case my analysis is not flawed, and the voting bias is skewed - this is something I do at work, so I do know what I am talking about.

The point of making this post is that my analysis of real data - as distinct from subjective observation - supports the point of view of people who say that they do not get votes unless they have friends, and to prove that there is statistical evidence of high voting within a small group of friends. Friends would I believe share similar artistic values and therefore there is a large group of votes with similar tastes and this therefore represents an artistic bias.

Suggestions. Ok, don't let people post until they have voted 16 times. Do not let people vote more than 16 times in a day unless they post. Limiting the voting will remove this bias, as limiting uploads has effectively removed posting bias.
0∈ [?]
Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855) Crysophilax's Gallery and Web Page
=Samatar
05/11/08 1:16 PM GMT
Personally methinks thou art "sweating the small stuff" too much.

I'm just glad I'm not in that list so noone can analyse me... picking out a praetor for specail mention(and everyone is now going to know exactly who you are referring to) seems particularly poor judgement in my eyes. Remember these are the people who VOLUNTEER their time to keep the site running for YOU. I don't think it's very wise to question their contribution. If they didn't contribute then they wouldn't have been chosen for the task.

I have never really gotten why people seem to pick the way this site is run to death. If it wasn't run well then it wouldn't be as popular and long lasting as it is. Though I do agree that of course there are people who upload alot of images that should probably vote and comment or contribute in some other way, I doubt bringing this up will change that. But I'm not going to sweat it... as they say, "Don't sweat the small stuff, and it's all small stuff..."
0∈ [?]
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion- rescope.com.au
::crysophilax
05/11/08 1:31 PM GMT
Let me make this very clear. I AM NOT CRITICIZING THE WAY THE SITE IS RUN. I like this site, I like the community and personally I do not have many criticisms with the way it is run which is why I spend a lot of time here. I also am putting in effort here to make the site better, in my own time, unpaid. I am merely stating that statistically there is evidence for what many people 'feel', that is there is voting bias. This is also not small stuff. The voting bias is HUGE (statistically speaking).

With reference to the most active members list. This list represents over 74% of the voting. How do I know? Well, about 100 pictures are uploaded every day. They require 16 votes on average over a period of time, so thats 1,600 votes per day. The statistics seem to be gathered over a period of 7 days, so that's 7 x 1,600 or 11,200 votes in total, and there are 8,298 in the top list or 74%. So please do not belittle me with comments like its not the whole story. I think it is 7 days, since some friends of mine upload 2 pictures a day and they only ever show 14 uploads as a maximum.

I also think it is bad form for people who run the site to criticize people for NOT voting, when other members who run the site do not follow site rules. If you feel it not necessary to vote when you post, then remove the rule. I have not disclosed anything new. The information is available for everyone to see. Removed comment.
0∈ [?]
Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855) Crysophilax's Gallery and Web Page
::LynEve
05/11/08 2:40 PM GMT
"Remember these are the people who VOLUNTEER their time to keep the site running for YOU."
Sam - this has been said many times and many many times gratitude and appreciation of what is done by the volunteers is generously and willingly given. With the greatest of respect to you and all of the others, I do not think it should be forgotten that the members also contribute time and effort in varying ways and degrees, and they also help to keep the site running,and popular.

I am sorry that was not keeping on topic.

Numbers are not my strong point - so the above analysis is slightly incomprehensible to me.
Perhaps I am a bit simple,and I have said this so many times before, but wouldn't making uploads payable for by a specified number of votes (for all members- taking away the 'perk' for financially contributing members of not being required to vote) do something towards rectifying the 'skewedness' and bias.
Or perhaps there be an automated message sent to those who are 'not voting enough' to remind them of their obligations.

0∈ [?]
The question is not what you look at, but what you see ~ Marcel Proust
.LoDollar
05/11/08 5:33 PM GMT
If you live in certain countries, you do not get to vote
If you live in the UK, you get to vote once
If you live in Grinell Iowa, or most cities in the USA
you get to vote once
If you live in Chicago, you get to vote often
even dead people get to vote
All members of CAEDES and non-members get to vote,
and vote often
This sounds like a good thing to me, at least they vote!
Are there any DEAD members or Non-members of CAEDES voting?
Please -- identify yourself!

Your observations are probably valid, BUT Please! dont sweat the small stuff!




0∈ [?]
.LoDollar
05/11/08 5:34 PM GMT
I vote! In fact, I voted twice today.
0∈ [?]
::crysophilax
05/11/08 5:40 PM GMT
I don't think non-members can vote. If they could that would improve the situation. Nor do I think it small stuff when so few people are determining what is good and what is not. I don't think the current situation helps new members, of members in general, and I do think thee is a problem. Maybe not a big problem, but one that should, and could be tackled. I don't think this bias is helping Caedes as a site, a site I like, frequent and enjoy. I don't think it helps new members that appear to be ignored, comment wise, by those people who are in here a lot. I am not criticising for the sake of it. I am trying to help by highlighting a problem so we can discuss it rationally and hopefully improve the site as a result.
0∈ [?]
Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855) Crysophilax's Gallery and Web Page
&purmusic
05/11/08 5:52 PM GMT
From your above comments, and I quote:

1. "So please do not belittle me with comments like its not the whole story."

2. "I also think it is bad form for people who run the site to criticize people for NOT voting, when other members who run the site do not follow site rules."

I don't have any particular problem with what you are presenting ... save those two sentences.

In reference to:

1. If I gave the impression that I was being condescending and/or patronizing ... that was not my intent.

2. You are most assuredly unawares of where time is spent on behalf of those involved in trying to make the site run as smoothly as possible, and how much time is spent in total.

To be clear, I am not saying that 'my' time is more valuable than yours, I am a member just like you in the final analysis.

Time gets eaten up in a big hurry and in a big way and does not always allow for full participation in all activities on the site here for those behind the scenes. Simply stated and addressing your comment.


And rather than have this discussion veer off and become non-productive, perhaps 'we' can keep it more on track with your stated goals towards improvement and not direct comments to any one particular group of individuals.


Your suggestion.

"Ok, don't let people post until they have voted 16 times. Do not let people vote more than 16 times in a day unless they post."

Reducing the number of votes per person will extend the time needed to reach a point where that number has some statistical value. The consideration here is how long should an image remain in the new images galleries before either being archived or promoted to the permanent galleries.

The C-Index is an adjusted number. It does take into consideration those voters that tend to be high raters, as well as, the converse.

Not trying to be argumentative here, please know that. I would really like to see something concrete come out of discussions such as this one.

I have wrestled with the law of numbers in trying to make sense of the scores handed out from time to time. At the root it would appear that the population is not random, the sampling of the population has indeed some characteristics that fall outside those of normal expectations where the question of behavioural tendencies are concerned ... and more to the point, what is palatable in terms of art and a number that is assigned that represents the worth of that art.

So ... with an inherent, or so it would appear by your analysis and as well my own personal thoughts and considered observations ... bias present in the voting population ... how would you address that component?

Is it even possible? ... to cut to the chase.

Making it compulsory for all members to vote, in order to upload, I am unsure of how that would address any particular bias. I see merely a protracted length of time before the assignation of a final number. Not necessarily a fix.

Having said that, if ... if, all members were to participate in the voting process it would surely bring to the forefront the entire picture, if you will. And then perhaps, some adjustments could be made in the preferred method of adjustments and subsequent weightings.

I mention this last part to address your words of the site administrators criticizing those who do not participate currently in the voting booth. This is was where I was coming from in any of my past comments regarding that subject matter. It was not a criticism by me.


Removing that perk to members that contribute/donate to the site's costs ... I don't know what the impact would be if done.

So ... any suggestions on that front as to how to best address and acknowledge those that do? Take something away, I would think something needs to be put in whatever it's place was prior.
0∈ [?]
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
&purmusic
05/11/08 5:57 PM GMT
And on a personal note ... the title of this post initiated by you.

Clever (it did get a chuckle out of me) and it will get the attention of the viewers, however ... a tad harsh, no? Taking into consideration that you are not criticizing, rather you are sharing your observations and knowledge of statistics ... seems to me that you could make those words more acceptable to an open discussion.

Hopefully, and not an ensuing flame war ... although with that start ... and in my personal opinion ... you are not setting the stage properly. My personal opinion here.
0∈ [?]
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
::crysophilax
05/11/08 6:56 PM GMT
You are probably right, I am not known at work for my tact either. I do feel there is a problem, I don't think it should be brushed under the carpet, I do want to help. The title was meant to warn people about the problems with statistics if taken out of context. If it makes people read then perhaps we can have the discussion I was hoping for.
0∈ [?]
Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855) Crysophilax's Gallery and Web Page
::Pixleslie
05/11/08 10:55 PM GMT
I appreciate your data analysis and your raising questions, crysophilax. I've also pondered the practices that underlie the site stats.

The C-index of any given image is set by very few members -- 17 per image when site traffic is brisk, yes? The principles guiding how individual members vote vary widely, judging by messages left on these boards. Some say they only ever give 10s. Others won't give a 5 to an image if they spot a flaw. Some admit to hating a particular category of images (fractals, foof, bugs) and voting them down. Many suspicions have been raised about a clique uprating its members' images. Were more votes collected on each image, variations in voting principles would be more likely to even out. But with 17 or fewer weighing in, a cluster effect can carry a lot of weight image by image.

When I started posting images a year ago, I wondered why one of my images would score higher or lower than one that seemed pretty equivalent. I noted oddities in other members' C-index scores, too. Some inarguably fine images brought in low scores, while some markedly flawed, hasty looking shots brought in high scores. That mods moving images to the perm galleries don't simply choose those with the highest C-index scores reinforced my increasingly casual attitude toward the C-index.

As for the usage stats, they do indeed chart the different ways in which members use the site.

For some, this is very much a social venue. They post many comments and invest a good deal of time in their Caedes friendships. Bread-and-butter notes of appreciation or kind comments in return for same are part of their polite ways. For others, this is an online gallery for their work, period. They post; they sign off. My habits skew in that direction, frankly -- not because I don't care about the community here, but because I don't have much time to spare for photography in general, despite my love of it.

When I'm posting, I'm voting, though. Got the habit before I made a donation and had to vote at least 10 times to post. Thing is, when #11 comes up, I've always gotta see the bigger version. Is it really that good/bad? How'd they do that (or why'd they post that)? So if I vote, I'm likely to vote on 40 images. That, I don't think, is common. (Did somebody mention that it's 40 in a 12-hour period, not a 24-hour period?)

I don't comment all that much because one of the things I like about images is that they transcend words. I earn my living with words, and escaping from them is my chief motivation for coming to Caedes.net. Also, I'm not all that brilliant about what could have been done to improve an image. With experience and training, I may have pithy advice to offer. Right now, I mostly look, consider, and cruise on, hoping my voting gives something back to the community that my dishing out teh stoopid image after image at this point wouldn't.

So that's *my* Caedes.net. Everybody here has their own Caedes.nets and that plays out in the site stats.

The stats get questioned (often) in part because they're not transparent. There's said to be some mystery algorithm that converts the individual votes into the C-index, for example, and the download count doesn't count downloads, it counts the number of times a larger image size was clicked. The fact that the site was designed to track and post certain data implies that what's tracked is not to be considered "small stuff." And numbers are interesting. They just are. I'd like more. :::passing glucose tabs to the mods:::

But the stats aren't interesting enough to keep me here. :^D I stick around because I learn a lot and because when I hit one of the memorable images that turn up here, it makes my day. ('River with Hole' and 'Fog' have been among them.) I hope to see more of your work.

--Leslie


0∈ [?]
“A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know.” Diane Arbus
::Pixleslie
05/11/08 11:03 PM GMT
The venerable history of this thread's title, courtesy of Wikipedia:

'[Mark] Twain popularized the saying in "Chapters from My Autobiography," published in the North American Review, No. DCXVIII., July 5, 1907. "Figures often beguile me," Twain wrote, "particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"

'Alternative attributions include the radical journalist and politician Henry Du Pré Labouchère (1831-1912), and Leonard H. Courtney, who used the phrase in 1895 and two years later became the president of the Royal Statistical Society. There is some doubt, however, as to what Courtney intended the phrase to mean.

'Recently, attention has been drawn to a use of the phrase in 1892 by Cornelia Augusta Hewitt Crosse (1827-1895). In 1894 a doctor called M Price read a paper to the Philadelphia County Medical Society in which he referred to "the proverbial kinds of falsehoods, 'lies, damned lies, and statistics.'" The fact that he referred to the phrase as "proverbial" seems to imply that he thought it familiar at that time.

'The phrase has also been attributed to [William] Abraham Hewitt (1875-1966), and Commander Holloway Halstead Frost (1889-1935). If the phrase was indeed current by 1892, Frost can be eliminated and Hewitt must be very unlikely indeed.'


0∈ [?]
“A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know.” Diane Arbus
*caedes
05/12/08 2:16 AM GMT
If you are familiar with the 80:20 rule then the skew that you see here shouldn't be very surprising. Voting on images in this case is analogous to voting in a referendum. You can vote on as many images as there are, but you cannot vote on a single image more than once. The result of this is that people who vote on more images have a bigger effect on the direction of the site, but only in so far as the c-index is concerned. In the end, people who participate more will always have a bigger effect, and I will encourage them in that effort.

It is also worth pointing out that this represents only the top 100 members. There is an extremely long tail in most of these statistics.
0∈ [?]
-caedes
.WENPEDER
05/13/08 6:01 AM GMT
Sigh....I'm hesitating commenting because I know this issue has been discussed a lot.... I don't think there is very many who post images here who aren't aware that the C-index voting system doesn't always provide a real RELIABLE index of image quality for a variety of reasons that have already been mentioned and discussed.

I, for one, have gotten away from voting because, while I like looking at select photographs that catch my eye, I really prefer computer generated art and I rarely even get an opportunity to vote on the types of images I feel best equipped to critique in the voting booth.

Bottom line - - I'm reluctant to vote on images that I simply don't care much about because I find myself trying to rush through such images and I don't think my opinion on them is necessarily of much value to the people who took the time to make those images.

Hence, while I haven't had much time to post or participate here in recent months (I've been very busy tending to family health issues,) when I do have a bit of time, I prefer leaving comments on images I'm drawn to, rather than voting on images which, while of good quality, simply do not attract me much.

I view this site as a great place to share art and find great art. I don't view it as a place to come to find fault with others' work per se, though, if I have a helpful suggestion that I think someone might value, I share it. I just think that there is a bit too much emphasis on critiquing art here and not enough on appreciating the time and effort that goes into much of the work here. That's one reason that I've opted to look at images of my choosing rather than get caught up in playing "critic" in the voting booth.

There was some talk about altering the voting system to some kind of a image ranking process where images of the same type (photos, fractals, etc.) would be RANKED in relation to one another rather than rated individually on a 1-10 scale. Is something like that still in the works? Wen
0∈ [?]
::marcaribe
05/13/08 2:40 PM GMT
Hello Chris,

I am sorry to hear you are upset with Caedes and you feel some of the polices, friends, C-Index, voting are skewed and unfair. For a time I felt as you did, but found I was just spinning my wheels and getting too worked up over it. Many people helped me to get past that period. Now I enjoy the site for the original reason I joined, that was to share my favorite pictures of travel and enjoy beautiful pictures of all sorts from birds, flowers, landscapes, trees etc: In fact I never noticed fractals until I joined and now I appreciate and adore them. Plus I do enjoy B & W photos so much more.
My best advice is to take some time away and think about the reason YOU joined the site. You are a good friend and I hope you continue to post your nice photo's
0∈ [?]
::crysophilax
05/13/08 7:02 PM GMT
Actually, as I have stated several tmes above I like this site, I have no problems with it and I also like posting to it, so I do not feel the need to get over anything. I posted the original message since it interested me to do the analysis. I have no problems with the votes I receive on my own pictures which follow a nice normal distribution around a value of 50 proving that I am entirely average.

I do believe that there is a skewing in the voting. You only have to look at the c-index of pictures to see that. There is also a massive group clusterfest when it comes to leaving comments. Again I am quite glad really, as I find a lot of messages just telling me how great an obviously mediocre picture is quite depressing, however it does nothing to help people or make newcomers welcome.

So I am not bothered, so why do this? It saddens me when new people join and are either ignored or their pictures voted low when they have more merit than the stream of pictures that arrive daily voted up by a few people that dominate the voting. I feel that it does a disservice to Caedes as a site and I thought that by highlighting a problem with evidence to its existence might generate a discussion whereby we could address the issue.

0∈ [?]
Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855) Crysophilax's Gallery and Web Page
=Samatar
05/14/08 1:02 AM GMT
Although again I can agree with what you're saying to a certain degree, I must say that caedes is much better than any other site I have seen in terms of an even distribution of comments. I think this has to do with the limited number of uploads as much as the comment requests and the general community spirit 'round here. If you have a look at a site like deviantart, for example, you will find a very significant number of images that have no comments and probably never will. But as you say, there is always room for improvement.
0∈ [?]
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion- rescope.com.au
::LynEve
05/14/08 3:34 AM GMT
If the voting is being dominated by a 'few people' then it is in the hands of the other members to balance that by voting more themselves.

It could perhaps be seen as insulting to those who vote often and in greater numbers to have it suggested that they 'vote up' certain images - presumably created by those known to them. That suggestion alone is enough to make anyone give up and say 'why bother?' if suspicion is voiced as to their motives.
0∈ [?]
The question is not what you look at, but what you see ~ Marcel Proust
+philcUK
05/14/08 5:35 AM GMT
Voting up friend’s images or even attacking others is and has always been an unfortunate reality but yes you are right more people need to vote more often to get a more balanced view. What will happen then of course is that those who are used to having their scores artificially bolstered will then feel aggrieved if their scores begin to be a more accurate reflection of a larger cross section of tastes.
0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
::crysophilax
05/14/08 5:51 AM GMT
I did not suggest that anyone votes up pictures intentionally, just that their tastes would dominate. I vote a picture I like higher than one I don't, thats the point of the voting system. It only get skewed when people don't vote so one artistic viewpoint dominates. It is good that people do vote and we should thank those that do and perhaps remind those that don't of the collective obligation that will make this site better.
0∈ [?]
Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855) Crysophilax's Gallery and Web Page
::LynEve
05/14/08 12:30 AM GMT
I am sorry Chris, that I misunderstood what you said :)My apologies.


I guess it is a subconscious thing to maybe vote higher on an image that is visually pleasing to you. I don't think I am alone in trying to be as impartial as is possible when voting. So many variations of the way it is supposed and imagined people vote have been voiced many times - e.g if you like flowers you will vote them high, or conversely if you like flowers you will vote them low in order to boost your own scores. It is all supposition and nothing can be done about the way people choose to vote. All we can do is to hope that the majority of members are honest and fair in their appraisals. I must have said it a dozen times ( I am even beginning to bore myself with it :) ) that increasing the voting pool would go a long way towards giving a fairer final score.

I don't care much for cars - I would not want one on my desktop - but that in no way prevents me from looking at a picture of one and considering its merits, and I hope I vote accordingly. I have wondered perhaps if we are honest we all tend to a greater or lesser degree to use our own images and the scores they have achieved as a yardstick for the numbers we give in the VB. And we have all seen images that WE personally consider are not up to the standard of one of our own and yet has scored a much higher score. The reverse often happens as well.
The system can never be perfect - because people will never have perfect judgment (except perhaps in their own minds :) )

As for new members being ignored - well I am guilty of not actively seeking our new members - just recently I have not had the time - but we all joined once and all felt the same trepidation and perhaps felt a lack of confidence. I know I did.The only way to be involved is to make the effort and become involved oneself.
I really don't understand why a new member's work should be voted low as you said Chris. Why would this be? How is it known in the VB that this is the work of a new member? They are judged anonymously along with those that have been here for years. It is natural (in most cases) that those with more experience (not only skills, but understanding what is expected and what may be more acceptable)should, on the whole receive higher scores. I am aware that there are some very talented newer members that some of the older ones will never equal, but on the whole I think the majority on newer members improve as they go and scores improve alongside.
And that is what keeps most of us here - improvement, encouragement and inspiration from the artists we admire.

Along the way we gain some pretty cool desktops as well :)
Not to mention gain friends and also have a bit of fun.

And spend time pontificating here when the time would have been better spent in the VB - I speak for myself only in saying that :) :)

0∈ [?]
The question is not what you look at, but what you see ~ Marcel Proust
::crysophilax
05/14/08 1:11 PM GMT
And I upload mediocre pictures just like every one. There are very few who hold off for just that perfect picture. I don't think new artists get voted low per se, only if they do something different or unusual. Then it does not matter if they are new or old. Personally I like to explore boundaries, post unusual pictures etc, and there is a feeling that if you do they are marked down. It is human nature as you say, but it might be alleviated with a broader brush in the voting arena. To see two pictures next to each other in the new images galleries, one with one comment the other with 20, albeit not very useful comments, must make newcomers or even old hands feel despondent. How often has it been said, even in this thread, "this is what happens, get used to it", or "I don't take any notice of the CI anymore" or "I gave up expecting comments ages ago". I just feel it should not be that way.
0∈ [?]
Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855) Crysophilax's Gallery and Web Page
::LynEve
05/14/08 2:58 PM GMT
I posted something unusual a couple of days ago - yes it was marked low (how low can you go lol) but I do not think it was because it was unusual it was because it was unusual and not liked. Thats where it ends - is it liked ? If not, down like a lead balloon.
I have never believed comments have to be 'useful' If they are that is an added welcome bonus. I also believe that the fact someone has looked at what I did, taken the time to leave a word or two, is the real reason I am here - to communicate in some way with others.
The images with one comment - just out of interest check to see how many comments have been made by the artist - the more you comment the more you get, short long or in between. If someone I am not acquainted with (for want of a better word) comments on one of my images I almost always go to their gallery, almost always find something I like and I comment on it. Maybe some of those comments are seen as a waste of space, I help when and if I can but I do not have much in the way of technical expertise. That is how my friends list came into being - by seeing the type of work I enjoy and want to see more of - I am not here just to vote upload and comment - I like to think I am still here for the original reason I stayed here after finding the site - for enjoyment.
Getting back to compulsory voting - another bonus of voting is you get to see a wide variety of pictures and begin to appreciate other genres and types of work, with the opportunity to take a closer look once the vote is made. So it is a 2 way benefit - artist and voter both gain something.
I have never stopped taking notice of the CI - I don't always agree, sometimes I am pleasantly surprised, sometimes I admit I am disappointed. Sometimes I even mutter under my breath :) Yes, I take notice but I do not let it get to me - its a number, thats all. Just like age - you are as old as you feel and your images are worth to you what YOU feel they are worth. If the voters agree then Yippee! If not move on and post some more. Ask advice, view other images, get ideas.

I like every image I have ever posted, they are my creations, some I have spent many hours on, but I am not stupid enough to expect everyone else to like them. If just one or two people derive some pleasure from them that the effort has been worthwhile. They do not have to be universally applauded.

Now at 3am I think it is time for me to shut up.
I will take it as read that all will agree with me on that at least :)
0∈ [?]
The question is not what you look at, but what you see ~ Marcel Proust
&purmusic
05/14/08 10:17 PM GMT
Quoting Chris in part from his last post above; "Personally I like to explore boundaries ... ."

Think that kind of sums up what 'some' may be missing if they only relegate their time to attending to their friend's list. Excluding those, to an extent, that spend time voting.

It would seem to me that if one spends some time in the voting booth, that ... yes, the artist does indeed get exposed to different 'stuff'.

Perhaps the disheartenment is in that those images that are of good quality and different ... do not receive the recognition through comments? Even if those images are 'experienced' to a degree by the voters. And then of course, the issue of the score that is handed out.

And I do believe that encouragement, praise and constructive critiques should be handed out equally. For those placing the comments on an image's page it forces 'you' to think, reconsider approaches et al.

Quoting some official words here;

"How to Give a good review. - Hopefully this will give you a good idea of what the caedes.net staff considers to be a good review. It also highlight characteristics that we look for when selecting new staff members."

Of which the first part leads to a linked page outlining the aspects of a good review ... what more needs to be said?

The site's experience and how the membership approaches that experience will inevitably lead to people doing different things and in their own ways I suppose.

Discussions such as this one that Chris initiated is in my mind, some food for thought and hopefully instills some foresight and added aforethought on some fronts.
0∈ [?]
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
::LynEve
05/15/08 1:09 AM GMT
A few cookies may attract more participants Les :)
All those in favour please say "Aye"

Motion carried!
0∈ [?]
The question is not what you look at, but what you see ~ Marcel Proust
&purmusic
05/15/08 2:09 AM GMT
No problem ... a cookie from yours truly. ;o)

One for the masses, one might say ... and ... I did. :oD
0∈ [?]
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
::LynEve
05/15/08 2:16 AM GMT
How did you get that photo of me?

:)

OOps, no, sorry, 'tis you :)
0∈ [?]
The question is not what you look at, but what you see ~ Marcel Proust
+regmar
05/15/08 4:08 AM GMT
I'm sorry, but I just spent 20 minutes trying to read this thread, and I just gave up. There is way too much. I speed-read through the rest. Forgive me.

Lyn, I do appreciate you taking the time to do the mathematical analysis. You have some good points, and I think the most important point is that people don't vote. Me, I try to vote twice a week. On the other hand I don't upload images unless I think they're REALLY GOOD. I'm usually wrong, but the point is that I don't think many of my images are good. I see no point in polluting the site with crap, so my upload to vote ratio is pretty low. In fact I think that voting is more important than anything else I can offer, so I do it relatively frequently.

When it comes to comments, I'm entirely aware of the fact that we tend to monitor our "friends list" friends more than everyone else, and who can blame us? That's what the friends list is for. Instead of that I deliberatly pick images at random out of the New Images, and I leave comments on them. That way many different people get the nebulous "benefit" of my commentary.

Crys, I hate to sound crusty, so forgive me please, but there is no reason at all for the "most Active Members" list to exist beyond the fact that one day Caedes thought it would be an interesting thing to create and share, and he hasn't changed his mind (yet). It is interesting though, don't you think? I check it all the time to see how may times I've voted.

By the way, the only way I can rationalize the low c-indices my clearly magnificent (facetious) images have gotten is this: Everyone must certainly be voting high on my images, so the site weights their votes. Clearly Caedes has the weights wrong, because the images obviously approach greatness ...
0∈ [?]
ж Regmar ж
::LynEve
05/15/08 4:42 AM GMT
"Lyn, I do appreciate you taking the time to do the mathematical analysis. "

Wasn't me! :) I dont do numbers.
I'm the one who does too much talking
Too many uploads
Not enough marbles.
0∈ [?]
The question is not what you look at, but what you see ~ Marcel Proust
+regmar
05/15/08 2:11 PM GMT
Ooops. Sorry Crys.
0∈ [?]
ж Regmar ж
.DixieNormus
05/20/08 12:28 AM GMT
My commenting in these forums nowadays is an EXTREME rarity. Mostly due to the fact that I damned near got banned for it. However, my feeling toward the c-index, and voting system remains unchanged. I can remember the "good old days" when I was able to vote on ONLY the images that I chose. The c-index? Always has been, and always will be biased. I said it 3 years ago. I wasn't wrong.
0∈ [?]
=ppigeon
05/20/08 7:34 AM GMT
Amen...
0∈ [?]
-Pierre-

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: