Caedes

Desktop Wallpaper, Art, etc.

Discussion Board -> Desktop Wallpaper, Art, etc. -> Quantity & Quality

Quantity & Quality

::LynEve
02/07/09 12:44 AM GMT
Some time ago there was an effort to encourage members to be more selective in their uploads and a suggestion of limiting that number in order to increase the overall quality being offered.

My thoughts at the time were that the quality would not increase via this method and although I respect the opinions of those who strongly disagreed with me, I still believe it to be true.

At that time around 150 images per day were uploaded - this appears to have decreased to nearer 80. Whether this is a seasonal thing or a result of members acting on the fewer upload suggestion I have no way of knowing but my recent VB experiences would suggest that the overall quality has not changed - there still appears to be similar proportions of outstanding, average, and substandard work offered. It would seem to me that the result is simply fewer outstanding and deserving images are now available for inclusion on the permanent galleries.

Assuming the number of members uploading has remained the same it would be interesting to know the reason for the decrease. With varying degress of talent and artistry I still fail to understand how the quality would be any different whether each member uploaded 2 per day, 2 per week, or 2 per year. Only the numbers would alter, not the quality.
Quality improvement is a result of observation, interaction and exchange of knowlege, and of course practice practice practice with the opportunity to have efforts scrutinised and critiqued.

What do you think? I know some of you will disagree :)
0∈ [?]
The question is not what you look at, but what you see ~ Marcel Proust

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
::crysophilax
02/07/09 1:54 PM GMT
I think you are right. Less pictures, less good pictures. I think this is another aspect of the problem I feel in my sameness thread. I have many people in my friends list who have stopped posting, although I do not know why. I suspect people come and go from the site and that the volumes of pictures posted must wax and wane accordingly. I feel we need to create an environment where people want to upload images, and good exciting and different images and feel that they will be recognised for their efforts. Obviously we can improve image general quality by offering constructive criticisms, but creating a continuous environment where people think outside of the box as happens during competitions is another way.
0∈ [?]
Don't take any notice of my comments. I post pictures that get a CI of 0! (Well almost) Crysophilax's Gallery and Web Page
::laurengary
02/07/09 2:42 PM GMT
Members come, & members go, Lyn, it's the nature of the beast. This is certainly not the site it was in say... in 2006 for example. There's a lot of different people here now. I can only speak for myself & say... Actionjack51, Larry. I pretty much left here because of the non support for fractalists & I know for a fact Larry did too....he never comes back at all. We both went to dA for the obvious reason, CGI has a welcome mat over there & a home.

I still come back here & often too, & I still post here occasionally, but I really only come back because A.) Jacqueline is here, & B.) Caedes is my first home & I am loyal & C.) I love playing in the forums. I have also made many new friends & I wouldn't leave them now. ;-)

As to the quality of my fractals ? I can't say, I'll have to let others judge them.

As I see it, what your basic complaint/problem/concern is, is that the quality of the images has gone down in recent months. Well, wasn't this very same issue brought up last spring in another thread somewhere & didn't people want the quality of the uploads raised, & wasn't it agreed that the image modes would do this ? Somehow despite complaints to the contrary, I seem to think this happened.

But, somehow so many complaints must have been received that despite this agreement I'm assuming, the quality of the uploads has again gone down.

This is not an art site. This is a wallpaper site. If you would like it to be more of an Art Site maybe that other thread should be dredged up & the convo restarted or maybe the art site suggestion could be made on the Feature Bloat Forum.
0∈ [?]
I've got amnesia & deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before ! ......CLICK TO SAVE LIVES ! .......MY GALLERY
+philcUK
02/07/09 3:03 PM GMT
yes - a non official effort to tighten up upload quality by rejection and advice was made and got the galleries looking very good but caedes got bombarded with complaints from too many people that there snaps werent considered art so the flood gates got opened up again much to everyones dismay. well aside from the snap uploaders. obviously.
0∈ [?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
::crysophilax
02/07/09 5:24 PM GMT
I think the site deals with snaps well. They get their moment of glory and slowly gather dust until they are archived. What we must do is make sure that good pictures that are posted pop out the other end of this process and make it to the perms.
0∈ [?]
Don't take any notice of my comments. I post pictures that get a CI of 0! (Well almost) Crysophilax's Gallery and Web Page
::cynlee
02/07/09 6:23 PM GMT
I don't know if this is germaine to this thread, but I had an idea that maybe some of us could use instruction on art appreciation. I don't know how that could be accomplished, but it would have to be given by someone with the appropriate background and the willingness to offer their time.
We could each be allowed to offer up one anonymous image for critique if we desired and a random image could be taken from those for the critique. We could do it with photos, fractals, manips, whatever. Others could be allowed to make observations on the chosen image also. If it were successful, then maybe we could repeat the exercise.
Silly idea?

0∈ [?]
"Felicity is a tree whose root is certitude and crown is serenity"...Frithjof Schuon
&animaniactoo
02/07/09 6:27 PM GMT
Lyn, actually nothing about the original argument has changed by your example. (I'm about to get all mathematical on ya here).

The point of the original example was that *most* people who upload 2 a day every day do so no matter what. They feel they have to hit that goal. Let's call them Group A. Others feel less pressured to do so, and more carefully consider what they upload regardless of how much they have available to them. We'll call them Group B. There are a very limited number of people who can upload 2 quality images a day every day. Those are Group C.

Therefore the point of enforcing a lower limit was to decrease the number of slots that the people in Group A had available, thereby reducing the influx from this category. If fewer people overall are uploading, but the ratio of Group A to Group B to Group C has remained relatively stable, the results of the proportions will also remain stable whether the overall total has increased or decreased.

Let's work through a few examples.

Group A - 14 uploads per week x 50 people = 700 images

Group B - 3 uploads per week x 80 people = 210 images
(This is using an approx average for people who upload 6-7 a week and those who only upload once every 2 weeks or so)

Group C - 14 uploads per week x 10 people = 140 images

Now this isn't to say that many quality images aren't being uploaded by the people in Group A, but that the percentage of images that are higher quality is likely to be lower than the people in the other 2 groups. No guarantee that the people in those groups are brilliant artists, but because more self-selectiveness is put in within those categories, the percentage of higher quality images is likely to be larger than those in Group A.

So right now - we have 700 images from 50 contributers in Group A and a total of 350 images from 90 contributors in Groups B & C combined. (Yes, these numbers have been completely made up and by no means reflect true proportions of uploads, they are simply for demonstrating a point). That's a lot more images from a smaller segment of the site that are *less* likely to be higher quality images (but by no means all of them will be). In this example it would be 2 times as many.

Now, if you adjust the numbers to reflect your decrease - it would likely come close to an overall population density decrease across all 3 categories fairly equally. So if uploads decreased by say - 40%, the numbers would look like this:

Group A - 14 uploads per week x (50 x .60 =) 30 people = (700 x .60 =) 420 images

Group B - 3 uploads per week x (80 x .60 =) 48 people = (210 x .60=) 126 images.
(This is using an approx average for people who upload 6-7 a week and those who only upload once every 2 weeks or so)

Group C - 14 uploads per week x (10 x .6 = ) 6 people = (140 x .60 =) 84 images

Now we have 420 uploads from Group A and 210 from Groups B & C combined. Still 2x as much. The numbers might in actuality be up or down a little from that because not every group will drop off 40% of contributions, but it's close enough to be taken as reasonably approximate that the proportions of contributions between the groups won't change significantly enough to really be noticed.

However - if there were a different upload limit change, that is the thing that will significantly affect these proportions. Let's look at it from the original numbers we were playing with:

Group A - 7 uploads per week x 50 people = 350 images

Group B - 3 uploads per week x 80 people = 210 images
(This group is largely unaffected because they weren't using the full allotment anyway.)

Group C - 7 uploads per week x 10 people = 70 images

Now we have a proportion of 350 uploads from Group A to 280 images from Groups B & C combined.

A small group (c) of artists are affected by this in a negative way as far as the site would be concerned in regards to the number of uploads with probably higher quality. However if the overall quality of uploads to the site is up, then hopefully it is an acceptable price to bear for reducing the percentage of probably lesser quality images.

Due to my understanding of the way that a lot of people work - they don't have time to put up anything for a couple of days, but then will put up 2 one day, 1 the next, and 2 more 2 days later, I don't advocate changing the daily limit, and I think that changing the weekly limit would be better.

This is a place to learn and grow and flourish, to learn from other artists, to continually see the perception of our own art from an audience and receive feedback. I would simply prefer that the percentage of images from those who are still at the earlier stages of learning *or* don't care and just want to put up anything doesn't overwhelm the images that are more considered and have a higher average of being better images.

This site serves a dual purpose - it is both a community of artists who are always learning and sharing and growing AND a resource for quality desktop art. We need to take both parts into account to preserve both of them in the decisions that are made at all levels - from the mods to the newest member - and preserving the balance between both purposes.

(please give me 5 minutes to read myself and edit this once it posts before replying.)

Okay, I read, I don't think there's anything else I want to change, but I think I've outdone Les for longest post ever.
0∈ [?]
One man sees things and says "why?" - but I dream things that never were and I say "why not?"
::crysophilax
02/07/09 6:56 PM GMT
Hmmm.

Are you assuming that the people who post here know a good image from a not so good one, or are they just trying to get the 200 pictures they have up on the site? If the latter then no matter what you do the proportion of good to bad will be the same for them. Limiting them will lessen the dilution effect on others but what goes into the new images gallery is not the problem, except that good pictures are swamped.

I still feel that we just really need to find and encourage the good to keep posting. The mediocre can just be ignored or given constructive criticism and then archived into oblivion.
0∈ [?]
Don't take any notice of my comments. I post pictures that get a CI of 0! (Well almost) Crysophilax's Gallery and Web Page
&animaniactoo
02/07/09 11:35 PM GMT
No, I think that *some* members here throw up pictures that are clearly not their best and they know it - but not because they were trying and it was the best they could do and are looking for pointers - but in their own words "I just wanted to share this. Sorry about that phone pole in the way".

There are other sites whose purpose is simply photo-sharing. This isn't one of them, although we certainly do share our work here.

I think that members who are willing to be more self-selective can and usually do develop a better eye for what is "good". Sometimes good is in the eye of the beholder - but I firmly believe that those who are more willing to accept that if there's a phone pole in the way, the shot isn't a shot, are more likely to post better images.

I don't agree that the mediocre can just be ignored when it is in significant proportion to the non-mediocre work. This is because the site grows and keeps the interest of the community on a daily basis due to what changes - the new images gallery. Seeing a higher quality of images *on average* is a huge inspiration for members to try and achieve that level in their own work.

I don't believe that the New Images gallery should be limited to masterpiece works - by any means. But I'd like to think that a higher proportion of Apprentice and Master pieces to Journeyman ones in there serves the site as a whole. Both the visitors and the artists.
0∈ [?]
One man sees things and says "why?" - but I dream things that never were and I say "why not?"
&animaniactoo
02/07/09 11:46 PM GMT
btw, Cynlee, your post appeared while I was writing my uh... huge block of text there.

I think your suggestion is an excellent one, not silly at all.

I'm sure we can find a way to accomplish it among ourselves. I also don't think it necessarily has to be done by someone who is fully versed in the subject. Just the ability to post a link to a picture and have someone say "I like the contrast of the red barn to the white snow and the detail in the snow" and maybe somebody else says "What speaks to me here is the contrast between the barn (a working building) in the middle of a barren plain where no work is occurring or possible". Another says "I'm not particularly fond of this angle of the barn, there's too much of one side and not enough of the other" - all these comments bring different viewpoints to ponder and consider.

Hopefully some of the more versed on the site will stop by to say "do you see how they lined up the barn with that turned over wheelbarrow? that makes a statement" or "There's really good detail in the snow here, that's not always easy to achieve", etc.
0∈ [?]
One man sees things and says "why?" - but I dream things that never were and I say "why not?"
::LynEve
02/08/09 12:07 AM GMT
Lauren - you said "As I see it, what your basic complaint/problem/concern is, is that the quality of the images has gone down in recent months. "

No, not at all, what I was saying is that I see no change in the overall quality whatsoever despite the lower numbers.


Cat - "those who are more willing to accept that if there's a phone pole in the way, the shot isn't a shot, are more likely to post better images."
If there is a phone pole in the way of one of my images and I otherwise think it has some value I would spend some time to remove the pole :)

As far as photography is concerned I believe there are a very small number of naturally talented photographers here - whose work holds up with little or no post improvement.The challenge for me in most cases is to bring an image up to acceptable levels . That those levels may not be acceptable to others is something I can only ascertain by posting it. As said earlier "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and we all have different perceptions of that.

I suggested once before the idea of a 'work in progess' gallery" where members could upload an image for evaluation and suggestions for improvement before uploading the final result - this would be similar to Cindy's suggestion. I would help both the artist to improve, and the critics to improve on their appreciation by seeing what others have to say.



I am still working through your mathematical explanation. Anyone who knows me is aware I 'can't do numbers' lol :)
0∈ [?]
The question is not what you look at, but what you see ~ Marcel Proust
&animaniactoo
02/08/09 1:34 AM GMT
Yes, Lyn - but the fact that you would take the time and effort to remove the phone pole automatically disqualifies you from the category.

As for not knowing what is "good". I say HOGWASH woman. No, not everything you do will "work" - that's true of every artist. But don't you dare sit there and tell me you don't have a pretty good idea of what makes an image acceptable young lady!
0∈ [?]
One man sees things and says "why?" - but I dream things that never were and I say "why not?"

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: