Are a lot of people getting their works archived in the first week or two?

I noticed that a Rework photo that I had posted 10 days earlier had been already been archived. I'm not sure how many days had gone by before I noticed it was archived, but I see that the comments stopped the day after I posted it, so I assume it was was less than 10 days.

It received comments like: "you did a very good work", "i really rather this rework so thx a lot, and great skill to make it go away, i dont think i would have managed to do it ", "Wow, that was quite a challenge, you did a splendid job! You can clone my images anytime!", "you did an excellent job".

I would like to know who archived it, so I can ask them why it was archived so quickly. The photo was named Rework - Majestic. It had 56 views in it's short time of being available, I think it was popular enough, so I'd like to know why it was archived and by who. I posted this in another thread a couple days ago, but no one answered. I wrote a personal message to someone and have not received an answer, so I'm starting a new thread to see if I can get some answers in it!

Feel free to answer me in a personal message or here.

Marti,
I am not one who archives images, but this question has been brought up before by people who believe that their work is outstanding and that it deserved much more time being oohed and awed over.
Just because the comments stopped doesn't mean the image was archived it means, very simply, the people quit commenting on it!

Views simply means it was viewed full screen, not dowloaded onto anyone's computer.

There is a large number of images uploaded every day. I have 2 previous discussion threads for you to read through that might help you understand the *archiving function.

HERE and HERE.

We are very lucky now, it used to be that images were deleted rather than archived. *caedes fixed it so that is no longer necessary.

I am posting this on the thread versus PM'ing so that any others who may be new like Marti can hopefully read it as well.

We don't need another lynching of the mods who work so hard and do all the housekeeping chores around here.:-)

My thought would be that the rework did not contain significant changes which is one of the criteria for archiving.

If an error was made, it will be corrected.

Thanks all.

Thank you for your response mimi!

I have to disagree with your comments, in part because your definition of Views is incorrect (see below for the site's definition) and therefore does challenge the extent of your knowledge. And also, because of your overly dramatic verbiage like, "people that think their work is outstanding and that it deserved much more time being oohed and awed over" and "We don't need another lynching of the mods"

To set the record straight, I never said anything about this work being outstanding. I do believe that it was good enough to have been active for more than a day, or even 10 days, I think a month would be much more fair, as the FAQ page says, "We try to keep every image for a minimum one month. If an image has been on the site for more than a month, we will make a decision on whether or not to keep it."

As far as containing significant changes, well I do believe that it holds it's own when compared to another rework that has been on the site since March of 2008. It took a lot of time to do what I did to it. There are several reworks that are dated 2004 and 2005 and 2006, seems they would be a candidate for archiving long before a work that was a few days old.

As for your definition of Views, which was erroneously stated as, "Views simply means it was viewed full screen, not dowloaded onto anyone's computer." I have posted the site's definition in order to help you, since that is highly encouraged here and to help others who may be new like me so they can read it as well.

The FAQ page states: We record a view when a person looks at the "info page" for the image (this is the page with the big thumbnail and description of the image). We record a download when a person clicks on the big thumbnail and views the image in one of the full sizes. . . . We cannot detect when a user saves an image to their computer or sets the image as their desktop wallpaper because both these actions are possible while viewing the image full size."

As you can see, no one knows how many people actually download any work from this site to a computer. I didn't mention anything about downloading in my message that you were responding to.

Lynching, no, I just want my fair share of time for my work to be viewed. When I started a thread earlier because a shot was archived after just three days, I was told to ask who the mod was that archived it, and then ask them why. So I am doing that now.

Again, thank you for responding, but you failed to answer any of my questions. i.e. who, why and are others seeing their work archived in the first 3 - 10 days.

Marti.. as someone who's been here a while (3+ years now), but is still one of "the masses", mind if I step in?

A lot, and I do mean alot, of threads have been posted over the years, in one variation or another (including a couple by me..yes, guilty) asking, and sometimes demanding to know why their images met a particular fate or another. Sometimes it was a premature (less than 30 day) archiving, sometimes it was that the image was even archived at all, or it was one of a variety of vote, perm, or other issues.

I know certain goings-on here at the site can be frustrating, Lord knows, but there's a (large)chance that the +mod that archived your shot, and the one who received your PM are not one and the same. And in light of the long history of members expressing dissatisfaction, sometimes, it's met with a bit of apathy. Each inquiry to us is "fresh and new" and of utmost importance. But perhaps, and I'm spitballing a bit here, it might be seen as "just another complaint about how we do our 'job' ".

Your image might have been archived in oversight, or perhaps, for whatever reason, the +mod might not have seen it in the same way you, or it's admirers have.

My suggestion, then, would be to PM Pierre (=ppigeon) or *caedes himself. Be ready to accept an answer you might not like, or perhaps, no response at all. As mimi pointed out, your image was archived, and not deleted. So anyone wishing to view it, still can, simply by visiting your gallery, or you can simply link them to it.

Oh, and one last thing... and this is harder than it might seem. Let it go. Shrug it off. Go take something else, post it, and move on. You'll be better off in the long run. Trust me.

Thank you third eye, I did contact caedes himself, days ago, and did not receive an answer.

I'm fairly new to this site and this the second time this has happened to me. I am thinking that there is something more to it than just "an oversite". If that is the case, I think it should be brought to attention. I've looked at the rework has been on this site for years, and I fully believe that new works should be allowed to get some air to breath long before trying to breathe fresh air into those moldy oldies.

I want an answer as to why my work doesn't get a "month" of viewing as stated in the FAQ, is that wrong?

As much as I appreciate you responding, sounds like you say I am complaining about my work being archived after just a few days, and that probably is the undertone, but I am asking questions here in hopes of getting answers to them, not in hopes of, "Let it go, shrug it off, post something else" {for them to archive in it's first week or two.)

I do apologize if it appears as though I'm trivializing your concern. I'm not. What I'm suggesting, is putting a cap on the level of energy, and stress on yourself, over the fate of your images. I've been through it, and so have a good number of members here. Out of frustration, I've cleared out my gallery.

Twice.

I've gotten into online squabbles with other members, and with a couple of the mods here. I still believe, at least to extent, that at the core of my arguments, I had valid points to make. But in hindsight, it all seems like wasted energy.

Just for the hell of it, try posting something completely different. See what happens. But, if after a certain amount of time, you don't get the results you are seeking, try to decide how much more energy "the cause" is worth.

Just my $.02
Maybe you, or someone else reading this will benefit from it. And.. on that note, I'll leave you to your own devices. Happy posting.

third_eye, I very much do appreciate what you are saying, and I agree with you, but at the same time, please know that I did try posting something completely different, it was the Rework that was archived! So that didn't work.

I am not wanting a squabble, I want to know who and why. I have an idea what is going on here. I had complained about a mod and I suspect that there is a personal vendetta going on. The only way to know for sure is to find out WHO archived my rework. Just so happens that the mod in question has work in the Rework section too.

If this is going on, then I will not post any more, and I will quit contributing financially, so I need to know the answer while I "decide how much more energy the cause is worth."

No squabble. Good luck.

Marti,
I know you believe I am "wrong" and that is yours to believe. But, trust me that thinly veiled threats don't fly really good around here.
Also that not one single mod, regardless of who you complained about in the past has the time nor the energy to invest in archiving one or more of your images due to a personal vendetta.

There are over 5,000 active users on the site today and it is still quite early in the northern hemisphere.

You have the right to believe whatever you want.I am sorry that you are so upset as well.

Whatever you decide to do is your decision based on false facts.

I attempted to help you as did third_eye. There is nothing more we can do to appease you at this time apparently.

Have safe and fun weekend.

Interesting that you say, "Whatever you decide to do is your decision based on false facts." Indeed mimi, I do not have any false facts, the reason I am asking my questions is to get the facts.

By the way, when you put quotations around a word as you did in saying that I believe that you are "wrong", it implies that you are quoting a word that I used about you. Please look again, because I did not.

Thanks, but I don't want your help mimi, I want someone that can see who archived my work to tell me who archived it. Thanks for your guesses and your attempts to say all the maybe this or maybe thats. I am looking for facts here, I can make up maybe's as well as the next person.

Again, the FAQ page says, "We try to keep every image for a minimum one month. If an image has been on the site for more than a month, we will make a decision on whether or not to keep it.".

I have had two photos archived almost as fast as I put them out, I want to know why my rework didn't get a month as stated in the FAQ. I am in the Cadre, I think I should be treated as is stated on the site.

Marti, please allow me to clear up a couple of things.

1st - when you are referring to images that have been around for a couple of years - these are images that reside in the "permanent" galleries. They are not culled and moved out of the way for newer work, they have been promoted because they were deemed worthy of an extended stay. You may disagree with an image that has gained such status, and you are free to bring that to a mod's attention, but they are not culled for newer works. The galleries grow, they don't swap in and out.

2nd - I have viewed both the original image and the rework. While whatever time you put into the rework may have been significant and difficult, when I view both images side by side, I do not *see* a significant difference. Significant means it is visible upon a single glance, not after some study between the two as a standard. Therefore it is likely that the newer image received a quicker-than-normal archive because it did not meet that standard and was essentially the same image to the average viewer.

I hope that clears everything up for you. - Cat

the simple truth is that often, due to to the volume of images uploaded/ time restraints of the people moderating them etc, the archive tool will be used as a simple method for removing images that have been uploaded erroneously or into the wrong galleries. each gallery page contains a simple explanation of its intent - for instance, computer images is meant for images created digitally rather than photographic such as 3D software, reworks are for images modified or improved in some manner by another member etc etc.


whilst there are no doubt members who post these images in the wrong galleries erroneously there are a greater amount who think that passing off their work into other sections is a good way to expedite a curve ball around the CoC of the site. basically its a trade off for image moderators between coping with gripes from people asking why their beloved galleries are being polluted with incorrect content or relying on members to take personal responsibility for the images they upload and upload them to a suitable category.

Let me also point out that being in the cadre does not entitle anyone to preferential treatment. Archiving images is based on the image, not whether or not you have made contributions to the site.

Seems to me your query has been answered more than adequately and you should let the matter rest now.

Cat, I very much do appreciate your comment, thank you, it did add some clarification. I must tell you though, I did not make reference to images that have been around a "couple of years" as you say, I said, "There are several reworks that are dated 2004 and 2005 and 2006." Think of the difference of using a computer a couple years old vs. one from 2004. There is a difference. None the less, thank you for your response.

philcUK, I can only hope that your comments are not in respect to my work. Your comments of "being uploaded erroneously or into the wrong galleries" and telling me that "members who post these images in the wrong galleries erroneously there are a greater amount who think that passing off their work into other sections is a good way to expedite a curve ball around the CoC of the site." do not pertain to what happened here.

I did not try to throw a curve ball, I did not try to do anything against the Code of Conduct. Shame on you if you are insinuating that I did.
To be clear, the work I am asking about was a rework piece, posted in the Rework area, named "Rework - Majestic". It was quite clearly Rework, uploaded to the Rework area.

A couple of years or 8 years it does not make a difference, we don't delete from the main galleries based on age. Leonardo would be very upset with us if we did that.

and the definition of the rework gallery being:

'This gallery contains caedes.net images that have been modified or improved in some manner by another member. If you plan to submit an image to the Rework Gallery, please ensure you first obtain the original author's permission.'

the emphasis there being the fact it is for images reworked not by the original artist but by another member creating a new interpretation rather than a simple modification or enhancement done by the same artist.

Yes philicUK, I know and understand the definition of rework. The piece in question was a rework piece, where I had obtained permission from Captured, the original artist. I linked to the original work.

If you read the information about the work, you'd see that the first comment on the original photo was something to the effect of, - I'd like to see the photo without all the grass in the way. My rework was that I removed all of that grass. This was not so easy of a task, I had to make a coyote's chest where there wasn't one originally because it was covered in grass and make the whiskers look perfect after removing the grass that used to cover part of that area.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that the change was too little? I have looked at the other reworks, some are just lightening a part where there was a shadow before, much less work than I did.

Why are you telling me this? What are you trying to communicate?