I say the Voting Booth system does not work. And to back up my claim, here are my findings:

Why it does not work:
To be able to be voted upon, you must fill a certain amount of votes yourself. This provokes the more selfish among us to quick-vote. Open the big pic, close it before it even loads, punch a number and click on, NEVER even looking at the photo for more than a few seconds.
This leads to unrealistic c-indexes, in both bad photos getting high marks, and good photos getting low marks, with no feedback whatsoever.

How it would work better:
Lets say the system is not open to change as a whole. A minor tweak, however, would force better and more correct c-indexes.
Let's force the voting booth users to leave a comment upon voting if the vote is anything from 1-3 or 8-10.
This way if somebody wants to give your image bad marks, they are forced to give also a reason to it.

Makes no sense to let anyone ruin the day of others and not even having to explain oneself.
What makes me say this is the c-index of my photo "Observer", which is to my understanding at least an ok 5, and not the 2.9 it is now. I would have wished for at least some feedback from the people who had the nerves to put it down like this, so I could maybe see what they liked or did not like, in order to get better, or to better take photos that delight others in addition to myself.

Now I just feel bad, and have no explanations to learn from.

I wish that if people do post under this thread, they take the time to read EVERYTHING that has been written. This should discourage flash-replying and also bring down the amount of unnecessary "bickering".

For a wide variety of explanations and an even wider selection of opinions, use this link to read the C-index thread that was just retired to the Elephant Graveyard...

http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Board::Topic&id=3028079

It was retired because we were all pounding it into the ground with no real resolution. I know and understand your frustration with the CI but there really isn't anything we can do about it right now. I'm sure it's something that Geri has in the back of his mind and that he'll fix it as soon as the solution is found. The concerns you've stated here were addressed in that previous thread, and there actually were a few good suggestions. It might take you a little while to go through it and you should be prepared to weed out some of the bickering this thread created (it truly is a "hot" topic here at Caedes). You may or may not get many responses to this question of yours because, as I said, we just finished yakkin' about it. Good luck.

-Nikoneer

Hey, Chris (coram9)! You said to call back again when someone gets a C-Index score they don't like!

One of these years, just once, I want to see someone complain that their images are scored too high and others' too low.

Akeraios, good comment, but pls note that I did not say that mine got rated low while others were rated high.
I merely compared my own evaluation to the one I got.

Also I only stated that there is an easy solution to this.
Democracy will not work on a website, that is why there is a group of moderators who should take this matter under hand and either vote amongst themselves, then announce the decision and act accordingly, or make it a vote where all Caedesians have a voice.

And Nikoneer, I kinda quessed that this subject has been poked at, but I brought it up again. I wish that if people do post under this thread, they take the time to read EVERYTHING that has been written. This should discourage flash-replying and also bring down the amount of unnecessary "bickering". =)

This is after all a real issue, that can be fixed easily, if some ruling body would just convene and do something about it.
Or at least let us Caedesians know that something is being done, along with a deadline.

Talking is good for planning, but only actions lead to results.

Oh, and Akeraios, I had photos here before, but did a clean up at some point. I had this image of a little boat at the end of a peer, sitting in the absolutely still lake.
Sure, it was a good photo, but NOT worth the whopping 9.1 or 9.3 CI it got.

So there you go. Too bad I cannot prove this. =D

Well, I'm glad you're honest enough to admit it, but my point is that no one bothers to complain when their C-Index is too high. Or did you start a similar thread when that happened?

Wheres my elephant gun?!

Actually Hanna you are quite right. Well, since I did say it how about this. These two images are scored too highly From the Air. Over saturated, no great detail and too much flare from the window. My score would be 40, at best. Fern. Nice colour but again detail not there. Looks good small, but not when enlarged. The other recent images in my gallery are scored OK. The B&W are a little low but that is just the way things go here. The point is, as I now know, the CI is almost entirely random. It means nothing. I have a permed image with a score of 40. I have images with scored of 80 that are not permed (and not worth to 80 either).

Do not let the CI upset you.

Hukka55, I liked your idea concerning posting a comment if you rate a picture 1-3 or 8-10. In a perfect world, you would get helpful comments. I do fear that the speedsters you mentioned would "copy and paste" prepared posts to get the chore over with quickly or just give everything a 5.

But, I am in your corner and would like to believe that this requirement would render good, quality, comments from the membership. If not completely, atleast in quantities greater than what is seen currently.

As a reminder of sorts to all, 'we' do still have the "Request for Comment" section of the forums that could be utilized in instances such as what Hukka experienced with his noted image here.


A tad underutilized, I would say ... and did. :oP


/\ Kidding a bit.


Although that section does not appear to get much traffic on the surface ... I am aware that some members will head on over to the authors of the threads and then that of the image (or images) under consideration ... and place some 'constructive critique' once there.

Newsflash: subjective metric is subjective...

*BANG*