I was recently surprised to see a comment somewhere on Caedes that the person writing would "never" give a zero in the vb. I was surprised because such a stance had never occurred to me and it got me thinking about the issue.
The foundation point for my reasoning on this issue is that every image in the VB is there voluntarily, it's possible to post your photos here without submitting them to the VB so anyone who does submit to the VB has made a choice to get voting feedback.
I have seen in the VB images that were entirely out of focus or in which the obvious subject (Eg a flower) was out of focus even if everything else was sharp. It's an image, something to be LOOKED at, if you cannot actually SEE the subject, what's the positive that might get it a 1 or a 2?
In the VB I've had images of a mass of foliage, or a forest, for example, dull colours, underexposed or overexposed, no lines, no particular subject, no particular quality of the forest or foliage highlighted or noticeable, maybe in focus, maybe not, maybe one bit in focus. I give those images a 0. I understand the forest or foliage may have significance to the shooter but the photo has totally failed to let me in on the secret, which a photo shared with the public needs to do at least in some measure, otherwise, why share it?
Now the argument could be made that all of the qualities I've just used as reasons to vote a 0 might be artistic choices with a point to make. True. I consider that a good argument for some additional information on images in the VB to give voters a better frame of reference in such cases. As a general rule it's possible to pick up the works using such qualities artistically, they have a "thought about" quality to them. I usually go to see the photos I vote 0 on, curious to see where they came from, so far visiting the owners' pages has not indicated to me at any point that I voted 0 on a shot that was ugly or bad as a statement. They were all simply seriously deficient.
I don't give many 0's, I always look to see what is good, commendable, attractive in an image and if there is something, then that's the basis for my vote. I think a 0 should be as carefully used as a 10 in the VB - indications that an image is an extreme example, of the good or the indifferent. If I am prepared to give a 10, then rationally, I should be prepared to give a 0 also.
If getting honest critical feedback (such as 0, which only shows up vaguely as part of the overall c-index.) (EDIT: since I started this thread the actual votes given your image are available on your own page, thus rendering this small detail inaccurate.) creates great distress in a person, they are free to not subject their images to the VB, or they are free to consider the opportunities for personal insight and growth that might flow from them considering why such a small thing creates in them such a large reaction.

Since to VB or not to VB isn't the question, yet. And since it is no longer actually required to vote to post, it reeks of something that is clearly NOT competitiveness to take the time to vote "obvious" inflated and deflated scores.

If we are supposed to vote on like or dislike, thumbs up or down, I would get it..

One thing I have learned to appreciate is forcing myself to really examine an image that I may not naturally be drawn to. I realize that some people do not wish to do so, and may even resent feeling forced to do so.

I still believe that those of you with more to offer in the realm of guidance, feedback and experience have something to gain as well as give by being a clear example of what to strive for.

As far as I knew, (correct me if not) when voting on an image it isn't being judged against another image, just on the merit of that image alone. So I don't get the competition of it.

I would support a break down voting option, technical/artistic merit/ etc if implemented.

A couple of points - if you back to the top of this thread you will see Sam informing us and Caedes saying he is right that the software here will render the zeros of a CONSTANT zero voter ineffective by relativizing them in relation to that person's overall voting pattern.

I'm not sure why everyone is so bothered by seeing zeros on their images but the software here means those attempted "wreckers" (I don't think a zero on a decent image is laziness or ignorance, it's an act with some malign intent or flowing from some malign attitude.) don't have the effect they are seeking and those of us whole feel they need protection from the big nasties, are protected.

The person who votes zero to ten but consistently on the basis of "pure personal aesthetics" is contributing fairly to the VB. The basis of their choices might not appeal to some of us but if it's a consistent values framework and fairly applied, then that's ethically sound.

In this whole thing about the effect the votes have on people's decisions about opting in, opting out, leaving blah blah blah.... it seems to me very little personal reflection goes on, it's all "...my decision was forced on me by some external reality... bad voters...bad feedbackers...bad mods....horrible, horrible people that just tore my feeble self esteem apart and left me weeping in the dark..." (Yeah, overstated but you get my point.) Some antisocial evolutionary throwback's malign zero will not have any negative effect on me unless I already have a negative attitude to myself. We are adults, people don't PUT anything IN me, they only stir up what's already in me and what's already in me is MY responsibility to notice and deal with. So the negative response to my images is either a chance to notice what it stirs up and then chose to grow or a chance to blame ANYONE else for my internal feelings and deny even the possiblity of the need for any personal growth.

Applying that to the "competitive" thing, same thing is true, I'm not competitive so with or without the vb I don't feel competitive towards other images here. Someone who IS competitive will feel it regardless of the vb presence or not. The vb does not create a competitive spirit in anyone here, we each engage that dynamic with what we already had in us when we got here.

As to the argument (I think it was Nikoneers.) that the vb is being abused so therefore it should be abolished. I doubt that logic holds up if we apply it generally. Let's see. People abuse alcohol so we should abolish alcohol. Mmmm, the US tried that, not a big success. People abuse the privilege of driving a car, so we should abolish all cars. People abuse food, so we should abolish food. Nah, the logic is not logic at all. In fact, in each of those cases the generally accepted best approach is to educate people how to not abuse the thing at issue, educate them how to use it well. Which seems to me to be Caedes general approach.

Mikel.

It seems to me that the fact that the average vote is around 7 indicates that unrealistically high votes are more common than low ones (please excuse the excessive number of "that"s). The main problem in any such case is lack of artistic discernment, which is where more detailed voting would be helpful.

The voting system gets abused because it has been given way more meaning then it actually has.The site has become a popularity contest,you form a group of friends then use them to make yourself fell better about what your posting.More friends more comments and higher votes.People here have been hearing "you are awesome ,I give it a 10" for so long they believe it.God forbid someone post an "honest" comment or an "accurate" vote on someone's pic.When that does happen its like a war,this group of friends attacks that group of friends.I've even heard stories where users here goto other sites and harass the person.I have to tell you that's simply pathetic.

I would suggest anyone hung up on the c-index simply opt out of it as I did. It's one of those things that a person with a certain type of personality can become obsessed with and it simply isn't worth it... I think it can be a helpful tool to some degree but if you find yourself constantly checking the numbers or getting upset about it, give it up.

Excellent idea. It won't solve the problem for the masses but it should for the individual. I've noticed a number of long-time members have done that. I have resisted it because it's been my understanding that submissions don't get as much exposure if the voting feature is turned off.

@ +tbob - have to disagree - the c-index is abused because a small number of people choose to abuse it and I believe most members encourage honesty in the comments they receive - if those who have the knowledge and self-professed expertise to comment and vote in an accurate and unbiased manner decide to opt out of both areas then nothing will change.

The c-index is not provided solely for the gratification of individuals - it serves a purpose to make desktop wallpaper- suitable, and good artistry, more easily accessible to visitors to promote the site and encourage others to join, which increases the pool of talents and interest overall.

I am not 'hung up' on c-index numbers and if my posts deserve a low or zero vote that is fine by me. What I do get 'hung up' on is that irresponsible and meanminded voters have free reign to skew the value of images which in the final analysis harms the site more than the artist.
I believe I speak for many others when I say I do not 'need' the c-index to boost my ego, and am well aware of my own limitations as a photographer. Much of the help and advice I have received in the past has been as a result of a voter seeing an image in the VB and has been generous enough to make suggestions and give guidance.

This site is a microcosm of the 'real world' and includes all types and variations of humanity - so it is inevitable that there are those who choose to abuse any system. If we all sit back and let them do it we simply condone them by saying it is alright - go for it - sprinkle your anonnymous zeros willy nilly, and take no responsibility. I would suggest they are they ones with the 'hang-ups' and they only way to express their sad personalities is by exerting their power in such a pathetic and dishonest way.

Anyone who is here for the sole purpose of increasing their popularity by back-scratching within groups is here for the wrong reasons. And so are those who trash images with undeserved zero votes.

I am considering giving an invitation in Request for Comment to the zeroists society to come forward and back up their votes with words, but I will not be holding my breath until they reply. I expect a zero response.

:)LE

I am considering giving an invitation in Request for Comment to the zeroists society to come forward and back up their votes with words, but I will not be holding my breath until they reply. I expect a zero response.

I would be interested in that too.. it would be very interesting to see just what they had to say

Zero response from the zeroist society. HeHe, top marks LynEve. Sometimes it seems to me that I'm on an entirely different website to some others who share their experiences of this place. I make lots of analytical/critical comments about images, friends' and strangers', and never once in almost four years have I been sledged, harassed or vilified in response. I've been thanked or received just silence.

LynEve is correct about this being a microcosm of the real world, in which we find thin skins in abundance.

Sam is right on the money, if getting votes you don't approve of causes you angst, then don't make the choice to be in the VB, easy.

I wondered what was behind the suggestion that the actual voting pattern for each image be available to the artist on their "caedes control" page and I was surprised when Caedes took the idea on board. It just seems to me to offer nothing important to those of us who don't care about the c-index and it's various vagaries and possible abuses and more material to grind teeth over for those inclined already to do so.

Anyone else got a regular approach to their voting? I adopt a bell curve concept, that the largest number of images are going to be in the centre of the bell curve, so my starting point is five, average, not good or bad. Then I consider the technical aspects, (Of which I grasp some but not all.) the beauty, the interest and originality and then additional factors such as narrative power, subtlety and wow factors and, if I know the artist well enough to judge this, consistency of a particular vision and effectiveness in expressing that.

How to balance out all those factors? A couple of examples: A totally brilliant, original and breathtaking lake shot, perfect in every aspect but one, a tilt, won't get a ten, simply because a tilt is so easy to fix and I'll be happy to give the fixed one a ten. A less technically perfect shot, say of a child at play, no technical flaws but no wow factor in terms of beauty either BUT with genuine and rare narrative power and truth evocation, will get a ten.

I don't think of my votes as indicating my assessment of an images objective quality but rather as an indication of my experience and understanding of that image in comparison to the others I've seen.

Not that anyone indicated any interest in why I vote the way I vote but as this thread is about the whole voting zero or ten thing, I thought offering my approach was in line with that focus.

Maybe this wasn't the best place to comment about the voting patterns... on your original thread that came before the reveal...

I am interested in informed voting parameters. I think your example is a good one. Though I may not give a less technical image a ten... : )

I don't think one has to be hung up on the scores to be a little shocked at across the board examples of overly inflated and deflated votes. Not that they happen but to the extent they are happening... (ie: obvious that ALL images are being voted with no value at all) I also do not think appealing to those that can have an influence is the same as initiating a gripe fest. What is the point of having a discussion forum if there is chronic negative feedback for having an opinion or concern?

I use the same method of evaluation for voting I posted HERE in 2006 and see have never felt any need to change.

Thanks for the link Lyn. I can see now why many are exhausted of the subject... : )

Yes, a definite sense of déjà vu when following on through that old thread Elizabeth :)

I'm chewing on this topic because I've not done so before, never participated in the forums until recently, so for me, no topic exhaustion. I guess for those who have said everything they've got to say and are tired of saying it again, same idea as not putting your images in the VB, just don't bother reading threads with topics you're tired of engaging. Membership here changes, some of us engage this forum element of the community differently than others, many reasons why *old* topics for some are new topics for others.

I agree Elizabeth, it is clear that zeros are being voted on pretty much ANY quality image and that offends once sense of justice, fairness and simple social respect. It's a kind of vandalism or evokes the same feeling in me, that unanswerable question..."why would you want to do something like that....?"

For those among us who have come to the site within the last year or two, some background perspective might be useful. Even before I came to the site in June 06 (whew!) there had been some pretty ugly goings-on in the voting dept. Members were once able to selectively vote on images of their choice. Among some of the monkey shines committed, were the up voting of individuals' images by their friends, and some targeting the works of others with piles of low scores. I may be mistaken on this one detail, but I seem to remember hearing that not only were scores visible, but who gave them as well.

Anonymous voting, random voting, and the concealment of individual votes were all implemented as countermeasures to keep the peace and create a more level playing field.

I'm guessing Geri's (*caedes) decision to reveal individual vote info wasn't an easy one. Lord knows, I've been asking for him to do so for a while and so have others. Just a guess, but if we make too much of a stink, that decision might begin to look regrettable.

As Sam said, simply opt out of the voting process if you think some of it's results will bother you. When I started posting again, I figured I'd try to "play along" and submit my images for voting. Well, a dozen or so images later I decided I was more comfortable not doing so. What scores I got, and why I feel I received them aren't the point.

Voting with a zero on anything but the most horrendous, ill-formed images is indeed the work of a poor sport. But we are a site open to whomever, wherever. Not everyone is going to think and act as they should, especially under the cloak of invisibility. ;-) But it's a chance one takes. One's image might come across this 'thug in the dark' and get mugged.

As for the concern that not subjecting one's images to the voting process will reduce it's exposure, yes, somewhat. Getting on a gazillion friend lists should counter that. It seems that some members use that, and not browsing the new images gallery to see what's been posted.

Well said Rob :) Just one thing bothers me - would you agree we don't need 'good' images to get more exposure to boost members' own egos - they need exposure to best represent the site. Exposure to friends lists will not do that.

That's true, Lyn. I don't look for exposure on my images simply for ego stroking, although it is good to know what others think of my work, as long as it's honest. One of the biggest reasons I look for maximum exposure for my photos is because my state (the subject matter for the majority of my photos) and the part of this country I live in, has been the butt of so many jokes and misperceptions for so many years, I try to educate viewers and fellow members as to what a varied and beautiful place North Dakota is, as well as the neighboring states. Many people in the U.S. think of ice, snow, and backwards rural people when they think of my state, wondering why anyone would want to live here. I know it isn't true and I'm trying to dispel that nonsense with photography. Crappy and undeserved scores are just an unnecessary annoyance.

As an offtopic aside, the only joke I'd ever made about North Dakota, was that it's so cold, why bother using 'North'? Just call it Dakota. ;-) and if it makes you feel better we here in "cosmopolitan" NYC have our share of backwards people.

Nikoneer just brought to my attention the fact that I can now look at my gallery and SEE exactly how people voted my work. Most of my friend have seen a real slow down of my postings. It's very disheartening when you work so hard to improve and you put yourself out there trying new techniques... Only to seem to fail! If you look at my gallery, my very 1st caedes shot is still my highest rated shot. I have learned so much and worked so hard and I truly think I have improved. But I sure can't tell by the votes.
While I love the fact that I can now see how people voted, I still would like to see names of the people who vote one or two just so they can zip through the voting so they can post. If one of my shots gets THAT low of a score, I would want to know WHY.

Hi Cherry, the motivations for how people vote come from inside them, not from the image they are voting on, which is why fantastic photos get zero sometimes and lousy photos get ten sometimes. As much as a sane human being wants to learn (In this case, learning more about how to do our art more satisfyingly and enjoyably.) and is therefore open to critique and feedback it is also true that the only sane definition of "good" we can apply to our own work is OUR definition which flows from our self acceptance and our own aesthetics and values. Even a 100% fair and mature VB would only tell you what other people thought in the moment, it does not get any of us any closer to perfecting OUR art and OUR path. Of course, my little theory applies only if we are talking about our art as pure self expression. If we want to make money out of it then a more pragmatic approach is required.

While I'm here, different thread of thought. People leaving, ok, sad for you if they are your valued friends, but if they are your valued friends surely you've been friendly enough to have their off site contact details, so you're not really losing them, just losing their input here.

Ending something is as good as starting something.

I suspect that "ending/leaving" is tarnished by some unconscious association of that dynamic with emotions connected to death and loss. (Long bow to draw but that never stopped me before.)

The assumption that someone ending their involvement here (Or ending anything.) is a bad thing, is not a logical assumption.

Consider a few scenarios...

If this site and community is generating more grief than joy for a member then leaving is good for them. If their stance here, due to that experience of more grief than joy, has become cynical or embattled or critical or exhausted, then their absence from this community is also good for the community.

If someone has remained positive but worked hard for positive change, without success, then you can argue that they will achieve more by leaving and finding a place that DOES respond actively to their change agent strategies and attitude. In this scenario, as this site wasn't engaging their offered gift, it won't miss them either.

If at least some portion of the membership did NOT change over time our community would risk stagnation, the same people offering the same inputs to the same audience with the same responses. Some might find that comforting but I don't.

Around this whole vb issue on various threads I regularly see it suggested that people have left because of the vb and it's abuse and how much that bothered the person. If they were so deeply bothered than they made a GOOD decision to leave, logically we can celebrate that goodness. The only reason we would not do so is if we thought folks should only ever join/start/begin and never quit/stop/leave.

I just looked at the individual votes on my Wild Goose Silhouette. Out of 12 votes, seven were 10s. Now I see someone has voted zero on it. if I needed any proof that deliberately malicious voting is going on, this is it. There is no longer any way to find satisfaction at this site.

That would really be a case of "letting the terrorists win". In this case, what you don't see is that the zero was most likely flagged and automatically disregarded in calculation of the c-index.

Honestly, it might just be easier to opt out of the voting process. Or, when you say there's no way to find satisfaction, are you referring to more than just a received score on an image?

"There is no longer any way to find satisfaction at this site."

Personally I don't take part in the c-index any more but I still find the site quite satisfying... if you find that it takes away from your pleasure of the site perhaps you've become a little too preoccupied with scores and should do the same.

It is also disappointing to see that after so many people voted to be able to see how others were voting on their images it only seems to have caused further heart ache. Sorta goes to prove that the more you give people the more they have to find fault with?

I am truly hoping that with this additional information, of how the votes were given,from you, Geri, and the mods, that it is not viewed as something bad on the site.

With this transparency, we have learned something, maybe something you already knew, and that is there are individuals who are voting, not with the site's best interest nor the artists best interest at heart.

I think, to best protect Caedes, these individuals need to be worked with and a solution good for all be found. Knowing that there are malicious people about is good, doing nothing about it is bad.

The comment from Geri above suggests that the solution already exists.

"In this case, what you don't see is that the zero was most likely flagged and automatically disregarded in calculation of the c-index."

Sam, thank you, you have always been a gentleman and very helpful to me, but Geri's comment had not escaped me. Where I am coming from is not so much on the score tally, but rather on the individual(s) doing the malicious acts.

Much like the attacks on the discussion boards by spammers, the people giving these zeros are also attacking the site. To me, the spammer and the zero giver, are similar in that their actions are malicious in intent. They want to cause confusion and anger.

How you, the mods, and Geri react to these attacks is what is important to me. I believe the zeros need to be addressed for the for good health of the site for the long term. I am sure, there will be those who will also be interested, in the short term, of the score adjustments.

As always, what you and the other mods, and Geri, do for this site is amazing. You may not want or need it, but I would be very happy to be actively supportive in the protection of the site.

*Sorta goes to prove that the more you give people the more they have to find fault with?*

Sam - with due respect I dont think this is the case at all - from what I have read the opinion seems to be in favour of being able to see our scores and is a very welcome feature. The faults being found are with those who deliberately compromise the integrity of the VB.
It is reassuring to learn that in some cases zero votes are flagged. Ignoring the 'terrorists' condones their practices - but I like the thought that they are wasting their time with their silly games. Their time must be very valuable because it is very obvious they do not have the time to back up their voting by commenting on the images. The individual mischief makers are the ones doing the harm not those of us who express concern. I think most who have commented on the zero votes issue have the interest of the site at heart, not our own personal feelings, or a case of 'fault finding'

'Tis the season of goodwill to all men - and women - but I find it difficult the extend much goodwill towards malicious voters - whoever they are :) :) :)

*caedes - Thanks for the additional information - it does put a different perspective on things.

::casechaser - well said!

Everyone - Merry Christmas ! :)

Well, realistically, I think the idea of ridding the internet of everyone who wants to cause problems is probably overambitious...

I do not think we are speaking in absolutes and nor are we trying to save the internet.

It seems to me that if you can track the scores, then, logically, you can track who is voting the zeros. With the knowledge of who is voting in this manner, you could simply allow them to participate but not record their votes. The computer can do that.

They need never know their nasty little deeds are not being recorded. They would remain happy in their malicious acts and we would be happier without their input.

Could it be possible that the people who vote zero have no idea what the heck they are doing or supposed to be doing?

One of our young artists, 12, 14, 14 years old? someone who wants a score on their image and simply clicks the zero button in order to get through the voting process?

Or someone who really doesn't know what they are looking at? A one-time poster, never to return to the site again?

I am really struggling with this 'malicious voters on my image' theory.....I have serious doubts that the individual who does cast the zero votes even knows who 'you' are....

I have 100% complete faith that if there was deliberate, abusive zeroing occurring, *caedes would be on it immediately.

(responding to Sam's) ...and certainly not to be expected. It would be tantamount to getting the spilled water out of the beach sand and back in the bottle. My concern for the zero votes I've been getting is a concern for all reasonable Cadesians, those who vote responsibly and who comment with the idea of supporting others, whether they be pros or novices. This may be stretching an analogy but, throughout history, whenever good people ignore those with bad intent, the bad get worse. You remember Nazis, right? The "zeroists" may not be Nazis but if we ignore them and the results of their actions, they can adversely affect the future of this site to some extent. I would hate to see that happen to the good work that Geri has done with Caedes. Sorry, Mimi, but I find it hard to believe that this kind of voting is simple ignorance. Even little kids can discern what's pleasant to look at and what isn't. With the possible exception of a guy in my office, no one can be that dumb. One thing I am certain of; the anonymity of the web allows anyone to do almost anything they want with no consequences. It becomes a matter of personal honor and integrity to not take advantage of that when dealing with people online who have no idea who you are. A few of you do now know me and know me to be straightforward. Is it too much to wish that that was universal? For all of us? At this point I really have no solution to extrapolate upon.

Wait, what? 0 isn't the maximum score?

Hmm I think the comparison to nazis might be a bit extreme...

BTW I should mention that "vote attacking" as it has been referred to has been going on pretty much as long as there has been voting on the site (those who have been around a while will remember some of the incidences I'm referring to I'm sure) but those involved have never been able to sabotage what the site is really about and Geri has always kept things under control.

Samatar:"Well, realistically, I think the idea of ridding the internet of everyone who wants to cause problems is probably overambitious..." ROFLMAO...... oh that tickled my fancy for a good long while.... the essence of droll... Thanks for that Sam, I needed the cheering up.
Mikel.

While I appreciate the desire for a utopian community (Not being sarcastic, I actually do.) I don't believe in it and I don't expect it, certainly not when internet anonymity gives cowards an even easier road to drag their knuckles along.

My experience of volunteer communities, even ones who's sole purpose is "doing good", is that there are always malcontents, troublemakers and &%$#*%^#@ along for the ride. If you make rules to totally remove or stop them, you end up with basically a totalitarian rule set. Beyond a certain point of malcontent containment and fostering of community transparency you do simply have to ignore them.

An illustration from urban vandalism strategies might help here. It was discovered that if you had teams of painters/cleaners who would paint over or remove a new spray painted vandals "artwork" pretty much before the sun came up, so no-one ever saw it, the vandals stopped doing it. Well, they stopped doing it in YOUR neighbourhood and went elsewhere. If their work was not seen, no point to the effort of creating it. It is possible that all the continuous hubub about the malicious zeroists is the same for them as the vandalism being seen for the vandals. If they are ignored and we simply don't care, perhaps a lot of their fun will vanish. Just a thought.

Mikel.

Yes, it occurred to me earlier also that if it was the aim of some of those voting zero to cause people to become upset, they would probably be delighted to see that they have done so.

Maybe the reason someone votes 0 is because they dont like what they are looking at.Did anyone ever take into consideration people vote high on something they like and low on something they dont?I really dont understand why it matters what anyone votes on your stuff anyway.

If someone draws a mustache on the Mona Lisa, it's still the Mona Lisa. The mustache is just a petty act of disrespect. I'd imagine that zero votes, and or votes seen as inappropriately low, are similarly perceived.

Which leads me back to my proposed poll item of multiple vote criteria. It won't completely eliminate all low voting, but it might separate the lazy and the uninformed from those who may be out for a little mischief. Maybe the extra moment or two spent pondering each image, and voting for three (as an example) different areas of accomplishment wouldn't be such a bad thing. Voters could actually see the image, I'm hoping, and not just look at it long enough to pass a fleeting arbitrary number onto it.

The front page of this site announces it as a community.

Photographers versus computer artists, low scorers versus high scorers, newbs versus vets, etc don't come across to me as being even slightly community related.

Here's what I want most for caedes.net :

A constructive, all-inclusive place where creativity can flourish, where "us" is more important than "me". I want a place where someone can see a work by someone, and judge it for itself, not for who posted it. I want a place where a lonely images gallery is rendered unneccessary.

I don't believe in Utopia, but I do believe we could all afford to re-calibrate our approach to this site, what itmeans to each of us, and what our actions may mean to the "community". You can't crap ^in your garden and then cry because the flowers look like s**t.

@+tbob, re: *I really dont understand why it matters what anyone votes on your stuff anyway".*

Perhaps you would understand if you still had a gallery.

We are not supposed to be voting on what we LIKE or do not like.
I see heaps of images I DON'T LIKE and would prefer a blank desktop rather than use some of them but I was under the illusion we were voting with integrity on quality and suitability as desktop wallpaper to suit all tastes?
Last time I looked the site was called Caedes Desktop Wallpaper.
If it does not matter what anyone votes on our 'stuff' why is there a voting system?

"If i hate someting i give a 0 if I really like something i give 10." is what you said earlier in this thread - the statistics show you do not vote at all.

I guess the message is if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen - well I am not opting out of the voting system because of zero votes or any other reason, or by having it suggested my votes do not matter. We are told on the information page about the Voting Systems that "Your vote will really make a difference." Well, if my vote makes a difference so do the votes of zeroists whom I do not believe for one second do what they do because they simply don't like an image.

@+tbob"...I really dont understand why it matters what anyone votes on your stuff anyway".

If it doesn't matter what anyone votes on your image, then why have a VB in the first place?

Okay, here's the sequence of events:

I noticed a group of discussion threads under the heading of Photography, one of them admonishing us to not use frames on our submissions. I had seen a few comments on some of my submissions over the past half-year that mentioned that very thing -- that my image would have looked better without the frame. I didn't agree -- it is my image after all and I should be allowed to exhibit it as I see fit -- but fully accepted that someone had that opinion and was honest enough to be forthright about it with me. It was fine.

I read through the discussions on that thread and a number of commenters referred to "frame haters" and a few proponents of not using frames did, indeed, start to get a little over-excited in their prose.

I left a few comments of my own, the last one indicating that if someone voted low on an image just because it had a frame then, yes, they could be considered a frame hater and someone whose opinion I would probably discount (I'm gonna get in trouble here, aren't I?).

Within about 15 minutes of posting that comment my Wild Goose Silhouette received the zero that kept it from becoming a record-breaker for me. Within 15 minutes, folks. I find it hard to believe it was a coincidence. I think I made someone angry and they decided to "teach me a lesson" by crippling the vote on my image. Well, it worked. I simplified my comments on that thread, not wanting to anger anyone else, resulting in more of my images getting trash votes.

And I have the same question Cindy has... why do we have a VB?

"Within about 15 minutes of posting that comment my Wild Goose Silhouette received the zero that kept it from becoming a record-breaker for me."

It is now in the Main Galleries.

So..

What is more important?

An errant zero, dismissed by the system?

(*caedes: "In this case, what you don't see is that the zero was most likely flagged and automatically disregarded in calculation of the c-index.")


Or..

That an image was properly recognized and promoted by ... the same system ... that encompasses all that has been rehashed in this discussion? Including a whole lot of conjecture?

There would be a lot less conjecture if things were properly explained or direction to the appropriate information were provided.

Les, you're saying the algorithm disregarded the zero or downgraded its effect? If so, that would be a plus. I've noticed that the image still has the potential of being my highest rated. It doesn't make the zero vanish, however -- I'm certain I'm not the only member who gets undeserved zeros on submissions. That is my concern. I'm delighted that the membership thought enough of my image to elevate it into the perms but the fact that the zero was placed still exists. We still have juvenile, vengeful, or simply ignorant voters here that affect our work. Not just mine... everyone's. I don't believe there's anything we can do about it. I just don't care to see it swept under the rug and treated as just a childish concern. There's nothing wrong with me wishing we were all treated fairly. I'm not a youngster, a novice. I'm nearly 60 and have been shooting photos for a long time, most of it in the professional arena. So I've been around long enough to know that life, in general, is not fair, and an artist long enough to know that what we create is an intricate part of ourselves. That is why there are so many marvelous works and genres here at Caedes, each member contributing something pure. These zero votes just seem to me like a perfect bowl of fresh French Vanilla ice cream, placed in carefully overlapping thin curls inside a Waterford crystal dessert bowl... with a rabbit turd for a cherry on top. I wouldn't want to eat that... would you?

"Les, you're saying the algorithm disregarded the zero or downgraded its effect?"

Yes.

"It doesn't make the zero vanish, however.."

Agree and disagree.

It's impact on the final C-Index has been removed. This is the real concern, I believe, and fair enough.

The 'zero' itself, however ... not from the distribution of the votes you see though.


I doubt, very very ... very much ... that an exhaustive explanation of how things are calculated will ever ... be forthcoming. There are reasons to keep this stuff under wraps and is at the heart of this discussion, I believe. (Not going to forearm those that wish to troll this site with more information, in short.)


If..

'You' (speaking generally here) are asking that something be done about it, the zeros that is ... I don't see it as an optimal allocation of time and resources to hunt down every single person/member/visitor ... that gives out zeros.

And then, give them the boot (or, whatever).


The system already dismisses these miscreant votes. End of story in my mind.

Cynlee: The problem with "properly explaining" exactly how scores are calculated is that it potentially exposes the system to greater corruption by those who wish to manipulate it.

IMO recent events prove that more information just leads to more problems. It seems pretty clear to me that if people hadn't known about the zero votes on their images it wouldn't ever have become an issue. Nikoneers post above illustrates this pretty clearly; even though the vote probably has no effect on the overall score, the knowledge that it is present is a cause of great anxiety. It seems to me that in the case of the c-index ignorance really is bliss. I know there are those that disagree but again, IMO, the evidence speaks for itself.

Me:

"My curiosity has been peaked, given that the suggestion;

"Let us find out the exact scores our image received in the voting booth"

... is far and away from the rest of the pack, as of this writing here.

Anyone wish to elaborate on the 'why' behind this suggestion? How this information will be of benefit to 'you'?"


Response from Rebecca; aka .rforres:

"I'd be interested in seeing the distribution of votes to learn if there was consistency in how people judged it. Is my '5' image a result of many people thinking it was average or of it being polarizing and receiving both very high and very low votes?"


/\ This makes sense to me.

As I did have the thought at the time of my inquiry, that providing this voting information would lead to just what has happened in this and other discussion threads that have popped up since this information has become viewable.

+purmusic: I have searched for the conjectures and all I find are opinions based on experiences.

Errant = strayed from accepted standards.

Rehash = Present or use over, with no or few changes

But there have been changes - we now have access to our vote summaries.

Genuine concerns about keeping the VB as honest as possible appear to be getting dismissed by some as bellyaching on a personal level.

The image mentioned above by Nikoneer was promoted to the Main Galleries by the AC which has no connection with the VB. In theory it could have received a c-index of 2 and still have been promoted.
In my own galleries I have images rating 89 in the VB not in the Main Galleries, and one with 39 that is(an older image promoted by an Image Mod, not by the AC)

Perhaps what is 'more important' is that we have these discussion boards to discuss these issues.

Making the voting summaries available may well have opened up a small can of worms - but the worms were probably there all along, we just could not see them and now we can. They wriggle through the VB awarding zeroes. ("worm casts")

Worm = A person who has a nasty or unethical character undeserving of respect (definition from Word Web)

Personally I like the preview of votes in the graph form. It tempers the shock of a poor index because I already have an idea of what direction the voting is going. It also lets me know, in the case of my recent post, that it was a single person who voted low and not several. That does make a difference. And it illustrates the algorithm's effect on the vote when the final c-index is actually higher than the average shows. Like Lyn, I have a submission that garnered only a 47 c-index but is a permed image. So I agree that the index has no bearing on whether or not the image gets promoted. That's as it should be. So don't remove the vote graph just because it reveals more than you originally thought it would.

@ Lyn:

Thank you for the reminder ... and thorough dissection of my post above.

As to the 'why' ... I am not interested in participating in discussions of this nature.


No win situation. No answer is good enough. Got it.

"The problem with "properly explaining" exactly how scores are calculated is that it potentially exposes the system to greater corruption by those who wish to manipulate it.

IMO recent events prove that more information just leads to more problems. It seems pretty clear to me that if people hadn't known about the zero votes on their images it wouldn't ever have become an issue."

Sam,
I always thought that truth would set you free. It's also possible that explaining how scores are calculated would assuage some concerns that folks have about how the 'system' does work and how it works to their benefit.

We really aren't a bunch of dolts down here in the trenches. We can understand things when they are properly presented. Caedes made the decision to make the details of the voting knowable after considering requests to do so. Without explanation those votes are hard to reconcile, given that an image may garner both zeros and tens at once.

Better we don't know? By your words it seems that it is known that some folks already corrupt and manipulate the system. I don't see any benefit to them as artists nor as human beings in their machinations.

You are right in that the majority of us need not be privy to every internal working of Geri's website, but when something disturbs us or puzzles us, it seems that our queries should be good heartedly addressed by those who do know.

Les, Why does there have to be a 'winner'? I don't understand that philosophy.
Sincere answers without judgement are good enough.

LynEve the reason I have no gallery is because I post stuff as I'm working on it for input.Once I'm done I post the finished picture.The reason I do that is so the few people that have helped me by commenting on what I've done can see the finished image.

I've been here a while and have to be honest votes tell me nothing they never have.Honest comments,tips for improvement that type of stuff is what I look for.third_eye I like when the vets take the time to give me tricks and tips it usually helps allot.

I post stuff all over the web and I have to be honest my rating here is about the same as almost everywhere else I post stuff. My pic score about average every where I post them.They score about the same here.

+tbob: I know your work is of high standard, and miss your gallery here. I agree - honest comments and tips and help for improvement are important


+purmusic: Forgive me, I thought that was the nature of discussion - an exchange of viewpoints, not a contest for good answers, and winning.
No offense was intended by responding to your post.

Do not exit the debate on my account - I will retire from this one with pleasure. Was observing that the AC and VB are two separate systems really so unacceptable ?

Everyone : Thanks for a lively and informative debate :)

Haere Ra
:) LE

TBob said:"...Did anyone ever take into consideration people vote high on something the like and low on something they dont..."

I'm assuming TB that you didn't read the whole thread before posting because I started the thread to chat about the fact that I think it's legitimate to vote zero and don't understand those who NEVER vote zero. Other's have contributed their thoughts along similar lines. Perhaps you didn't grasp that at this point in the discussion the focus is on unambiguously wrong headed, literally incomprehensible zero votes. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder but that does not explain magnificent images getting zeros, it might explain them only getting fives or fours.
Mikel.

I think most of the 0 votes are legitimate opinions. It's your choice to take their opinion with a grain of salt or not; the final score probably does the same.

... sounds so cheesy when I put my thoughts into words.

Nikoneer said: "...the shock of a poor index..." which I think illustrates one component of the reason why we can discuss this issue together but not ever arrive at a profound consensus - we have a wide range of attitudes toward the C-index and a widely differing range of emotional investments in it. With intent only to contrast to, not to judge Nikoneer's attitude - I can't imagine being *shocked* by anything the vb threw at me but I am often curious, at both high and low c-index' I get. I go back and look at the image again, trying to see it differently from the way I saw it before it went into the vb, sometimes I remain mystified, sometimes I learn something.

I take Nikoneer's point very well, that an artist and their work are one and when you dump on the work you dump on the artist. History is replete with artists who were constantly agonized by the way people did or didn't engage their work. It is clearly no different here for some of us.
Mikel.

Well, I may get disappointed now and then in the c-indexes I get but I'm certainly not going to lose an ear over it.

;^>

And no, I am NOT comparing myself to Vincent.

8P

He He, wise to jump in there Nik, never know how someone might be about to interpret your dry wit. :))

I had to laugh at some of the suggestions I saw today for the first time... removing 0,1 and 2 from the voting page was the strangest one. Pretty sure that is what's called artificial inflation?

Yeah, it's right up there with the famous *11* on the amp being louder than a ten at the same spot on the dial. He He.

Actually it raises, strangely, a good question, at least in my mind, as it really underscores (Ahem.) how the focus of most discussion is on empty zero votes. Isn't it interesting how little discussion, or even recognition, there is of the reality of empty 10's? Logically if an undeserved zero is a wrong, then an undeserved ten is also a wrong but it does not seem to be garnering the same reaction. I wonder why that might be? :)

I'm holding out for a 12-3/4 myself. Of course, if we go any higher we'll have to skip 13 altogether, just like some hotels do... no 13th floor.

At least we're not in Japan - they skip 4 there, because it's the same as the word for "death" ...

Gee means "Death?

Agree entirely about the ten votes. I doubt we will ever hear much protest about those.

Anyways, I have decided to take the option to "opt out" of c-index discussions just as I have decided to opt out of the c-index itself... after viewing that suggestion poll I am entirely convinced that there is far too much preoccupation with it and I don't want to be involved any more... I have changed my own vote to ask that it be removed. Though I don't hold much hope that this will actually happen it seems to me the only way that the issue could ever be resolved... no matter what changes are made to the voting system there will always be a group of people who have an issue with some aspect of it... I know if it was removed altogether a lot of people would probably be unhappy at first, but eventually it would be forgotten and we could all move on.

Anyways, good luck with it all... as I mentioned I am going to avoid reading or posting on any discussion on the topic from now on, so if anyone replies to this and you don't hear a response that will be why.

@ Nikoneer
Shi.

I posted this comment on my (and Phil's) most recent submission, an invitation for you members to join our Caedes Kiva team. It might seem a little nit-picky on my part, but it truly illustrates how low a zero vote can actually sink, and I just couldn't help saying something about it. I know we can't do anything about the people who vote so negatively, and yes, we've been over this again and again. I'm not looking to stir the soup some more -- I just thought, in this particular case, it was rather hard-hearted of the voter. I'm not angry or hurt or anything like that, just disappointed in their lack of humanity.

"Unfortunately, I just saw that someone gave this one a zero in the voting booth. It's fine that this person thinks it's not suitable as a desktop wallpaper but being a wallpaper wasn't the reason for the submission. And it also doesn't matter if the c-index ends up being very low. This post is an invitation to experience the best part of this holiday -- giving of oneself. I actually feel sorry for someone that close-minded and hope that the four ghosts visiting them tonight are better able to succeed than I was. Merry Christmas to you, anyway, Ebenezer, and I hope someone does something truly special for you in the New Year, so you can see how good it feels."

I'm more concerned about the overall artistic taste on the site than about a few low voters. A series of 4s can do more damage to a good image than one or two "rogue" 0s.

Well, they aren't really just a few rouges zeros -- I've seen lots of them, even some on images of mine that have made it into the perms -- but all consistently low votes from zero to four can be damaging. Nothing we can do about it though except to turn the voting feature off on our submissions. It removes their ability to treat our images like the trash the low voters consider them to be.

I am wondering what would happen if I voted tens on everything. Would they start throwing out my votes based on an algorithm?

I have noticed Cindy, that when looking at the voting graph that is now available for checking the voting on each of our submissions, that the actual average shown is not necessarily the resulting c-index. Sometimes the c-index is lower than the average and sometimes it's higher. That algorithm, and the need for it, is quite confusing.

-Nik

Without a doubt, it is confusing, Nik, but the theory is that we are not astute enough to understand such an algorithm and telling us what it is would open the door to hooligans and mischief makers. ????

Strangely, tonight in the VB I received the message: ERROR There are no images to vote on! lol Really? We ran out of images? I have NEVER seen that happen before. I can't even see the ones I voted on only minutes before.

We have been told what the algorithm DOES and what it's purpose is. It balances a person's own voting pattern, somewhat like "levels" balances the value distribution in an image. As none of us, surely, believe our votes have any absolute value, if the owner of the website determines that spreading our range of 2-9 votes into a range of 0-10 votes and spreading someone else's 0-7 range to 0-10 will accurately reveal, using a scale of 0-10, the RELATIVE impact of an image on the people here who voted on it, that's fair enough and it makes sense to me. I don't see how knowing the mathematical mechanics of that process makes any difference, unless I don't trust the motives of the owner.

The other fact we have been told is that the software will identify a clearly spurious (In comparison with the range of other votes on that image.) zero or ten and render it irrelevant to the overall C-index. Again, fair enough from my point of view. I vote regularly zero or ten, not on a weekly basis but often enough, I'm happy to have my subjective ten or zero rendered of no consequence if my aesthetic departs wildly from the general Caedes community judgement on that image. After all, I'm not voting on who's going to rule my nation or anything of similar import.

The point is, Mikel, at least in my mind, that the c:index is superfluous and causes too much consternation.

He He, well, yeah, it causes consternation for some of us. :) As to it being superfluous, depends on what purpose the big C considers that it serves and if he thinks it serves it with more than 50% success more than 50% of the time. :)

Does anyone want to do a statistical analysis of how many regular members are bothered enough by the C-index to make the effort to comment on it?
Without such an analysis I think the statement "...it causes too much consternation.." might be open to serious challenge on the basis of subjectivity. But, I take the syntax of your post, Cindy, seriously, you did say, "...at least in my mind..." and so, ok, I can't challenge that, for you, it causes too much consternation. I guess I'm balancing you out by saying, for me, it doesn't consternate me much at all. :)
Mikel.

It consternates me a little, yes, but I was thinking of and referring to the fact that there have been so many threads about it and so much discussion of it that have people talking about how to fix it, improve on it, remove it etc., etc.

I think I said it B4...I don't even pay attention to the VB...Views/d'loads are what I look at...

Maybe there could be a little alarm or something that would record who is voting zero. I have given 2s, and 3s but now really a zero. I have a feeling that the zero voters are doing it because their scores are so low. i've received a couple and KNOW that they are not zero in quality. It would be such an interesting thing to know who the zero voters are.

I doubt I'd be considered a "zero voter" for the odd here and there zero I've assigned in my time here on the site. For me, a zero would have to be for something so pig-ugly, thoughtlessly done, and carelessly presented. Happily, images that bad aren't that common.

I generally start each voting with a 5 then add or subtract for the the various visual elements that all images, whether they be photographic or computer generated, must adhere to to be successful. (I do give zeros and tens occasionally, but only after consideration and proper critique.) Color, contrast, focus, composition, depth of field, what LynEve calls the "Wow" factor, its use as a desktop (sorry, but vertical images don't fit most monitors without being adjusted after downloading), interest, authenticity, and so on. If an image excels or fails in these categories, voting can actually be quite simple and successful, as long as the voter is willing to take the time to do it properly. If we are to keep a voting system, I feel it is far too simple a procedure as it is now. It's too easy for a voter to glance at your image, for as short a time as a second, then pass judgement on your hard work (and it is hard work, just ask a fractalist - I don't create them myself but my good friend tealeaves Lori has taught me well). Many people say the effect of the VB should just be discounted and not be concerned about. I know you mean well but truthfully, the c-index is as much a reflection of the effect your work has on others as the comments they leave are. If we are to keep the voting feature it could be modified by making it a list of elements, some of which I've listed here (we could add to it or modify it). These elements would have a plus or minus box, adding or subtracting a single number until a final number is reached. If the image fails the majority of elemental votes, it would receive a low score, and deservedly so. Excelling in these elements would garner it a high score, again, deservedly so. It would require some thought be put into the individual judgement rather than just "drive-by" voting. A box for identifying the voter may or may not be useful but, if it's a part of the voting procedure, it would not need to be information open to the general membership, but to the mods only. It would be a way for Geri and the mods to see a tally of that particular member's voting record. If a submitting member received extremely low votes on their image and the image obviously did not deserve them, a question could be raised with the mods and they would have the option of looking at who voted zero, or some other low number, then looking at that person's voting record. If it appeared that the voter gave a high percentage of zeros then the vote in question could be challenged. I haven't figured out what could be done about it at that point but isn't that what these discussion threads are for? For the compilation of ideas and not for putting another member down just because they don't feel exactly the same way you do? I'm sure Geri would appreciate it. So how about we just think of a better way to give a numerical value, if that's what we want, and refrain from getting upset about it. Caedes is supposed to be a community... let's work together.

-Nik

Nik, I appreciate your basic concept and it's intent, however, the specifics of it would bother me, just because every now and then I see images in which one element, say *imagination/conception/originality* (Take your pick.), strikes me as warranting a much higher vote for the image than it's broken down technical components might suggest. I do think that technical stuff matters, in the long run of our photographic trajectory I'd hope we all accumulate more of that knowledge but I want to be able to award a fantastically original concept a big PLUS even if it's not so well carried off because the artist has not accumulated the technical knowledge (yet).

Now, my point, underlines that we don't all approach the "how" of our voting in the same way and that's fine with me. I would also like everyone to do their voting with careful consideration, if we all did we all would be winners, images would get fairer numerical feedback and every voter would discover themselves learning as they voted.

Rather than your detailed breakdown model (Just thinking on the run here.) how about keeping the current voting process but adding two additional boxes (On the vb page for each image you vote on.) titled "strongest element" and "weakest element" which are short comment boxes, so even if you only put one word in each, the creator of that image would get a series of (Still anonymous)feedbacks from everyone who voted that might add up to them knowing WHAT to look at when they review their image in light of it's c-index, if they care to.

Ok, thinking more about how that might be abused and what to do about it...
Say one of our unworthy no voters used those comment boxes to say something like "stinks" in both boxes and that feedback then goes to the poster, the poster on the page they get all this vb feedback on (wow, I'm making a lot of work for the website engineers.) can then "complain" or draw the mods attention to those clearly valueless and unjustified comments and that voter gets some kind of penalty, suspension from downloading or uploading or voting or something, so their laziness or malice has a consequence to THEM.

I for one would quite like to get a list of strongest and weakest elements for each image I post from those who voted on it, I often wonder why some images got such strong votes and other images did not but I don't really have a clue WHAT to look at in my images to try to work that out after I've got the c-index feedback.

I like Mikel's idea of adding the comment boxes. I might suggest, instead of fill-in-the-box fields, have drop downs for both "strongest element" and "weakest element" with five to seven well chosen answers. Using drop downs rather than fill-ins may standardize the responses to what may be considered the important elements while preventing abusive responses from those inclined to leave valueless comments.

I agree that the current voting does nothing to guide the artist in terms of how to improve his/her craft. Before Geri allowed us to see the actual votes all we would get was a single, arbitrary number that didn't tell us anything. At least now, with the breakdown of votes available to us, we can see that it may have only been one or two people who didn't appreciate what we submitted, rather than a general consensus. But even with the vote breakdown, that water is exceptionally muddy and confusing. The more detailed comments we get are much more helpful, just as thought-out comments on these threads are more helpful, like yours, Mikel. I would imagine that if enough of us put our heads together, those of us who really want to help Geri find a solution to this voting conundrum, we will succeed. Your idea of highlighting the "strongest" and "weakest" elements is good, particularly if a text box would be available for a short description of that element or the reason for the vote on it. That would definitely help the individual artist and it would illustrate to the malicious voter that what they've been doing is now under scrutiny and will no longer be tolerated. Good ideas, Mikel. Keep 'em coming. That goes for the rest of you folks out there in TV-Land. 8]

-Nik

Another good idea from John. Kudos! The drop-down box would bar the "stinks" kind of comment that doesn't do anyone any good, not even the toad that wrote it.

I am a skeptic. I just don't see how adding more questions to the VB is going to make voters, especially zero voters, more discerning and selective in their choices.

If they have to take more time to vote, Cindy, actually thinking about it, that could make some difference. It would actually be more like work and I think a lot of these negative voters are basically selfish and lazy. They only care about themselves and if they had to jump through a few hoops they might be unhappy enough to leave and take their damaging effects to another site. Also if they knew their negative voting was being monitored and that there would be consequences for irresponsible voting and critique, that might also curtail the problem they create. I don't think any of us want to be "art nazis," or "big brother," or anything like that, but if an adjustment like we've been discussing is made to the voting it might be a little rough at first but would likely level out to become a smoothly running feature of the Caedes site. A feature that would be fair and helpful to everyone... everyone that is serious about their craft, that is. If the site is worth being a member of, it's worth saving its integrity.

Cindy, I don't expect to make those people who don't want to do better, do better. But some form of accountability tends to encourage some people to lift their game.

I imagine someone who votes on a lot of images might get bothered by the additional "workload" of best and worst feature comments on every image they vote for, but most of us only vote on ten or twenty images every day or so, so it wouldn't be a big time impost for most members.

Another thought I just had, if the artist could see that this anonymous voter voted zero and their comment (If it was setup so that you could see the vote and the comments together.) was clearly empty or spurious, it might help relativise those votes for the easily bruised soles here. Likewise if someone votes very high but their comments suggest they don't really "get" the image, you could relativise that feedback also.

I'm staying with the "voter adds THEIR OWN best and worst feature comment" rather than the suggested list of comments because the original impetus for my idea was to provide a way to add feedback that is outside any standarised response range.

So, the setup would not allow the inclusion of a zero vote if the associated comments or comment choices were left blank?

I think that if we navigate into having these blanks to fill or drop downs to select, then they would be necessary for any number given. I would like to know best/worse on all pictures and on all grades 0-10.

I believe that Geri can already track consistent zero voters, but doesn't admonish them because of free speech issues, but the algorithm adjusts for that nonsense anyway. I might be wrong, but to me, from what I have read here, that is what takes place.

My understanding is the same as yours Cindy, that the software currently diminishes or eliminates the effect of zero votes from those who's voting pattern demonstrates that they don't engage the images as part of their decision making process for their votes. Free speech is a fair enough reason to tread carefully in that area so I think a system, such as my suggestion or something else, that adds accountability and consequences to that pattern without a "disciplinary" approach being invoked, might be worth considering.

Yes, effectively my suggestion would mean that you HAD to give at least a one word "best" and one word "worst" comment on each image you voted on in the VB and if you were not willing to do that, you don't get to move on to the next image in the vb and if you can't progress thru the vb then what comes next never comes to you. :) If you seek to dodge that by putting thoughtless, irrelevant or even malicious words/comments in those comment boxes, then you do get to move on but the artist will then get to see that the zero vote came from someone making such clearly thoughtless, irrelevant or malicious comments and will thus be empowered to both recognise the vote for what it is - completely irrelevant to their creative efforts or success AND to refer the malicious comments to the mods if that was part of the overall design. (I'm assuming of course that while we the general members won't know who voted what, the mods will have access to that info and so will be able to respond accordingly.)

There is a thread for making suggestions about new things to add to the website, I guess at some point I should wander over there and try to add this idea there, no brief way to explain it though. :)

Maybe I'll wait a bit longer while we chew on it here, see how refined and clear we get the concept.

Unfortunately not everyone likes to leave a comment as to why they voted that way.. I would like to suggest that there be kind of like questionnaire where you have eg. (have boxes beside them to click on)

Contrast: Excellent good poor

Composition: Excellent good poor

That way voting is still anonymous (therefore no vandetta's as previously seen) and no malicious comments

Just my 2 cents worth

Hi Jacqueline, I think perhaps one thing was not clear to you about my suggestion - the comments made as part of the VB process could be single word brief and would also be anonymous, just as the votes are.

As to avoiding malicious comments, any time someone says something clearly malicious to me it tells me something about them and nothing about me, so the comments don't bother me. However I realise they do seem to bother some folks and I do think some kind of feedback process that discourages expressions of malice (Any kind, unfair zero votes or malicious comments.) would be good for the community vibe at large. Thus my idea of there being an easy way for the artist, on receiving the anonymous votes and related comments from the VB, to refer the clearly malicious comments or words to the mods for their consideration and response. (Sorry Mods, making more work for you guys, I'm happy to help out, if that counts for anything.)

Another problem I see, and I just acknowledge it's likely appearance, I don't think you can do much to deflect it as it depends on human nature, is that some folks are going to take pretty much ANY honest but less than fulsome critique as being malicious and will be complaining to the mods endlessly about what will simply be fair opinions expressed in the VB.

It seems to me that the photographers on this site need to remember that the CI is not a reflection on the quality of the image they post, but should be a reflection of the suitability of the image as a desktop. A well taken photograph, in focus, good contrast, well composed etc., of an innocuous scene should not get a high vote. High votes should be reserved for those images that go beyond a well taken snapshot and into the realms of artistic interpretation.

As for all the suggestions of voting on different aspects of an image, remember they also have to be applicable to fractals, illustrations and CGI images as well.

As for 0 votes, well everyone has their opinion and taste, and not every well taken photograph will appeal to everyone.

Chris, we were talking about malicious zero voting on relatively good desktops or photographs and not about subjective appeal; votes that are out of the ballpark with no apparent reason for being so. If something doesn't appeal to me, I don't automatically assign it a zero in the VB. I would hope that you don't either.

How do you know the 0 votes are malicious? Perhaps someone just does not feel that a well taken photograph is a good desktop. I have some 0 votes on my images but do not feel that it is anything to worry about, given what has been said above. The point I am trying to make is that just because an image is a well taken photograph does not mean that it makes a good desktop. Peoples tastes and expectations differ. Artists that also post on other sites may feel that the bulk of images in Caedes are just well taken snapshots of little merit, despite what the artists here may feel. It always surprises me that some of my images get 10's, when clearly by standards beyond Caedes they are of little merit. People here expect high votes which perhaps some of the community feel are not merited.

I appreciate some 0's may be malicious, but some may be a commentary that should also be appreciated.

I don't believe that everything that anyone posts here would make a good desktop, but then again, that is my subjective view, but I wouldn't give it a zero in the VB because it didn't fit that criteria. I look at the image first and worry if it would make a good DT secondly. Maybe that's wrong. I don't know, but I do feel that when all of the votes on an image are clustered over 5 and 6 and there is one outlier of zero, that someone is just not being fair. People who post images here put some time and effort into doing that and to have it summarily deemed a piece of crap by a zero vote is demoralizing to say the least. We are here trying to help one another improve. At least, that is what I thought being part of a community was about; helping.
Sure, there is a rare post that truly deserves a zero for being worthless, but those are soon removed by the administrator of this site. I refer to consistent zero votes on good and even excellent pieces as being the result of malicious or thoughtless intent on behalf of the individuals giving them.
I would take a zero vote as commentary if the rest of the votes were clustered nearby.