Caedes

Non-art Website Issues

Discussion Board -> Non-art Website Issues -> Wrong system

Wrong system

.rozem061
01/08/11 11:20 AM GMT
My last upload
*Streetsinger 2*
has a democratic average score of 5.3 out of 20 votes (I can happy live with that result !)
But the Caedes index generate a score, more than halve reduced to a rediculous score of 26 (read 2.6 !)
Not a few of 'zero voters' are the cause of a low score, as many of you think, but the 'caedes system' causes an absurd low score on your and mine images

See also *THIS thread*

John
0∈ [?]
-*A Wallpaper is worth a million words - And I leave them Speechless!*- ...

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
+purmusic
01/08/11 1:52 PM GMT
And your suggestion for a fix/change, John, is what exactly?

Have to move past being a part of the problem (or, I guess in this instance having a problem forced on you ... the unfair Caedes system) and work towards that of a solution as well, no?


Constructive critique of "Streetsinger 2", from yours truly:

Composition is quite good, one of your innate strengths and demonstrated many times over in your other work.

Eyes appear to be placed just right. As is, the overall portraiture within and in frame.

Caveats?

Colours appear a lil' 'red'. Although, given the challenging lighting conditions ... understandable (the amount of direct light must have played havoc with the White Balance .. is my thought here). Suggestion, that might provide some more visual impact ... would have been to convert to B & W. And in turn, tackle/address the colourations that resulted.

I, personally, prefer the first version.

The backlighting, although still strong in that photo ... is more of just that.

Now? Some overexposure problems have crept in. Washing out detail in your subject's hair and side of his face.

Perhaps, as a suggestion ... coming around with camera position, some ... and then the use of some fill flash might have resulted in the same 'artistic aim' that I perceive in this reincarnation and with the original.

Being bold here, if I had received your image in the voting booth? I most likely would have assigned a 'generous' 4. As I am actually leaning towards that of a 3. (It's the overexposed areas that don't 'do it' for me.)

Still and with all that said, I enjoy this candid portrait and street shot. It is, however, not one of your best (still being bold here).


Anyone else? Next?
0∈ [?]
::Akeraios
01/08/11 2:55 PM GMT
I've got a 6.4 that's a 66, and another at 45. I guess the calculations involve each voter's tendencies.
0∈ [?]
There are few situations in life that cannot be honourably settled, and without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a precipice on a dark night. -- Kai Lung
.rozem061
01/08/11 6:46 PM GMT
And your suggestion for a fix/change, John, is what exactly?...))

@
Well Les, that is very simply I M H opinion, an average score of 53 makes ( not minus 50% ) 53 points (5,3) that is exact the real points given by voters (members of caedes) Why such a complicated system ?
Thanks for your Constructive critique on "Streetsinger 2" !
Kind regards !
John

0∈ [?]
-*A Wallpaper is worth a million words - And I leave them Speechless!*- ...
::third_eye
01/08/11 6:56 PM GMT
John, just to point something out... that adjustment pendulum swings in two directions.

Let's say scores are based on raw votes. Fine. Then all the always-10 voters and always-0 voters and always-5 voters will potentially have a lopsided effect on image scores. And then, more attention will be focused on those votes. And then, it'll be on identifying who voted what score on what image. And then it'll be on...

And then....

I don't agree with every single practice and decision on this site. But... After taking some time to consider the alternatives, I can at least live with most of them.

Which might be what I'd suggest to others.
0∈ [?]
+purmusic
01/09/11 12:39 AM GMT
@John:

For your and perhaps, other's benefit and the site's as well ... started/resurrected a discussion on 'how to fix things' (re: C-Index).

Feel free to add your thoughts/ideas ... as you've outlined above, for example ... at the new and improved "Voting Zero" discussion thread ... now aptly named .. "Membership at Work...
0∈ [?]
::Ramad
01/09/11 7:03 AM GMT
My last 3 images have following "scores" :
Average 6.7 - C.I. 73
" 6.5 - C.I. 26
" 4.7 - C.I. 25
Now, really, does it make any sense at all? To me at least no - in spite of Caedes's explanation of the 50 average for C-Index. I suppose average is reduced because people here tend to overvalue an image of a friend etc,. But there are, in my opinion, more users who undervalue the images while voting.
0∈ [?]
If practice makes perfect and nobody is perfect, then why practice?
::twinkel
01/09/11 9:14 PM GMT
(*sigh*)

No, not again!!!

Just leave the C-Index for what it is, John and your life will be so much happier here....lol....

:oP
0∈ [?]
Carpe Diem!
::coram9
01/09/11 11:29 PM GMT
The CI appears to be based on a statistical distribution fit, rather than a simple averaging. This has the advantage of removing the effects of long tails, such as caused by extreme voting (0s or 10s) and centres the CI around the highest number of votes. So, if you get a lot of 2,3,4 votes and some 10's, the CI will be nearer 30 than a simple average would suggest. The downside is that sometimes you get a CI below the average, but also sometimes higher. Swings and roundabouts. No system is perfect, but this seems to work better than most. The best idea is, as twinkle suggests, to just accept the CI for what it is.
2∈ [?]
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." Ansel Adams - Please look at other images in my Gallery.
.zunazet
01/10/11 1:11 AM GMT
::coram9 covered it all pretty well above but I thought Id toss this out as well.

I will quote *cedes on this.
http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Board::Topic&id=577274

From when the voting booth was new still new : 12/13/05

"… 3.The votes are currently weighted, but instead of picking some outside metric I weight them based on the historical accuracy of the voters' votes (how close they were to the average vote for each image they have voted on). We also do this based on the genre, so people who are not good at voting on fractals don't have their vote counted highly.

4. Even though everyone has a different 'average' that they assign to images, this is not a problem. I can easily enough calculate the average for each voter and use that to make each voter's average the same, so they are all speaking the same language."

Assuming the above has not changed significantly in the past five years:
If I vote 4 through 7 all the time my 4=0 and my 7=10. Thus the c-index calculates my votes differently than someone who votes 0 though 10. Voters who vote all 10 or all 0 are probably dropped completely. Thus the actual votes and the value of those votes are not the same. That is why what you see is NOT what you get. In times past the c-index was made invisible to alleviate all the anxiety and miss understanding it creates. Individual votes were also made invisible for the same reason. Now we have opened up that can of worms once more by popular demand.


And here another quote the put it all in perspective

*caedes 6/21/10
http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Board::Topic&id=3028079
"The c-index and voting is what it is, 10 or so random people vote on your image and produce a number. If you don't like that process, then I recommend ignoring the c-index and voting system. It is not a perfect system by any means, and that is why I have continued to search for a way to highlight the "best" that we all can produce. I am hoping that the new Art Council will be able to serve that role. If it turns out to work well then we will likely get rid of the c-index or modify it to make it more useful (e.g. include anonymous critique along with the voting).
1∈ [?]
People aren't going to remember the things you do. They're going to remember how you made people feel. Be kind, gracious, and appreciative. Dan Winters - Photographer.
+purmusic
01/10/11 8:27 PM GMT
David? Have you ever considered taking up a hobby?

Like, ohh .. I don't know ... photography?


:oP
0∈ [?]
.zunazet
01/11/11 5:25 AM GMT
I am far too busy Les. I just don't have time with all the VB and Ci related research I do! :oP
1∈ [?]
People aren't going to remember the things you do. They're going to remember how you made people feel. Be kind, gracious, and appreciative. Dan Winters - Photographer.
::cynlee
01/16/11 8:16 PM GMT
The best idea is, as twinkle suggests, to just accept the CI for what it is.++

Okay, then, what IS it and why do we really need it? It isn't statistically accurate and fudging the results by 'weighting' them does not make them any more accurate. There just need to be at least 20 votes on each image for statistical accuracy. Simple. No need for complex mathematical ups and downs and weights.
0∈ [?]
WHAT WIKILEAKS REVEALED Protect freedom of speech and don't let them lie to us anymore.
=Samatar
01/16/11 11:19 PM GMT
I think Geri is probably a better judge of how statistically accurate it is, going by what I have seen of his knowledge of mathematics and such in the past.

In any case, if people feel the c-index is inaccurate/irrelevant/etc... the option is provided to opt out. That way you don't even have to "ignore" your scores because you won't have any, and you don't have to participate in the voting process. I made the choice to opt out as soon as it was introduced and haven't been bothered by it since (except occasionally when I get dragged into these discussions ;-)
16∈ [?]
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
.J_272004
01/18/11 11:54 AM GMT
Can I just ask a tiny little question... Why did you become a member and post on Caedes? was it for the enjoyment of your art to share with others? or for the dreaded "C-Index"? I don't know about you.. but I for one posted on here to share my work with others and gain experience..

I don't understand why people get so worked up about the figures.. art is a pleasure to create and share.. life is too short to waste wondering why this pic got what rating... enjoy your work and the comments.. and the critics..

I've been a member for a long time and I've seen the changes over the years.. and I got to say every year at least 3 times a year this question comes up over and over and over again.. and guess what.. the answers will not change no matter how many time and ways the questions are brought up about the C-Index.. have a browse through the topics and you'll find many many many discussions about it and the answer is always the same..

I'm not "having a go" at you about the discussion or the questions.. just saying.. it's not worth doing your head in over it.. ;)

oh.. this way is a lot fairer than the old system..
1∈ [?]
MY GALLERY ........... "You are not alive unless you know you are living." Amadeo Modigliani
.rozem061
01/18/11 4:16 PM GMT
You are absolute right, I will never complain on this site anymore !
John
1∈ [?]
-*A Wallpaper is worth a million words - And I leave them Speechless!*- ...
.J_272004
01/18/11 9:45 PM GMT
I'm right!!! wow usually I get my head bitten off.. lol.. thankyou
0∈ [?]
MY GALLERY ........... "You are not alive unless you know you are living." Amadeo Modigliani
::LynEve
01/20/11 3:30 AM GMT
I am more than happy to enjoy and take note of genuine critics and learn from their experience but they are few and far between. The "ungenuine" ones are reluctant to put their money where their mouth is (translate = opinions to qualify their zero/low votes)

Example - THIS
image C-index 69 corresponds exactly with the vote average of 6.9 with 22 votes showing on the vote summary (although oddly it shows only 16 votes in caedes control (?). I do not think it unreasonable to wonder why someone voted a 2 on it - they may have good reason, and I would like to know.
Not loosing any sleep over it or doing my head in about it - just curious :)
0∈ [?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
::cynlee
01/23/11 6:12 PM GMT
Okay. I think I finally figured the thing out, the VB, I mean and will put my thoughts to rest (maybe) after I say this. I understand that the voting is subjective and our individual votes are weighted to conform to what the majority of other voters vote. Works, I guess, but it is not always the same people who vote and the whole community doesn't vote. But, since I have never heard an explanation of why we have it (index) in the first place, other than to make the wallpaper searching easier, I won't bother about it. It is a subjective number and the community here likes only certain subjects and you are not going to change anyone's mind on that so best to just forget it.
I only wonder when I am in the VB if my 4 vote is really a 9 and vise versa, so I am hesitant to pick a number for fear that my choice will be unfair to the person on whose image I am voting.
0∈ [?]
WHAT WIKILEAKS REVEALED Protect freedom of speech and don't let them lie to us anymore.
+animaniactoo
01/26/11 9:37 PM GMT
Cindy, according to what Caedes wrote above, as long as you are voting in some sort of consistent manner using the 1-10 scale, your vote is being averaged to create an OVERALL average systemwide of what a "4" is and what a "6" is.

So just be consistent in your use of the scale according to how it makes sense *to you*, and the rest will work itself out.
0∈ [?]
One man sees things and says

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: