.. do not disturb."
____________________________________________________________

Resurrecting parts of Mikel's ; aka Mythmaker discussion thread. Namely that of; "Voting Zero".

Parts, that is ... if 'you' (speaking generally here) wish to read it in it's entirety. Linked above.


The parts..

Nik; aka Nikoneer towards the end of that discussion (as it now sits) put forth this post:

"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."

Towards the ends of stimulating a discussion and engaging those of 'us' that might have some ideas as to how to improve the C-Index.

That is what this thread is for, working towards improvement of the maligned (rightfully, or wrongfully so) .. C-Index.
____________________________________________________________

Here are some snippets and/or entire posts that followed.

Mythmaker's response to Nik's post above:

"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."


Casechaser:

"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."


Nikoneer:

"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]"


Cynlee:

"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."


Nikoneer:

"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."


Mythmaker:

"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."


Cynlee:

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


Casechaser:

"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."


Mythmaker:

"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."


J_27004:

"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."


Mythmaker:

"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."


coram9:

"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."
____________________________________________________________


Carry on ... add your ideas/thoughts on how to improve the scoring system currently in place..

The "Anonymous Low Rating Feedback" Mechanism

I read this in the 'helpfunction' of *THIS SITE* Mabey it's a good idea for the caedes site too ?

.....While we hope that everyone rates images as fairly as possible, we recognize that some people may not have the best intentions, or are simply afraid to leave a comment when they really dislike an image out of fear of retribution. So, we developed an "Anonymous Low Rating Feedback" system, which requires you to give a reason when rating an image with a "3" or below. Comments provided through this system will stay anonymous, except to the Admins of the site. You can choose not to leave any comments, but the Admins will take a very close look at that rating to make sure you didn't just leave a low rating to manipulate the image ranking, or because you have a personal grudge against the artist....))

Just a start to improve the C I !
John

Suggestions

- increase the number of votes required for each image and set a target number. At present 13-15 seems to be 'normal' - I see wide variations - ranging from 8 to 28. Out of 987 regular members (understanding not all are active) 13-15 votes seems a very small number. At this point in time I see 56 new images today which suggests that at least 56 members are actively contributing images.
50 votes per image? It would take a lot longer but would give a much broader range of opinions.

- C-index number not posted until voting complete.

- make voting mandatory and accountable.

- the same attention be given to the calibre and impartiality of VB voters as is given to AC voters.

I like the idea of being expected to give a reason for extremely low votes - and would think that would work for high ones as well. It would be interesting to know the logic behind some of the "10" votes, as well as the zeroes.

Why does everyone have to know who voted what?People aready dont leave comments because they are afraid if they leave a negative one they will be stoned.If people know who voted what then people wont vote honestly.I personally think with the exception of a few A-holes most people give accurate votes.Maybe people should stop comparing what the C-Index indicates to the comments their friends leave.Now there is where I think the true problem is.

Have an idea..

How's about 'we' get alllll of our ideas/suggestions out, before debating the merits of each one?

That sound good good to yous?

How about closing the site for renovations? The down time should provide "us" with some time to truly discover what's most important, both on and off-site?

A week? Maybe two?

First off my post was an idea.The idea was "people need to change not the C-Index".He stopped using it based on people didn't want it.He turned it back on because people complained they wanted it.He changed so the people would get more accurate votes based on "zero" votes people complained.He fixed it so you couldn't see the votes but the end result people complained. He turn it back on so they could see it again people complained.So to be honest it don't seem to me like its a "C-Index" problem more of a "people" problem.

The problem is the acknowledged fact that there are people abusing the voting system.
Why is pointing out the fact and suggesting ways of rectifying it so often seen as a complaint against the site?
We were invited to
"add your ideas/thoughts on how to improve the scoring system currently in place"
If suggestions are seen as complaints then I do not see the point in bothering.
Of course it is a 'people problem' - the site made up of people including those who cast malicious votes - the 'A-h's' mentioned above by tbob.

Most of us could not care less WHO voted what - but do care about the reasons WHY as a means to improve our work. I would like to know why the same image can collect a vote of ten and a also a zero, and maybe gain some insight as to what is lacking or what its good points are.

Getting caught up on this thread.... One thing that I thought I was clear about but now after reading some responses here no longer know for sure is...


What are we really supposed to be voting about?? On the image as it stands or it's value as a desktop??

Yes! ;-)

@Elizabeth:

I almost wrote in response, this;

'That could be something to incorporate on the scoring front. Simply that of another and concluding item in scoring with a +1 or -1 attribute ... with respect to the suitability of any image as a desktop/wallpaper.

As some have expressed that the site's purpose or attraction for most visitors is coming here looking for just that ... desktops/wallpapers.'

And there is some credence to those thoughts expressed.

But.. ... personally?

I score/vote on an image on what constitutes a good good image, in relation to the basic constituents present in an image/photo and overall ... and as I understand them.


Regardless of art genre, regardless of desktop/wallpaper suitability.

A passing thought on this subject.
When I first became a member here the emphasis seemed to be solely on wallpaper suitable images with image size having to conform to standard desktop sizes.
The emphasis seemed to shift when the rules were relaxed and any shape permitted.
I think it allowed artists to better display their images according to what suited the images although many fine images are not suitable as desktops any more.
The name of the site attracts wallpaper seekers - perhaps Caedes Desktop Wallpaper and Art would better describe it now.

With regard to the VB, I would like to know why, and I don't believe this has ever been explained, an image that hasn't received any vote below a five, has an average vote of 70, gets a C:index of 60? What got thrown out there, the 10's? I can understand accounting for outlying zeros, but why can't the index simply be the average of the votes? How can it not be a wee bit demoralizing to see that your image got 9 votes greater than a 7, 2 five votes and 2 six votes and come out with an index of 60??? Well, I guess it's only demoralizing if you give a damn.

And Lyn is right about the fewer votes not being statistically significant. Twenty is a statistically significant number, but apparently since voting is no longer a requirement, there are too few doing so and getting to twenty votes rarely happens, so the index is not statistically significant at all. Why have one then?

If members are not posting images to be desktops, then what are they posting for? The only acceptable use is currently for desktops, so should we expand the usage for other things (and let people download our images for those uses), or are we simply posting images to show off our work? Personally I would favour going back to the desktop only size limits and returning to the roots of Caedes.

*caedes (5/12/10 23:19):

"cynlee: to answer your question "how does an image that got an average or 5.7 in the voting, generate a 27 index?":

In general, the average given to all images is around 70 while the c-index is defined to have an average of 50. So when we re-balance the votes (to make the average 50), it causes the cindex to be lower than that average."


::cynlee (5/12/10 23:57):

"Okay, I think I understand. Thank you."


Perhaps, you are far too preoccupied with this number, Cindy?

Consider your own advice/thoughts/words here:

"Neither is the VB or the friend's list a requirement. All of these functions are here for us to use or not as we choose."

" ... we are free to have or not have a friends' list at all, comment at all, give creds, post an image, enter a contest, comment on a thread, etc. etc. These things make being part of the site appealing. We are not compelled to do anything ..."

... and opt out of the Voting Booth.


Or, start another discussion thread. Which, you are also free to do and more so, encouraged. Instead of derailing any efforts centered on working towards it's improvement.

"That is what this thread is for, working towards improvement of the maligned (rightfully, or wrongfully so) .. C-Index."

We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion..

... ...

... ...

Maybe..

Maybe not. Yes, I am free to use it or not, but I just don't understand the need to 'fiddle' with it. Why can't it just be straight forward? Please see my comment at Wrong System as well. I am not derailing anything as you construe (rightfully or wrongfully so), but rather pointing out that the generation of this item that you want to fix is already not statistically of any significance mathematically. Whether it has any relative significance is another discussion.
Why do you want so many threads about the same thing anyway?

And, in rereading your comment above I see that you have stated that the images have a given average of 70. Meaning, the average image vote is 70? And then you try to make that statistically relevant by assigning it a random 50 for the c:index because 5 is the average of zero and ten? I guess I really don't understand that principle and there are others on these threads who are also puzzled by this explanation. But, I reiterate that unless there are at least 20 votes on an image, you don't have a statistically accurate representation. Even Caedes agreed with that assessment when I made it a few years ago.

And you obviously think something needs to be 'fixed' with it too as you state that as the purpose of this thread.

*caedes (5/12/10 23:19):

"cynlee: to answer your question "how does an image that got an average or 5.7 in the voting, generate a 27 index?":

In general, the average given to all images is around 70 while the c-index is defined to have an average of 50. So when we re-balance the votes (to make the average 50), it causes the cindex to be lower than that average."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Then how does this account for the fact that sometimes the c:index is 'higher' than the average?

And just because I have these questions doesn't mean that I am overly concerned with the c:index as has been implied previously in this thread. I just think this should be explained so that we can all have an understanding of it.

The CI has been explained, I think in the other thread. It is not an average. peoples votes are weighted according to how they vote so one persons score of 5 might mean a 7, and another's 8 might mean a 4. In short, the CI is what it is, lets move on.

Taken from the "Suggestions Poll":

'Voting booth score based on several factors, instead of just one.'

'More realistic C-index.'


Comments/postings (or parts), taken from the "Suggestions Poll" discussion thread:

"I'd ask for split voting categories (aesthetic, technical, artistic) as opposed to one arbitrary number."

"I'd second the suggestion that voting be categorized with possibly some of the following categories: Aesthetics, technical quality, creativity, comment quantity, Wow factor, etc. The over all score would be the average from the above."

"I'd suggest a total of the category values, instead of their average."



Possible categories for consideration:

Exposure - Images should be properly exposed. All pertinent detail should be clearly visible. The image should be free of blown highlights and dark spots. Blown highlights and dark spots should not be confused with areas of white and black that are essential to an image; high key, noir, and harsh lighting contrast are acceptable, but must be executed effectively.

Color - Images should use color effectively. Images will be judged on white balance, judicious use of color, freedom from distracting color elements, etc. In the case of Black and White images, this category will be scored based on the technical expertise of the black and white conversion and the aesthetic of the tonal variations within the image.

Contrast - Images should make effective use of contrast. This includes contrast in both visual and thematic elements.

Focus and Bokeh - Images should be in focus. The focal point should be placed on the subject. Effective use of depth of field and bokeh, or artistic quality of the out of focus areas of the image will also apply to this category.

Framing and Crop - Images should be well cropped. The rule of thirds, the golden spiral, aspect ratio, and both positive and negative space will be considered. You are not limited to the 2x3 or 3x4 ratio captured by your camera.

Composition - Images should demonstrate good composition, for the purposes of scoring, this category refers to the organization of the elements within the photo. Symmetry, asymmetry, placement of images, and the effective use of foreground and background elements will be considered.

Kenesthesis - Images should exhibit an effective use of movement, either through the emulation of movement within the still image, or by the tension exhibited by stillness.

Artistry - Images will be judged on overall artistic merit.

Originality - You are encouraged to think outside the box.. or rather, ignore the box. In fact, there is no box. This aspect/factor reflects originality and innovative thinking.

Desktop/Wallpaper Suitability.


Scoring for each individual category from 1 - 10. Either a straight sum, or that of an average. Or, some other permutation.

Depending on the agreed upon/arrived at calculation/permutaion of the 'final score'/tally ... if that number falls below a predetermined number, 'you', the voter are then required to provide a short comment.

Don't comment in that instance?

Score doesn't count/not assigned ... and is thrown out.

Start over, if 'you' wish to participate in the Voting Booth and in turn, receive a scoring on your own uploaded images.



/\ Too much stuff?

Most likely.. so.

So..


Carry on, refine away..

The suggested categories above could easily extend to and/or be extrapolated upon ... to include that of non-photographic works. I haven't forgotten about my CGI **brethren.

Annnnd ...

If 'you' (speaking generally here) just simply read through the above listed considerations and their associated descriptions ... 'you' just might learn some.. stuff.


Stuff is ... good good.

Stuff that can assist 'you' in your commenting. 'Constructive critiques', or otherwise.


(** breth*ren [breth-rin] .. -plural noun
1. fellow members. 2. Archaic . brothers.)

If we are fixing something, shouldn't we have a firm idea of how the 'something' works to start with? Apparently, even those on this thread who chide those who have questions, think the voting system requires a change.

Don't tell me to move on Chris because you think you already have the answers. I need to know how it is that my 8 vote is worth only 4 or my 4 vote is worth 8? That has not been explained. Why should anyone bother to vote if they are totally unaware of what their vote is worth?

Sometimes things are not clearly defined here and we are left to search through dozens of threads for the answers, are ignored completely or ridicled into submission.

Even if 'all' the above suggestions were implemented, there is still a final score given that, no doubt, will be computed in the same statistically 'inaccurate' manner.

If there is an "objective standard" (derived how?) for evaluating an image as well as a member's ability to evaluate an image which might render one members 6 vote to be worth less in the voting than another member's 6 vote, then why does the mechanism exist and why doesn't the management just generate the index themselves? What we have to offer would be purely subjective in comparison with this standard.

Oops.

Les, if I might offer a bit of paring-down advice for your categories, and generalize them a bit for more of a one-size-fits-all application,

I'd recommend no more than three or four vote categories. The poll item you quoted was mine, after all. ;-)

Technical: was the media (photography, CG, etc) used and applied to a certain level of quality? This encompasses a broad spectrum of aspects. Contrast, color, editing, render, etc can all be considered here.

Artistic: ok, the sky is blue, the flower is in focus, the render doesn't look like a hack job pasted together with elmer's glue. But does it 'do' anything for the viewer? Was a shred of creativity applied, or was this made without a soul? Does it inspire thought, or emotion?

Aesthetic: is it 'pretty'? Would you hang it's printed equivalent over the mantle? Or would it be hidden away in the guest bathroom?

Howzat?

From the other thread, for those who cannot read everything. Originally posted by Zunazet.

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."

my interpretation of this is...

If you consistently vote 8 on images that on average receive a 5 vote, then over time your high votes will count less that you imagine. The same goes that if you consistently vote 3 on images that score 7, them your 3 will effectively become higher. This should, and probably does, average out the extremes of taste into something coherent, even if we do not like the answer of every image. For me I find the results reasonably good, and although I can always disagree with a result that is only my taste which is most definitely not reflected by the wider community. (I have weird tastes).

Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worse form of government, except for all the others. Perhaps our CI is the worst form of judging, except for all the others. It is at least simple and largely works, and should be given some credit. We the voters cause most of the aberrations that appear, not the marking system. Anyone who posts B&W images will know that they score less than colour ones, as an example, and that almost any highly coloured image will get a good vote even if it lacks technically or artistically.

So I shall now start a campaign to keep our CI as it is.

So then, tell me if the votes that I see on the bar graph can be taken literally or have been moved up and down based on the particular voters past voting habits. If they are literal, then the bar above the number with the highest votes is what most likely what the image deserves.

Thank you, Chris, for that explanation.

My understanding is that you see the actual votes, not the corrected ones that make up the CI, which is why the CI can differ from the average vote as shown.

coram9 asked further back "If members are not posting images to be desktops, then what are they posting for? "
I would also be interested in some answers on this.
Like coram9 I would also favour a return to the limitations of the desktop wallpaper size restrictions. Images that do not conform to these sizes can be made to do so by cropping, and/or the addition of borders and backgrounds. Efforts made by some to still do do are often criticized by being told that the additions do nothing for the image - well I disagree - it makes them suitable for the purpose they are uploaded for- as desktop wallpapers !
I am surprized that some do not factor in the suitablility to be used for wallpapers when voting! I would have thought it quite an important condition. I see many exceptional images of all genres in unsuitable sizes which could with a little bit of extra work be made into brilliant wallpapers.
I admit to having become lazy myself on this issue - it seems anything goes nowadays and we have strayed away from the original concept. It seems a waste of time creating the correct sizes only to be told "I don't like the big black border" - and I guess those people vote on those images accordingly, especially it they belong to the sector that dislike borders/frames - when in many cases is is not a border - simply a background to display a vertical or shallow depth image which can be used for its correct purpose.

I would not be apposed to restricting size, but I wonder just what is wallpaper size these days. Over at InterfaceLIFT they list a total of 17 different sizes at the moment. This covers various phones as well as dual screen desktops. So what is desktop size? A ratio of 4:3 or is it 5:4 or 16:9 or 16:10? Should we cover dual screen as some have requested in the forums before? What about the three different standard sizes on net books. Or should we just consider them obsolete and go with only the iPad size. What about sizes for phones? People who post small images here are always reminded they are "kinda small for the desktop". Perhaps they are just ahead of their time.

No rant here mind you. Just thinking this is no simple matter. The "desk top" computer may be on the way out as a majority as mobile computing becomes universally "everywhere all the time".

Your thoughts?

There is already the option to restrict images to those that fit your screens resolution. I don't think that reducing the options available to people is the way to go. However if what you are looking for is desktops and an image you are voting on doesn't meet those requirements I would see that as a legitimate reason for marking it down (personally I would also be inclined to leave a comment noting this; otherwise how is anyone going to know)

Hmmmm
Yes.
I think there is a growing market for these..

point taken !!

I am old and decrepit and use a pc and forget sometimes I am lagging behind lol
but . . . desktop wallpaper ?

Not i-phone etc wallpaper, is the title.
Boo Hoo - I am on the way out like the desktop computer, failing to keep up with modern times.

I say this all tongue in cheek- yes I see the problems !

:)

sneaks away to buy an i-pad . . . . . .

(*changes the locks on the site's doors*)

:oP

Dont forget the windows.