Why are the men here so temperamental that they send everything to the graveyard when they don't like the subject matter?
Might as well send this to the graveyard now. I am disgusted with the way you mods are always trying to put us down when we have questions or want to ask about something. Well have your little power play if it makes you feel better and continue putting the rest of us down for having ideas or wanting to contribute.

What a mockery that we are spoken to in ellipses and riddles and cajoled and made fun of for having a thought. Shame on all of you.

Looks like another productive post. Well done.

Well, Sam, anytime it is a constructive post, it gets sideswiped by you or Les.

Cindy, to be clear, one of the reasons that voting NEEDS to remain anonymous is to allow those who do not wish to get into long involved arguments over why their opinion is their opinion, OR be attacked for having such an opinion, the opportunity to honestly express such an opinion in a way that is evaluated.

Do some people abuse this? Absolutely. Unfortunately every single thing that has ever been done for the benefit of the site has been abused by some people. However, the benefits of allowing the anonymous voting outweigh the drawbacks in my opinion.

Especially when you consider that despite very active encouragement of constructive criticism by the mods, the owner of this site, and several artists - there are other artists who get... to be polite... extremely offended when someone leaves such criticism on their images, no matter how politely worded.

Even if people COULD leave their comment anonymously, there would be those who would take the opportunity honestly and seriously to express their opinion without the fear of negative flashback for it, and there would be those who would abuse it in order to leave comments like "You have no talent".

There simply is no system that is going to be "pure" given the nature of people and their various motivations.

I think that many people basically instinctively understand this, and so don't rail against it as much. May I suggest that you (and others who feel as you do), step back when you get aggravated, and try to think of what the benefits of the system that upset you might be given the other things that you have seen be issues?

Cat, I'm sorry, but I am not sure what your last sentence meant. Maybe I am reading it incorrectly.

Sure, there are downsides to whichever way it is done. If someone votes zero and you ask them why, they don't have to respond and you won't beat a path to their door to demand an answer. After all, this is all taking place online.

So, conversely, the mods shouldn't get upset with the uncritiquing comments left on the image page; the comments we are all asked to use to explain what might make something better, but which we are sometimes reticent to make.

I still don't understand why there is a zero in the VB if its presence there is moot.

Yes, it is irritating to receive a zero when all the other votes are at the high end of the scale, and not believe that someone gave that zero in spite or out of laziness. I just think the accused should know their accuser and knowing who does this all the time would allow the rest of us to ostracize that kind of behaviour. You say some become extremely offended when they receive criticism, well some of us are offended when we see zero votes on our images for no particular reason.

I think the majority of site members mean well and are not like that, but there are some who ruin things for all of us just by scoring those zeros that are unwarranted. Sure, everyone wants a decent score because it is more a true reflection of how our work is viewed than are the comments themselves.

Certainly, I can be thick skinned and not let a zero bother me and most of the time I do, but when I perceive that someone gave me a zero just because they protested the subject matter, then I am frustrated with their insincerity and callousness.

I took issue with the fact that we are sometimes belittled and made to feel small because of the veiled linguistical aspersions and insults that come at us from some directions. A friend of mine here said it thusly: "Upload, Sit Down, Shut up". That is how we feel that we are viewed and treated. It feels like the mods are exerting their muscle just because they can and sometimes they make bad choices or comments. They are supposed to be examples of good behavior if they expect the same from us.

I am tired of hiding my feelings in this regard and had to say what I did above just to make a point about that.

I think many people are basically and instinctively responsible and grownup and can deal with truthfulness, in fact some thirst for it, and welcome it as a means to grow. Others ruin that for the rest and this is a way to make everyone honest.

Thank you for your courteous and responsive comment above, though there are those who do disagree with the context of your explanation.

I suppose that what I proposed is too much to expect, so I will continue to "Upload, sit down and (maybe)shut up".

Cindy

Positive voting guidelines


The link above may be of some help to those voters who do not really understand what a zero vote conveys to the poster.
i.e. "0 - The worst possible rating. The author didn’t take any effort, and might just as well snap or draw an image in a dark room."


Well written, sound advice and well considered responses.

In most minds being told (by anyone, anonymously or not) something like "You have no talent" is equaled by receiving (repeated) zero votes on images that do not deserve them. (unless the one lone z voter is the only one with any artistic insight out of 20 voters, and can recognise trash when they see it, but are unable, or more likely unwilling, to articulate)
I believe we all understand that z votes have little bearing on the score an image receives but they do have an effect on the posters and lead to suspicion and mistrust of other voters.

Functionally, a zero is there because SOMETHING has to indicate the lowest rating available. If it wasn't a zero, it would be a "1" - and that 1 would be viewed the same way as a "zero" if it were changed.

Zeros are also not automatically dismissed - this may be what is misunderstood. Zeros given by people who frequently vote zero are given less weight in the calculation of the score.

The same is true for those who frequently vote "10".

I'm not saying there is no reason to feel offended when you appear to have been the victim of someone misusing and abusing the system, all I am suggesting is that what you do about it, how you feel about it, be viewed through the lens of "nasty side effect" of "beneficial thing", and trying to find the benefit of the system in order to be able to view it so.

While you might wish to "face your attacker" as it were, situations such as yours have been addressed *by* reducing the ability of that person's vote to affect you or your score. Preserving in the process, the other benefits of the system that produce such unfortunate side effects.

I also understand your frustration with the responses you receive - I ask you to understand that this issue has come up several times, and the information above has been given repeatedly and is there for anyone to find. Having it come up yet again comes to feel like the efforts to mitigate the nasty side effects essentially go unnoticed. This isn't to say that you should shut up and sit down - just to put effort into seeing the other side as well.

Precisely, Cat. Your last sentence works in both directions. My initial post had to do with removing the anonymity, not the zero.

I understand that - however, removing the anonymity has long since been considered and decided against for the reasons laid out above. If you can think of a way to remove the anonymity damaging the integrity of allowing those who wish to give an honest opinion without tripping over the flashback of a large number of people (not the majority, but a significant enough minority), then please suggest it. Triplicate forms not required. *wink*

I think first you have to consider what the site offers to its members at this time.

1. It allows them a site on which to upload,display and store their photos and images.

2. It provides a board for discussions about software, equipment, techniques, etc.

3. It provides a gathering place for folks with similar interests to communicate and become cyber friends. So, fills a need for social networking of sorts.

4. Provides the opportunity for others to leave comments on your uploads.

5. Allows for community selection of the best images for permanent/temporary admission to the main galleries from which visitors and others can search out wallpapers for their computer desktops.

6. Provides a voting booth into which you can optionally submit your images for a voting critique. It is dependent on your voting ten times on others' works and it generates a score that indicates how well received your image is in general by the members.

7. Provides an opportunity in the form of 'contests' for the fun and challenge to all.

I did this partial listing as an aid to answering your question, Cat. It has given me some ideas as well.

The voting booth and anonymity of the voting is the issue under consideration, at least for the purpose of my commenet.

As it is now, the anonymity of the VB allows for some mischief on the part of thoughtless people. This has been addressed by some sort of calculation that accounts for 'frequent' voters of zero (and 10).
This does tighten up the scoring some, but doesn't provide the person receiving the zero an understanding of what it was about their image that would induce someone to think it worthless.

If the motive of coming to the site is to make friends, chat and hear nice things about your images, then it is the perfect site for that.

If the motive is to receive an honest review or idea of how well you did with a particular image based on community approval vis a vis a voting booth, then that won't always happen.

Someone who chooses to vote zeros consistently won't always provide a reason for their choice, but were it known who they were, they would be reticent to leave that zero in the first place and have to reconsider the image placed before them before voting.

How to prevent damage to the integrity of those who try to comment honestly and not be harpooned by the owner of the image, would be by stating the principles involved in giving an honest reason for the vote number and make it clear that the poster is free to ignore the reason given or learn something from it and move on. Under no circumstance should anyone hassle another member for their opinions. And, the reason for the given vote could be made visible only to the person who posted the image, just as the voting tallies are now in the Caedes Control panel. Some older members might balk at first, but as new members join the site, they will accept it as protocol. Those who don't wish to do it this way always have the option of not voting at all.

An alternative would be a revision, as previously suggested by some, to provide a place to categorize the various elements of an image such as composition, focus, etc. It needn't be more than a few multiple choice answers and could be kept anonymous.

Either way, it would help the members who upload images have a better idea of the reasons for someone's vote and re-examine their image for possible ways of improving them.

I prefer the option of removing the anonymity because I think it would induce people to be more discriminating and constructive in their evaluation of other peoples work and more people would reconsider leaving the site out of dissatisfaction.

No system will please everyone, of course,"given the nature of people and their various motivations".

"How to prevent damage to the integrity of those who try to comment honestly and not be harpooned by the owner of the image, would be by stating the principles involved in giving an honest reason for the vote number and make it clear that the poster is free to ignore the reason given or learn something from it and move on. Under no circumstance should anyone hassle another member for their opinions."

In theory - this should work. In reality, it doesn't. We have a history of such critiques, no matter how nicely worded, or how much noted as "my personal opinion, you may not agree" receiving backlash over and over again. This is the fundamental problem.

I think it could be better solved by accustoming the uploaders to the fact that they ARE going to get critique by making them choose the level of critique they wish to receive on upload, but that's been sitting in the feature bloat bin for a couple of years now. 8•)

"Under no circumstance should anyone hassle another member for their opinions."


Comments/quotes from another discussion thread on same said subject:

" ... cowardly voters ..."

"They are a disgrace to the site anyway. Such spitefulness is astonishing."


"Only a fool would expect everyone to like all their images - and only a fool would vote zero on an image for the simple reason they personally 'don't like it'."

"Most likely it would be expecting too much of their mentality to be able to give reasons and that is why they prefer to remain annonymous."


"It makes people more inclined to honesty instead of to cowering in the shadows."


Comment(s)/quote(s) from this thread:

"I just think the accused should know their accuser and knowing who does this all the time would allow the rest of us to ostracize that kind of behaviour."


Sounds like a witch hunt..

I am sorry that you see it as such, Les.

I really don't see it as a witch hunt, but rather as a means to generate more thoughtful critique in the VB as anywhere else.

I kind of like the idea that Cat mentions that is sitting in the feature bloat bin. That way no one would be offended because they asked for the level of critique. I think that could work.

"That way no one would be offended because they asked for the level of critique."

*cries tears of laughter* Cindy me darlin - I have no such hope. That's another should work in theory, won't work in reality thing. My hope was that fewer people would get offended and raise a fuss. 8•)

Well, what's so bad about 'fewer'people being offended? Would it be fewer than the number currently offended by the voting system as it is now I wonder.

What evidence is there to show that it wouldn't work in reality?

I am sincerely interested in your answer.

Oh, nothing's wrong with fewer people being offended. I'm still all for it.

The wouldn't work in reality is in terms of thinking that it would work in every case. My experience of humanity is that even though it's a logical thing, often people think with emotions rather than logic (insert Dr Spock joke here), or some create logic that justifies what they are feeling, rather than reviewing their reactions in context of the greater situation.

I think it would work in enough cases for it to be valuable, but obviously somebody either disagrees with me, or hasn't gotten around to it, because it's still languishing there in the feature bloat. 8•P

you dont seem to be looking at this from anyones view but your own.fewer people offended? maybe but what about everyone else.the majority dont seem to have a problem with the way things are have you thought on those terms?what evidence is there to show it would?what makes you think if you knew who voted zero they would change their vote?or for that matter leave a comment.why can a zero vote be counted as a comment?meaning a person votes O and their point is I DONT LIKE WHAT IM SEEING or would you rather a person post that?what if someome did post that?maybe there would be a FEW getting offended at that too.that being said lets just change everything .from now on you can only cast a 10 vote.from now on you can only leave GOOD comments.from now on if you dont vote 10 and leave a GOOD comment you can post anything.i just posted a picture a few days ago ive yet to see you posting a comment telling me how great it was whats up with that?i fail to understand why people cant just post cool stuff and other people enjoy checkin that cool stuff out.what happened to that mentality?

fewer people offended?

seems like your already offended with the way things are so does that make you fit that catergory?

I rather still keep the annomous vote and have a screen pop up after voting with little comment box or a drop down menu that has eg

compositon great good not so good

clarity great good not so good

colour great good not so good

details great good not so good

overall eye candy great good not so good

(for fractals in addition to the above)
design great good not so good

maybe that way it will give everyone an idea of whats what with the pic in question.. still voter unknown but with an idea of what the feeling is.. plus with zero voters most of them are just flying through it to get it out of the way so to ask to comment as to why won't work a lot of people don't like to leave comments, but to have them tick a box is a lot simpler, faster and more convenient.

Your lucky you weren't around a few years ago when the corruption of voting was high.. the way it is now is a lot better and more fair..

It is only a short hop, skip and jump ... before untrustworthiness becomes rampant as the number of those participating in the voting booth decline. And all eyes are upon those that show up on the "Most Active Member's List".


Here are the voting distributions from three of my images. Selected these three, as they present a few possible scenarios:

Vote distribution for: "Coming and Going"

Analysis: Somewhat polarized. Though the clustering and median seems to be a fair reflection of the final C-Index assigned.

Vote distribution for: "Lunch is Served - Rework"

Analysis: Skewing and or a long tail is apparent. (More or less.)

Vote distribution for: "Portal"

Analysis: Very polarized.

Got it ... make commenting anonymous. (Or, possibly an option.)


Since some believe that the 'real truths' or only helpful feedback is via and spoken only under the anonymity of the Voting Booth.

Problem(s).. solved.

Has ANYONE looked at the link I posted up there? ? ?

If not take a look and read to first response to it.
If there were more people thinking that way it would be good.

No one is expecting zero voters to change their vote - simply explain their reasons - what is so difficult about that ?

And I stand by my statement
"Only a fool would expect everyone to like all their images - and only a fool would vote zero on an image for the simple reason they personally 'don't like it'."

How that makes me part of a witch hunt is beyond my comprehension, and actually I resent the implication.

Often I see images I personally 'dont like' but that is no reason to award a zero vote.

Les
"Under no circumstance should anyone hassle another member for their opinions."
Then please do not quote MY opinion and label it part of a witch hunt !! This is the second time you have made fun of that statement.
Do you really think it is ok to vote purely and simply on personal likes/dislikes? Is that what you do - I doubt that very much.

I have no problem with the VB per se - just the ones who use it in a dishonest and disruptive way. A minority for sure but fools nonetheless.

Your characterization of those that vote zeros lead me to believe such.

Another example;

"Thank you all for your comments and votes - with the exception of the miserable zero voter.(Why not leave a comment?)"

And then that of your closing remarks from your post above;

"A minority for sure but fools nonetheless."

@Les. I find the voting on Portal especially sad. This is exactly the sort of imaginative image that I originally came to this site for way back in 2005 when I discovered Caedes. The fact that it now gets a CI of 34 whereas very ordinary photographs get 70-80 is indicative of the photographic skew that is so prevalent. And not a zero vote needed.

Not entirely unexpected, Chris.

That fact has not changed all that much since I've been here. Being that CGI works consistently scored lower than that of their photographic imagery counterparts (so to speak).

It is what is?

And.. does not bother me.


Perhaps .... if anything is to be gleaned from these and similar discussions, and the latter notes introduced ... is that the scoring system could use some revamping.

Encouraging/forcing those that assign scores to do so on individual categories of consideration.

Les, Why can you not understand - it is not to do with those who vote zeros honestly - it is everything to do with those who vote zeros unfairly - and with boring regularity. Obviously you have not experienced it.

As it has been made quite clear my input in this discussion is offensive to you I shall retreat. Thanks Les. Feel free to quote anything else of mine out of context or in any other way you like. I won't be reading it.

I have removed my comment from Do Not Disturb as it was so upsetting for you.






"0 - The worst possible rating. The author didn’t take any effort, and might just as well snap or draw an image in a dark room."

Kodo34's wise method

"Well i have made it as a rule for myself that if i vote low (1-3) i will leave a comment as to what imo would be needed to improve the image and the same if i vote high (7-10) i will leave a comment saying that i liked the image and why."

*blows whistle* EVERYBODY OUT OF THE POOL!

Alrighty - this is the question at hand: Can anyone think of a system, that will do a *better* job of getting people to give an honest opinion than the one we have now?

Please incorporate in your thinking:

1) Does it allow people who wish to give an honest opinion, but fear the flashback that has *already* been received a way to do so *without fear* of receiving such flashback? Or at least a minimized fear of doing so?

2) If people secretly hold an opinion, but do not express it because it is more trouble to them than it is worth to potentially help another member, does that serve the benefit of the site?

3) Is there a way to make it foolproof against those who would misuse and abuse the system? Please look at your system through the eyes of what would be *possible* to be done by someone who was lazy or malicious.

And... go!

Thanks, Cat.Your responses are always clear, precise and informative. I appreciate that.

tbob, I don't know how you know what the majority wants. I was not aware that a poll was taken,

Everyone presents a slightly different way of approaching the question of anonymity vs. non-anonymity, but as I see it, Cat's idea and some of what Jackie suggested as well as Lyn's contribution of what positive voting guidelines are have all been very informative and constructive observations.

I don't think it necessary to segregate the voters to vote on only certain genre of images. There are many fractals, CGI images, etc. that have received high indexes. I think computer artists and fractal creaters, etc. do have to work harder to garner greater approval from the photography sector, but it is done. Perhaps a separate set of instructions on what makes a good photo and what makes a good CGI or fractal, would make it easier for people to make a more informed analysis of the merits of an image,whatever category it falls into.

Below is some of what is listed on the site regarding how to make a good comment:

"Don't be afraid of hurting someone's feelings. As long as your review is mature and polite most people will love your attention.

Don't simply state "It's awesome" or "It sucks," such statements without elaboration are useless and waste space on the site. What's awesome to a 3 year old could be awful anyone else. You have to prove that your perspective is worth considering. The best way to do this is to back up your opinions with insightful suggestions for improvment". This would apply to non-anonymity in the VB.

Some of that can be applied to a comment on why you voted as you did in the VB or expressed in the form of choices from a drop down menu, multiple choice options, etc. and not have the voter have to say anything. Anonymity could be retained in that situation.

Sorry, Cat. I must have been writing at the same time as you.
I hope your comment can generate some new thinking on the subject.

Perhaps a separate set of instructions on what makes a good photo and what makes a good CGI or fractal, would make it easier for people to make a more informed analysis of the merits of an image,whatever category it falls into.

Nope there is no need for a separate set of instructions on what makes a good CGI or fractal... EVERYONE has eyes.. EVERYONE can see if it appeals to them.. whether the colour is right for that particular design, if it's clear (no grain) etc it's the same for photos.. so for someone to say "can't vote cos I have no idea on how it's done" (kind of makes me angry when I hear that)it's a load of rubbish, there is no need to know how the program works it's how it looks when it's finished.. sure it would be a hell of a lot better if they did know how hard it is to get that piece of art but it's not necessary..

There is way too much emphasis placed on comments and votes on this site, so I shall make some observations.

If you want to learn how to take photographs then posting pictures here is akin to learning to drive without an instructor. You may learn from the experience of the crashes - if you survive - but having an instructor is infinitely preferable. So buy a book, go to evening classes, befriend a professional because the experience will be much better.

I do not explain my art, at least not in any detail, so why should I expect people to give good critical comments. Actually I do not, and do not care if comments are left or not. I do not explain why I made an image dark/light/blurred etc, and therefore comments such as 'I find the image too dark for my tastes' do not help me as an artists, other than to understand why someone does not particularly like an image. Some artists here 'get' my pictures and leave worthwhile comments, and for that I thank them, but mostly people just pass off personal preferences as critiques which do nothing. The point is you can ask for comments but I am not sure that most people are capable of making them.

I am an amateur photographer. I recognise my limits and often do not leave comments on obviously bad images because I do not fully know if I have the authority to make a good comment, beyond a personal preference, which as I have already stated I do not like getting myself so I do not leave them either. The same pretty much applies to fractals, illustrations and manipulations.

There is possibly a role for critical commentary in a technical sense in photography. Composition, the use of light, colour/BW, depth of field etc. The same does not apply to the same extent in CGI, Fractals, Illustrations etc. Here the artist has complete control of the image and the viewer must accept that the image is what the artist intended and one can only pass comments on a preference level. There is the possibility of some technical commentary on these images if the artist has made an obvious mistake, but this can backfire. On my own image Moon over Frensham I removed the clouds over the upper level of the Moon because I wanted to create the impression of the moon being somehow connected to the Earth and rising through the clouds. Several people commented negatively on this believing wrongly that my intention was to create a more normal realistic image. (The fact that the moon was ten times too large and that there were two of them seemed to go unnoticed). On other sites I posted a slightly different version that retained the clouds in front of the moon so the comments were useful in gaining an understanding of how misinterpreted the image could be but they were not technically correct comments.

I do not mind 0 votes. At least that says something to me as an artists, and that is that some people do not like the work I produce. Some people give me 10 although I have no images that I would consider worthy of such a vote. What I find more irksome are photographers who give me a 5 because 'they do not understand how fractals are made'. All this does is belittle my efforts in the worse way. So, if you require comments to be left when voting then any vote should be treated the same regardless of its value. This is, or course, completely impracticable except for our retired members who seem to have a lot of time to spend offering up critical comments about the site and its members.

I do vote on images on this site, even if I am not posting images. Here are 10 reasons I have for giving low, i.e. less than 5 (yes and zero as well).

1. I am not interested in snapshots of your pet. (Some pet images are rather good and get a good mark, unfortunately most are not).
2. Well done, you have managed to produce offspring, but do you really consider the picture of your child a work of art?
3. A page of textual explanation does not improve the quality of thew image. (Coram's law - there is an inverse correlation between image quality and description length)
4. Not another overexposed over saturated sunset.
5. Sorry, I do not do cute.
6. So what if it is someones birthday, send a postcard. (Some more professional sites do not allow images with writing on them)
7. Desktops have not been 640 x 480 resolution for some time now,nor is my desktop square (or other odd shape), neither is my phone, iPad, tablet etc. This is a site about desktop art, not any old image format.
8. It's a flower, it's spring - try thinking outside the box.
9. Just because you were there does not in itself make the picture artistically valid.
10. Didn't you see the pole, wire, caravan, car, person, plastic bird feeder, factory, road sign that you have left half in the image?
11. (yes I know) Frames. Might be tolerable but usually just tart up the horrendous.

Perhaps I do not participate on this site as much as some people, but to have to state the obvious on every image that I give a low vote too would just make voting impossible. I could leave comments as above, but would that be helpful either to the poster of the image, or to the overall ambience of the site.

Finally (at last), yes, I am not sleeping well at the moment and this has been most cathartic. [This length of text should be worth at least 10 places on the most active members list.]

I am glad that you feel better now, Chris. No, really. You have provided one more raison d’être for this website. It's good medicine.

I probably wouldn't want someone with your outlook to vote or comment on my posts, photos or fractals either. And I am glad that you made it perfectly clear how you feel about this place and the people who are members. Apparently, it is different for each of us, but I commend you for your honesty.

(Because it's Spring or because you were 'there' doesn't exclude the photo as a piece of art either).

"Because it's Spring or because you were 'there' doesn't exclude the photo as a piece of art either"

I never said that, only that they are not justifications for high marks on their own. A good image of a flower in the spring still gets high marks, a snapshot of a flower will not. As I have said before elsewhere, just because a photograph is in focus and well exposed does not make it a good photograph from an artistic perspective.

I do vote on your posts, and usually they get marks above the CI you seem to end up with. Not always, but mostly.

I love this place, that is why I am still here and still posting, and still caring and trying to make it a better place for all.

"I love this place, that is why I am still here and still posting, and still caring and trying to make it a better place for all".

On that we can wholeheartedly agree.

Chris, the only thing I would say is that I think this is (or can be) a place for growth. There are many here who have learned from constructive criticism given by other amateurs who are better developed than they are. Also, as an artist - being able to look at someone else's work and see what works and what doesn't is invaluable in terms of your own work - it helps you to frame your own approach to your work, and so developing the ability to give constructive criticism is at least as valuable as anything else.

Even those things that are personal opinions like "too dark for my taste" because someone may have been struggling with hitting a mark and missed it. Which is why most constructive criticism should be considered an opinion that the artist themselves can evaluate and then decide whether it has any worth to them.

Even though it seems obvious, there is someone out there who simply does not get, and has not heard it framed in this way before: "The colors are nice and the focus is clear, but there is nothing that I see in this shot that makes it unique and special compared to the many other shots of sunsets."

Or your #10 (probably in a more tactful manner "the bird feeder is a distraction, and I think removing it would make this a better image, there's a good tutorial on how to do that "here").

Yeah, it gets repetitive. But sometimes you're the first person who has said it to that person, OR you're the 14th - and that's what it takes for someone to "get" that it really does bother a significant number of people.

It is for these reasons that comments and constructive criticism are encouraged. But not required. 8•)

I do in fact leave comments such as Cat suggests, but usually on lonely images. I find it rather difficult to come in as comment no 20 and then have to state an obvious flaw. Even on lonely images many people just leave a bland nice comment where some specific mistake is obvious and many of these are from photographers who I am sure know better.

The list was a little tongue in cheek, but that's my british humour which probably does not translate well across the pond or, apparently, even to antipodeans.

I am aware of how much I have grown over the years too, and spread my wings from just photography into digital art, CGI and now fractals. This has been motivated far more from seeing other peoples high quality work which I have tried to emulate rather than the very sparse comments and feedback. Perhaps that is just me, but being surrounded by people who post stunning images is what motivates and drives me to do better, whereas getting a comment about a flaw in my image might teach me a lesson but also demoralises me to some extent as well. It is a question of balance. Nowadays I know most of my images flaws so the motivation rather than comments works best.

I think this is what I find most sad about Caedes at the moment. A lot of good artists have left and to my mind the overall quality has gone down. No quality is not right. There are many good photographs posted here. What is missing is artistic experimentation, people thinking outside the box, imagination and even when members do experiment this seems to be shot down in a sea of ordinariness that relegates the CI to 30. That is not to say that all posting are average, just that some part of the site's soul has gone. Go back to the older images in the main gallery and you get a very different feel to what the site was about back in 05, 06 and 07 compared to now. I miss this, and sometimes I find it frustrating, which probably shows in my posts.

I do not think this has anything to do with people voting 0. The voting system is probably one of the better mechanisms compared to other sites. Voting does sort of work and, apart from the photographic skew, allows an artist to get a feeling for how well their image is received. As does the number of downloads, ratio of looks to downloads and other information that can be gleaned.

I do feel that making people vote in order to get their images voted on is wrong. I am absolutely against forcing people to leave comments of justify their votes in any way. I dislike the automated system of picking pictures to see on the front page according to CI, but that is primarily because most of my images score about 50 and so do not get there. So do a lot of other peoples images that deserve better, including Les' image mentioned above. I also think that the AC is not working, although I am at a loss as to make a suggestion, other than with so few images being posted cannot the mods make the decision. Ok so perhaps not. I am not a mod and it is not fair to push more work onto them.

"I think this is what I find most sad about Caedes at the moment. A lot of good artists have left and to my mind the overall quality has gone down".

I find that to be true as well, Chris. I expect their reasons for leaving are many and quite varied. Some just get worn out. That is not to say that we don't have some excellent artists still with us or who have joined in the interim.

In some cases I know there has been dissatisfaction with the VB and for others the anonymity. I guess the site just can't be all things to all people.
Just not possible.

I think it is quite justifiable though to expect artists to vote on the work of others. It is in the balance of things and only fitting to return the favor. You want something, then give something in return. I can't see how that isn't a fair transaction.

"I think it is quite justifiable though to expect artists to vote on the work of others"

really? Is that part of some unwritten contract for the site? I would rather get one comment from someone who felt they wanted to comment than 20 from people who were coerced into doing so because of a rule. Some people like to be social. Others may be shy about commenting, unsure of themselves, or perhaps not have a lot of time to devote to commenting. Their postings and contribution should not be belittled just because they are not loquacious.

The same argument applies to voting. People forced to vote will not take it seriously and possibly just vote the same (perhaps even 0) on all images. People who have the time and inclination to spend in a considered judgement will vote more appropriately and we will probably get better CI as a result. Forcing people to comment and vote would only exacerbate the situation.

Does it matter that it takes several days to garner 10 votes to get a CI, or a week, or even two weeks. I have images on some sites that take months to get 5 votes. Does it really matter? Or are we all just chasing a score for the sake of knowing how good we are (or not) in the eyes of our peers?

Personally I make images favourites more than I comment on them. I do not feel it necessary to say how good an image is now that the poster receives a message that I have added their image to my favourites. People fave my images without a comment often, and increasingly so nowadays. That alone should be enough. For the same reason I do not expect a comment whenever my images are downloaded. I see the downloads go up and that alone makes me happy.

True that not everyone is a great comment writer and perhaps, should not and, in fact, is not required to comment. But, all are free to comment if they choose.

However, if everyone who wanted to have an image show up in the voting booth without themselves having to view others' images and render a vote, you would have the very same people doing all the voting and probably not receive a fair evaluation of how those images are being received or viewed by the greater membership, possibly ever. That would be unbalanced. That there are some slackers who would rush through voting all zeros is dealt with in the mechanism of accounting in the index calculation as Cat explained above. It seems to me that if you have time to upload an image and put it in the VB, then you have a few more minutes to vote on ten other images, or vote a couple images when you come back to check on things. (You might even come across something you are glad to see that you might otherwise have missed in the process of being in the VB). My understanding is that after seven days, you will not receive an index if you haven't voted on ten others and will have to resubmit your image for voting if you want an index.
That is how I read Caedes comment with regard to the recent change in the voting process.

Some people want more feedback than watching the download numbers, which only mean the image has been seen full screen as well as somtimes downloaded, or in having their images faved.
(Many are the times I meant to fave an image, but forgot to do so). And many folks like the interaction of just having other people stop by to view their images and make a comment. And many like to receive a c:index as well. I can appreciate that you and some others prefer only certain elements of the site, but all the options available are what make the site interesting and viable.

"My understanding is that after seven days, you will not receive an index if you haven't voted on ten others and will have to resubmit your image for voting if you want an index.
That is how I read Caedes comment with regard to the recent change in the voting process."

I'll ask *caedes to clarify this.

In the meantime - no, the site can't be all things to all people. This is why *caedes works hard to make it as much as possible to as many people as possible. More to say, but somehow my family thinks I should be making burgers right now. Silly family.

There is 2 easy ways for this..

1. don't put your image in the voting booth that way you won't be dissapointed with CI or the Zeros

2. Caedes takes away the viewing of stats of how many zeros etc that an image has..

maybe then all this can be put to bed once and for all

"I can appreciate that you and some others prefer only certain elements of the site, but all the options available are what make the site interesting and viable." - Cindy, I think this applies to everyone - after all this conversation started because you do not like the anonymity of people in the voting booth, so that's an element you don't like.

On that score, Jac has just proven the "site can't be all things to all people" axiom.

You used to be able to view your stats - then people complained about individual scores they saw, *caedes made the spread invisible. People campaigned that they wanted to see that information - he brought it back.

Here we are again. Round robin.

I like being able to see the scores. I think the anonymity is necessary for the reasons outlined above. As annoying as outliers may be, it's up to us to acknowledge them for what they are, and not let them get to us.

When they do get to us, I think that calm conversations like the one we have mostly managed to have are useful for seeing other viewpoints. Exploring disagreements, figuring out the compromises, and possibly coming up with ideas that keep the balance of what is beneficial for the site as a whole. Use the feature bloat forum to propose ideas too.

But they have to remain calm and not attacking, *even if* you feel you are being attacked. Because then the threads devolve into ugliness that I believe has no place on this site. I've sometimes failed at that myself, so I completely recognize that people are human and sometimes you lose your grip on your civility.

To address the opening post of this thread - disagreements are not shut down - disagreements that have become unproductive and are going nowhere are shut down. Let's try to keep that from happening.

Chris - your point about frustrating in being the 20th person and the only one to not be entirely complimentary, well noted. Part of my desire to have people be more accustomed to the idea of both receiving and giving constructive criticism by have a critique level requested on each post. I'm going to go put that on the suggestions poll because I think it's still a good idea. 8•P

Carry on (or not - as you choose).

A final note on the subject of the opening post - if anyone thinks that any moderator has been out of line or disrespectful, please address this with *caedes directly rather than replying heatedly on the thread. If there is an issue, he will deal with it.

I assure you that throughout I have done my best to maintain civility. I think the same should apply to certain mods as well and I expect that in the future that will be the case.

New request: Please don't announce if you do so. I don't think it serves any beneficial purpose, and could serve to create exactly the discord that we'd like to avoid. Much appreciated.

Cat: Here is the quote from Caedes:

"There is functionally no difference with the new way the voting booth works except that it gives you more freedom of when you decide to vote. Previously, you had to vote on 10 images to get the equivalent votes on your own images. Now, you will get _at_least_ ten votes on your images (and maybe) more in exchange for voting on 10 images. You can now vote before or after you upload (previously you had to vote before), and the credit that you get for voting lasts longer now (7 days versus 24 hours previously). Also, you can put images back into the voting booth at any time (this was impossible before)".

Okay, I'll ask Caedes to clarify. I believe it to mean that your vote "credit" is good to allow you to place an image into the voting booth any time in the next 7 days, not that it has anything to do with how long it will remain in the booth.

(*sneaks in*)

... ...


(*places Whoopee cushion on Cindy's chair..*)

... ...

(*sneaks out*)

:-p

Voting "credit" lasts 7 days and images are in the voting booth for 7 days too (you can put them back in after that period if you want, but it shouldn't be necessary).

To break that down

1) Voting "credit" now last 7 days instead of the previous limit of 24 hours.

2) Once in the booth, the image will remain there for 7 days and be voted on, regardless of how many other images you vote on.

3) After 7 days, if you wish to have more votes on the image, you can place it back in the booth, but it should not be necessary in order to generate a c-index.

Thanks for that clarification. Very much appreciated, Geri, Cat.