This is not really a request for comment - just something I found interesting and not sure where else to post it.
I managed to get a very wide variety of scores in the VB on one image - from zero to 9 which confirms that everyone sees things differently, but it does surprize me that one person considers it trash (zero) and another gave it a 9. I have never had this happen before.Have you?
CLICK to see summary.

Lyn, the situation you illustrate above is not unique to me but rather very common. Nearly every picture I post will have that range and I have grown to expect it.

I am well used to receiving zeroes ones and twos but that was the first time it has been so spread accross the board.

I dont understand how 5.2 average equates to 43 when more votes are above 5 but I am sure there is a logical explanation which is beyond my understanding.
:)

Lyn, THIS is a perfect example. The range here is from 0 (yes zero) to 10. This happens quite often. There's somebody out there who really doesn't like swans.

The person(s) voting zero on images such as that regardless of whether or not the zero vote is part of the final calculation and even taking into account they may perhaps have a phobia about swans needs to have their voting ability removed. It is a wasted vote, and they are a waste of space.
This is a perfect example of the mischievousness (euphemism for downright maliciousness) that is driving members away from participation in the voting system.
I have been criticised for questioning the intelligence of such voters in the past but I fail to see how anyone with eyes and a functioning brain could claim that zero to be an honest opinion and is obviously living on a different planet to the one I occupy.
OR they are a malicious individual with a problem, perhaps a warped sense of humour or a twisted idea of 'fun', and should be banned from voting.
:)

I have had such results on some of my photos too Lyn. But it tends to happen more on my dark and or creative images like yours. It seems a lot of folks have a very narrow view of what belongs here while others appreciate creativity.
In the case of the swan photo Steve, it's probably the result of a childhood trauma. :) It makes no sense to me.

Perhaps you remember simon wakefield Lyn? A person with a serious problem. Perhaps he is still around silently voting zeros just because that's the way he is. In such a case taking voting privilege away would just lead to yet another fake member name being created and nothing changing.
If Geri reprogrammed the display of votes to not show us the votes that don't count or better yet made it so that the votes showed at their calculated value in the chart then we would not have to be frustrated by these discrepancies. We use to complain about the the C-Index and ask why. Now we ask who.

Swans can be quite aggressive.Perhaps Steve could organise a bevy of them to deal with the problem. :)

I was not complaining in my first post - it was just something I had not struck before and actually thought it was unusual to see such wide variations. Now I know better :) I like having the summary visible regardless of what it shows, except the useless zeroes.
A voter could be banned by IP address rather than user name. I don't think it is possible to have two accounts under different names.
I think some voters perhaps just vote on their own personal taste and disregard any real quality of an image. Something that just must be lived with but I still think it is a shame votes are wasted like that.

A note on IP addresses:

Dynamic and Static IP Address Differences

*caedes rarely bans by IP addresses. Because.. most are dynamic. (In short, they change.)


As David; aka zunazet mentions above, trying to ban individual members becomes a tireless and somewhat futile effort. In that they can always re-register under a new username and proceed with whatever disruptive behaviour they were priorly engaged in. (Recall banning by IP address is typically not done.)

And engaging in trying to track down these individuals and continually and publicly 'discussing' matters ... feeds their need for attention.

So..


As explained many times over, votes that are truly aberrant are discounted, thrown out in the calculation of the C-Index.

David makes mention of a suggestion that is proactive and productive in my mind.. that of only showing those votes that are used in the calculation of the C-Index. (This, would be a step forward in my mind.)

So..


Put it up as a suggestion/option.



I do have one last thought, with respect to 'zero' votes. Won't be popular, however, might reframe the situation for.. some:


"Rate the following image on a scale of 0 - 10.

Whereby, a 10 indicates a very unique presentation and artistic take on the image ... that most would be hard pressed to replicate. Without, the technical experise and 'artful' knowledge required and necessary to produce such an image.


In other words.. could someone else with a camera (in the instance of photography) reproduce the image in question easily and readily (settings on manual, for example)?

If the answer is 'yes'.. then, a lower number should be assigned.

If most, if not all.. could reproduce the image in question ... then, perhaps a 0 should be assigned. As the image then could be considered easily and readily reproducable. And amounts to not much more than capturing a moment by depressing the shutter button."


/\ Food for thought, nothing else.

And for the record, I don't believe a 0 was justifiable in the instance of Steve's swan image.



That's about all that I have to contribute to this discussion thread.


Save this..

No public witch hunts, please.

If 'you' have a concern about a member, use the PM system and notify *caedes directly. He has the means to accurately (<--- very important here) access the database of the servers and if need be, will address the concern(s).

Thanks.

I did not understand about static/dynamic IP addresses - mine is static. I do understand now.

I fed my thoughts with the suggestion above regarding the justification for awarding 0, but found it rather indegestible and not to my taste.
The creation of desktop wallpapers is often a case of depressing the shutter button and capturing a moment, something anyone could do - it they were there at that moment in time. But they aren't, the photographer who captured the image was - and they had to get there and they had to judge the 'right' moment. I don't think we should be rating images by that criteria - we should be rating them for their suitability to decorate desktops. I have nothing against lower numbers to suit the quality of the image - but regard the zeroes slapped on many good images - the Swan mentioned above is one in question is nothing more than insulting.
Discussing the matter may well encourage the perpetrator on to further mischief but it also allows those affected (everyone with pics in the VB perhaps?) to express their disgust, realize they are not singled out and perhaps prevent one or two from abandoning the VB.

A requirement that low votes need justification by way of comment may help the situation.

Caught this suggestion floating around on some image's pages;

"Everyone who gives a vote lower than, for instance, a 4 or 5 has the obligation to motivate or justify this vote with a short explanation. If this will not be done by the voter, his or her vote should be cancelled."

Wellll, this does not make sense to me.

Why not.. scores assigned of 8 or higher providing an explanation as well?

Why not.. EVERY score assigned having to provide an explanation?

(An aside: What qualifies as an 'acceptable explanation'?)

That aside..


Removing/cancelling votes assigned below 4,5 ... with, **no accompanying explanation ... would just artificially inflate C-Indices, no?

(An aside: **Time is a factor, so again, what qualifies as an 'acceptable explanation'? And some have suggested that making the Voting Booth more time consuming of an activity would just push more people to opt out of it and that does not seem to be the objective, as I understand it.)

That aside..


Make..a..suggestion..for..improvement ... on the Suggestion Poll.

There is one suggestion/option already in place that would address these concerns.

This one;

"VB score based on several factors, with breakdown available to the artist"


Each and every time a discussion thread has been put into place to try and work through this 'problem' (come up with alternatives, fixes, changes).. interest wanes and finally dies out soon thereafter.

Is it going to happen again?

Past history would dictate the answer to be.. yes.

Prove me wrong, please.

Or..


Remove the ability to see the voting distributions. Problem.. solved.

"Remove the ability to see the voting distributions. Problem.. solved". I don't see how that solves anything.

Remove the VB. Problem solved. Does that make sense? I don't honestly know. Maybe it does.

Seems to me we have fewer and fewer posters all the time, so what difference if the images are categorized by an index for easily selecting the best. If the best is based on personal preference for subject matter and not truly on artistic input, it is already a skewed measure. Since there are fewer images introduced to the site, it should be easier to find what is a wall paper searchers preference by category alone. Do they really need us to grade them?

"Remove the ability to see the voting distributions. Problem.. solved". 'I don't see how that solves anything.'

The zero votes existed before the voting distributions were viewable.

And despite reassurances and many an explanation that these aberrant votes are discounted ... some still seem to find angst where this subject is concerned.

So.. yes, remove the ability to view the voting distributions ... and in time, out of sight ... out of mind. As it once was.


"Remove the VB. Problem solved. Does that make sense? I don't honestly know. Maybe it does."

Despite many a reassurance that the zero/aberrant votes are discounted/thrown out ... if 'you' (speaking generally here) find yourself that upset ... and given that this subject matter/topic has been brought up numerous times and there has been no changes introduced from the administration ... opting out of the Voting Booth is indeed an option available to 'you'.

As some already have done.

And some participate in the Voting Booth and are not upset by the aberrant votes that they see in their image's voting distributions.

Like.. me, for example.

And use the voting distributions simply as some additional feedback on an image. Not.. as a source of frustration or angst or something to get upset over.

And will continue to use the Voting Booth, undeterred by the ne'er-do-wells.


"Since there are fewer images introduced to the site, it should be easier to find what is a wall paper searchers preference by category alone."

From the site's front page ... "147297 total images".

Seem to be forgetting the cumulative numbers, it is simply not just the day to day stuff.

Even at fifty (50) postings/uploads a day.. that amounts to three hundred and fifty (350) per week, fourteen hundred (1400) per month.

Let alone the aforementioned and stated total.

Opt out of the voting booth.

Problem... solved?

If everyone 'opted out' of the VB the problem would be solved.

If you are going to continue categorizing images by c:indices, then images that don't go to the VB are relegated to the 'back pages' and visitors to the site offered the option to view by c:index, will not start on the last page to select a wallpaper.

Total images, whether 147 or 147,300, are not all contained in the main galleries. There are 53 main galleries. If the images are sought for by category, then there aren't as many images to look at in selecting a specific wallpaper. Ipso Facto, giving them an index and sorting them by this index is based on the subjective opinions of just over 10 to 50 or so individuals using the VB and receiving said image to vote on.

You elect to use the VB though you know that it is just an indicator of how well your image was received by 10, 20, 30 voters, some of whom don't even look at a full view version of said images for more that 2 seconds? Maybe we are just all gluttons for punishment. It seems to me that landscapes and sunsets/rises always do well and anything experimental or creative sinks to the bottom like the seasonings in a bottle of salad dressing.

'The more things change, the more they stay the same'. As the expression goes, so it is.

Looking back through vote summaries it is noticable that the zero votes were very rare in the past.
Presently there can be four images in the VB with reasonable and fair scores - go away for an hour or so and come back to find each one has beeen zeroed - plop plop plop plop goes the zero. So although they existed pre being able to view them they were far less used. It is possible of course that my work and many others has deteriorated over the years.


"Opt out of the voting booth.
Problem... solved?"

I do not think so - problem ignored.
It is not the fact that images are being voted zeroes - which I think everyone understands if they are aberrant they are ignored - more the fact that it is a wasted vote - sometimes images have just 10 or 11 votes when their time is up and they are removed from the VB. If one is a discounted zero the final score is calculated from just 9 - when others are sitting there with 50 in some cases.

It seems its a case of if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen :) Or turn a blind eye to the sneaky spoiler(s) that creep silently (oh so silently - never a word of explanation) into the VB kitchen under cover and turn up the heat, causing flare-ups and burned egos, for reasons known only to them.
No matter how unpleasant they make it they will not drive me away from the VB.

Ever noticed there is only ever just one zero on each image?




"Even at fifty (50) postings/uploads a day.. that amounts to three hundred and fifty (350) per week, fourteen hundred (1400) per month."

It would appear - as far as I can see, that approx just 24 of the estimated 2800 uploads in the past 2 months have been deemed good enough by whoever selects them to represent the site in the Main Galleries.

Since Cornelius and I had the little discussion about zero voters and narrowing down the possibilities of who might be doing that, I have not received any zero votes. Perhaps this individual(s) had second thoughts or a guilty conscience. I only hope so.

Well, it's at this point (in my mind) that the discussion is taking on a life of it's own.

And more importantly, away from the root of the matter.

This..

"And despite reassurances and many an explanation that these aberrant votes are discounted ... some still seem to find angst where this subject is concerned."


Now the topic of promotions, more speculation, conjecture ... and rationalization ... has entered the picture.

I shall leave yous do continue discussing this, if yous so wish. Not much else to add from my perspective that hasn't already been said/discussed here or elsewhere.


Don't forget.. the Suggestion Poll is still up, feel free to add an option for change.

What is the root of the matter?

Sorry, did not read properly - I see it now.

Why are all the new Main Gallery selections, Les' choices?
Didn't think you wanted me to start a new thread to ask that question.

Oooh, it's on now..

... ...

(*adjusts codpiece*)

... ...

"Bring it, I'm ready.."

!! ** THUNDERDOME ** !!

Meaning? Well, is it true or not? I only say that because I was told that one moderator is moving images to the Main Gallery. In the last 79 images put there, 1 of 5 you commented on or posted yourself. Whereas three other mods have commented once, once and six times.

Now's your chance to clear up any misconceptions on my part.

Lyn: My comment was in response to the suggestion that the voting booth be scrapped.

Cindy: I won't put up with you making any personal attacks or accusations against any of the mods (or anyone else for that matter). If you want to jump to these conclusions fine but frankly I don't think you have the right to demand to know who is doing what or decide whether or not the site is being run correctly. Any further moves in such a direction will result in this thread being removed. I won't respond to any defensive posts on the matter so please don't bother posting them. Enough is enough.

I made no attack, Sam. I merely asked a question and intimated that my impressions might be wrong and allowed that someone could clear it up. But rather than return with an honest answer, you chose to jump all over me with statements of 'personal attacks' and 'accusations' of which I made neither, thereby circumventing the question altogether. (Must mean my observations are true then?).

You are right, Sam, "Everyone is entitled to your opinion", but God forbid I have one too.

Nice way to respond to my inquiry and my explanation of why I thought that might be true.

Dump the thread. I don't care. That's what you always do when you don't have an answer or don't like the question.
I have said all I need to say. I see it is pointless to expect an honest, thought out answer from either of you. So I won't waste any more of my time on this thread.

I suppose by your strange definitions that post also contained no personal attacks.

I don't need to circumvent an answer to your enquiries, Cindy, because I am not required to give you any. Nor am I required to respond to any other question or thread on this site, nor am I required to spend any time moving images, approving images, moderating abusive posts etc etc.

I am not required to do any of these things as I am a volunteer. I spend my time attempting to contribute to the site in the best way I think I can contribute because I think the site is a worthwhile one and, to a certain degree, I enjoy it. Though when I have to put up with nonsense like this from people like you I have to wonder if it is really worthwhile. So you go ahead and carry on with your conspiracy theories as long as you like. I have better things to do with my time.

"I am not required to do any of these things as I am a volunteer".

I would like to ask how one goes about becoming a volunteer on this site.

With all due respect and acknowledging the time and effort voluntarily put in by those that keep the wheels of the site running, in effect we are all volunteers.

None of us 'have' to give our time, images, comments, subscriptions, votes, nominations, help and advice if able, encouragment and suggestions.
But all members do to a greater or lesser degree because we too think the site is a worthwhile one.

All voluntarily - no compulsion, except the compulsion of creativity and the reward of learning, whether it be through advice or example.

You know..

When I think of being a guest in someone else's house ... some rules of etiquette, common courtesies and acceptable behaviour ... come to the forefront of my mind.


For example, but not limited to..


If I don't like the meal being offered, I don't stand on my chair pointing fingers at the cook and loudly proclaim.. ad nauseum ... how bad the food was in ten different ways.


If I thought that I had a suggestion that could improve my hosts' situation in some way or regard ... I would make the suggestion, politely ... and then, let them decide if said suggestion had merit.

Not.. bring it up every single time I visited.

And not every single time whether or not the conservational topic was on topic for the suggestion or not. Pushing 'my agenda' as I saw fit or of some strange belief/opinion that I had entitlement to do so.


And I would certainly not say 'thanks for having me over, but..'


But.. hey ... that's me.

Since so many of the praetors have shown little or no interest in the site of lateI was wondering if a new small group could be added as praetors. I've looked at the last time some of the praetors viewed the site and for several it's a long long time (just check the list). I know that I would be happy to volunteer as would many others. I'm just wondering if at some time Caedes will return.

I usually pay a fee to use this website. If I frequent a restaurant, where I pay the bill and the food is less than desirable, I won't stand on the table, but I might say something to the manager.

I simply asked if Les was the one moving images to the Main gallery and received no response. Then I asked how to go about volunteering and still no response. No suggestions were made.

Lyn made a valid 'observation' about volunteering and Jen made a valid 'observation' about the number of Praetors. I think it is totally acceptable and legitimate for site members to express their thoughts or concerns without a backlashing or lecture from a praetor on how "they" would/should respond to "themselves" or their dinner host(ess)..

I think it's very clear where all the diversional rhetoric is coming from.

"The members of any given assembly are elected periodically by the members of all equal or higher-order assemblies (with the exception that the Praetor Maximus is not elected)."

So it doesn't sound like something you can volunteer for.
I counted 16 of the 33 "Senate" members who've been here this month, and I noticed the attendance gets lower as you go down the list.
What do the "Aediles" actually do, anyway? I'm waiting for them to come charging in with guns blazing or something to restore order ...

Second Law of Thermodynamics, Hannah, states that all order tends to disorder. lol

Technically, the second law of thermodynamics refers to the entropy of a system when brought into contact with another system, and does not relate to chaos. In fact a crystal at absolute zero has zero entropy but cannot be said to be in chaos. To make it chaotic you would have to expend energy and increase its entropy, perhaps with some hot air.

One further thought. If I am not happy with a meal in a restaurant I tend to leave and not come back. Just saying.

Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.*

*Allaboutscience.com
Just thought I'd throw that in, but I digress.

10 days ago I observed "I managed to get a very wide variety of scores in the VB on one image - from zero to 9 which confirms that everyone sees things differently"

Everyone does. Everyone is entitled to do so.


Community = "a group of interdependent organisms inhabiting the same region and interacting with each other"

When I visit someone and am offered a meal it is usual to engage in conversation, maybe even discuss recipes, especially if
I have voluntarily prepared and provided some of the food. I would not expect my conversation or my food to be labeled nauseating.
I would expect if I was part of a community, or a group of friends with a common interest, to be able to express an opinion or make an observation without it being suggested I was pushing an 'agenda'.

'Etiquette, common courtesies and acceptable behaviour' should work both ways.

I am too old to stand on chairs, or table, and I was taught as a child not to point my finger. My great grandmother used to tell me "Children should be seen and not heard".
I am not a child.
I know nothing of thermodynamics or zero entropy so will leave this conversation with the words I came in with "everyone sees things differently"

Just saying.


Entropy
Increased by Stirring,
Decreased by Observation
Conceptually, entropy is a measure of how much we don't know about the system.
Formally, entropy is defined in terms of probability.

When I visit someone and am offered a meal it is usual to engage in conversation, maybe even discuss recipes, especially if
I have voluntarily prepared and provided some of the food. I would not expect my conversation or my food to be labeled nauseating.

But wouldn't you rather have someone (especially if they were friends or family) to tell you that the food just doesn't taste right so you can improve that recipe instead of making it the same way?

Interesting thought. I would imagine that if the host has prepared the recipe on other occassions, then they probably enjoyed the food and just wanted to share it.

possibly.. but it could also be that the friends/family were being polite by just accepting it

oops

Getting back to the original subject.

"I managed to get a very wide variety of scores in the VB on one image - from zero to 9 which confirms that everyone sees things differently, but it does surprize me that one person considers it trash (zero) and another gave it a 9. I have never had this happen before.Have you?"

Yes, frequently.

Last 10 images.

Sleek 0 - 9
Concrete & trees 2 - 9
House of Silence 3 - 9
Waterfall 0 - 10
Lone Surfer 2 - 8
Waves & Sky 1 - 9
Close Encounters 0 - 9
Lone Seagull 2 - 10
Returning Home 1 - 10
Just Surfing 1 - 10

And the rest of my gallery is pretty much the same. Almost every image has a got votes below 3 and above 8. It means that some people like my images and some do not. That is all.

The difference between the average vote and the CI has been explained by Caedes and has to do with the voting habits of the people who vote. If you get a lot of votes form people who tend to vote high, then the CI will be lower than the average. If a lot of people who vote low vote on your image, then the CI will be higher than the average.

Simples.

There's an old argument supported by the management that if we got rid of the zero in the VB, then one would become the new zero. So what? At least a one has value, a zero doesn't.

"There's an old argument supported by the management that if we got rid of the zero in the VB, then one would become the new zero. So what? At least a one has value, a zero doesn't."

And therein lies the rub..

... perceptions.


Aside from the inaccuracy in the above quote.. of attributing the 'old argument' to management, that is.

Which seems to be a rather combative framing of the topic to me. Relegating it to an 'us versus them' situation.

"Make art, not war."

Oh give it a rest. It was not combative though you would like to make it seem so. It is a statement of fact. It is what has been said so many times before.

Why not address the actual issue and not just the syntax or the wording.

The numbers have to go from 0 to 10 otherwise there is no middle number. Scaling the values from 1 to 10 would mean that 5.5 is the mean value. Given the scores represent 0, meaning totally unimpressed, through to 10, meaning totally awesome, with 5 as the indifferent number, ranging from 1 to 10 would leave people with a problem as how to vote indifferent. Do I vote 5, meaning below indifferent, or 6 meaning above indifferent.

The present system is both logical and quite well thought out. Not to mention being easy to program from a mathematical point of view. Any change, simply because of a persons perception of value, or lack of it,would cause a lot of effort on the part of the sites owner, Caedes. Personally, I feel this is unnecessary.

"Any change, simply because of a persons perception of value, or lack of it,would cause a lot of effort on the part of the sites owner, Caedes. Personally, I feel this is unnecessary."

/\ Agree.

Then the VB as Nikoneer pointed out, because of algorithms and such represents not truly our vote, but a shift in our votes based solely on our previous votes. (voting pattern). And who established that the number values expressed specific intentions? 5 expresses indifference? Really, on that basis 5 AND 6 could represent indifference. More pointedly, not voting would express extreme indifference.

"And who established that the number values expressed specific intentions?"

Seems that some believe a "0" expresses specific intentions.. other than, 'sorry ... I don't like this image'.

Then have a 1) I don't like this image
2) I like this image
or 3) I love this image selection.

Zero could possibly mean I don't like you, I can't be bothered, I could care less, I am doing this only to get my image voted on, I want to bring your image down so mine will look better, it isn't a real vote so it won't be counted, they provided a zero so I'm using it, etc.

In my personal view, a zero is not a vote. It counts only if an image was not submitted at all. Since it has been remarked that zeros are thrown out with the bath water, why bother having them? Admittedly, it seems very few who consider themselves artists here rarely give out a zero.

"Since it has been remarked that zeros are thrown out with the bath water, why bother having them?"

Incorrect. Zeros are not always thrown out.

Depends, and has been explained before and many a time.


Might I suggest employing the 'search' function of the discussion boards?

If interested, 'you' (speaking generally here) can find that most, if not all topics, have been discussed priorly. With accompanying explanations proffered, et al.

Read 'em. So I guess from here on out, any photo I don't like for whatever reason should get a zero vote.

Maybe?

As Chris mentions above, depending on how one views/interprets the present scale in place;

"Given the scores represent 0, meaning totally unimpressed, through to 10, meaning totally awesome, with 5 as the indifferent number, ranging from 1 to 10 would leave people with a problem as how to vote indifferent. Do I vote 5, meaning below indifferent, or 6 meaning above indifferent."


You could take your vote a step further and assign a vote based on your indifference. So.. the entire range/scale becomes available to you once more.

Just to explain, when I used the word indifferent, I meant that it engendered no real feeling either way. If 0 is a 'yuk, never on my desktop', and 10 a 'If only I could take something as wonderful and beautiful as that', then 5 is 'nice but nothing special'. This is, after all a site about desktop wallpapers, not about photographs per se. Something that seems to be forgotten.

In my books, 0 just means that an image is really not someone 'cup of tea'. It might also be an atrocious picture quality wise, compositionally, or even just HDR processed (that is a joke by the way), but it certainly does not mean to me anything like the negative interpretation that some people put on it.

"He works hard for the creds
so hard for it honey
He works hard for the creds
so you better treat him right.."


/\ Just thought I would interject with a musical interlude here.

... ...

... ...

Yes, you can thank me for putting that song in your head. Your welcome?

:oP

"Read 'em. So I guess from here on out, any photo I don't like for whatever reason should get a zero vote"

Of course. Why not. I do.

You have a right to your own tastes and to express them as you see fit. As I said, this is not a photographic site and we are not photographic judges. We pass judgement on what we like or dislike by voting.

I have many reasons for voting 0 (or close to it). One is that I dislike people posting long series of similar images, yes I know I have just done exactly that, and my voting tends to go down as I see yet another similar image. I suspect others vote that way on my images as well, and quite rightly too.

Most images on this site get a vote in the 4-6 range from me, as they are just nice but nothing special. Faults move that score lower (overexposure, over post processed, crocked, badly composed, portrait format, garish borders, etc.) and imagination and interpretation raise the score.

I tend to have little emotional impact from images so I judge on unemotional merits, but I am quite happy for others to judge my images on whatever reasons that have, emotional, technical, artistic or anything thing else (pinkness for example).

All art is subjective. We should accept the subjectivity of others, or not show our art.

"Zero could possibly mean I don't like you, I can't be bothered, I could care less, I am doing this only to get my image voted on, I want to bring your image down so mine will look better, it isn't a real vote so it won't be counted, they provided a zero so I'm using it, etc."


And a ten could possibly mean I like you, I am doing this only to get like scores in return, it makes me feel good to do so, it takes just as much time as it does to click and give a zero, so.. doesn't really matter on the note of time spent to get through the amount of images that I have to vote on to receive a score in return and no one will ever question my vote here, and and.. .


So?

(*shrugs*)

Doubt it. (roll my eyeballs). Somehow I don't see that scenario as plausible. A ten or a zero, no one is going to know, right? I sincerely doubt those could be the ascribed intentions of one who votes a ten.

"We pass judgement on what we like or dislike by voting."

We all see things differently - if I were to vote 0 on each and every image I thought 'yuk, never on my desktop' there would be many, and I may add that includes many of my own images. This is, as stated, a desktop wallpaper site, and I endeavour to judge each image on its own merits and suitablility as desktop decoration and not purely according to my own personal likes/dislikes/preferences.
Different strokes for different folks. I think the root of the matter is that zeroes are being consistently given, and I for one would appreciate occassionally knowing the reason(s) the voter was 'totally unimpressed' - I may learn something, other than the fact that someone thought - 'yuk'.
The subjectivity of others should indeed be accepted, no argument with that.

And a ten could possibly mean I like you, I am doing this only to get like scores in return, it makes me feel good to do so, it takes just as much time as it does to click and give a zero, so.. doesn't really matter on the note of time spent to get through the amount of images that I have to vote on to receive a score in return and no one will ever question my vote here, and and.. .


So?
---------------------------------------------
So, if this is the way some voters work - they should be ashamed of themselves.

yuk

"I sincerely doubt those could be the ascribed intentions of one who votes a ten."

Why not?

Some actually comment as such publicly.


And conversely.. on the basis of your rationale/post above, how can you be so sure of the intentions of one who votes a ten?

Logic would dictate that if you subscribe to one, the others are distinct possibilities at the diametrically opposite end of that spectrum of reasons.

So, your implied incredulity is add odds with your own observations/conjectures/conclusions (which, 'we' all would agree are subjective) on the intentions behind someone assigning a zero vote.

" if I were to vote 0 on each and every image I thought 'yuk, never on my desktop' there would be many, and I may add that includes many of my own images."

Firstly, good, go for it, liberate yourself. Secondly, this rather begs the question of why you are posting such images to the site in the first place and lowering the overall quality, and secondly why you are surprised when you get a 0 from a like minded voter. Remember, quality is not just about focus, composition, exposure, it is also about subject matter. Do you really want to see a picture of someones back yard/pet/child on your desktop, or even a dockside, old iron bridge etc. There are many subjects posted here that have little artistic merit but are nevertheless well taken photographs. Mind you, taking a technically bad photograph nowadays with fully automatic cameras is as difficult as trying to take a stunningly good one that merits a 10.

Some artists get consistently high votes for what I would consider mediocre work and, judging from the comments, have received high votes merely because they got the focus right, as in comments like "You really nailed the focus on this one XXXXX". Although I suspect that a large body of 'friends' also helps. And please do not try the voting is anonymous argument, everyone knows that it is not. I see my friends images before I vote and can usually remember them in the time that has elapsed between the two actions. Some idiots, like me, even sign their images so everyone knows it is mine, even in the voting booth.

"So, if this is the way some voters work - they should be ashamed of themselves"

Voters here vote for many different reasons. Sunsets/sunrises consistently get higher votes because the subject is one that a lot of people like. Many people are not keen on B&W, and some really like that form of medium. This is reflected in the voting patterns which, on my images, tend to be spread evenly across the spectrum of 0-10, only rarely with a peak or a normal distribution curve. That is, they are voting subjectively. The key is in the first part of the word.

There are probably as many voting regimes as there are voters. Does this matter? I think not. It is what it is. I for one like the anarchistic element. Perhaps they have a voting scheme that says if it is really stunning then 10, else 0. I do not know, and care even less. My images get the votes that they deserve from the people that vote. Some members are kind enough to think that some images score too low, although I am mostly inclined to disagree. Some people give my images 9 & 10's, and I also disagree with that. If you want to see the quality of images that should get 10's try here.

Everyone is wrong, and everyone is right. It is called being human. Why can't we just live with the site for what it is, a quirky collection of individuals making something out of a mix, and not judge ourselves on assumptions.

More 'tens' (10s) found ... here.


To add a lil' more perspective on quantifying images worthy (in my humble opinion, of course) of the higher numbers, that's all.

Imagery and creativity to aspire to, in any regard.

@coram9

Thanks for that Chris, I had no idea I was lowering the overall quality of the site with my postings.

That will be the reason for so may zeroes - I can not believe I did not think of that sooner.


I post images I believe/hope others may enjoy. If I posted just those I myself would have on my desktop it would be a very boring bunch. I do not post images I believe are worth 0 - if others believe they are that is fine by me. Not sure why I said 'if' - they do - that is quite obvious but if 'they' do not have the consideration to tell me why then to me their opinion is completely worthless.

I have many high (and lower) scoring images which are in the Main Galleries (NOT chosen by the AC, but chosen by image mods pre AC) that I would NOT want on my desktop because they are not my cup of tea. I don't have to 'like' them to think they are worth uploading. I just have to think they are worth consideration and that someone may get some pleasure from them.

Silly old me - providing images for the benefit of others when all the time I could just have been posting my own personal preferences and boring everyone to death!

I am well aware of the quality of images that warrant a 10. Since 2006 I can not recall ever giving one and I can say with certainty I have never given a 0. I use both extremes as guides only. I do not believe there is such a thing as a perfect image - hence no 10's and neither do I believe any image is completely worthless unless it is a blank page.

Of course the voting is not annonymous - even in the 'old days' when 150+ images were posted daily it was not difficult to identify certain styles and artists. I do not believe that friends generally vote higher on friends lists because they are 'friends' - but surely one of the reasons a member is on a list is because their work is admired and liked - which would perhaps lead to higher opinions - especially from those like yourself Chris who vote purely on whether they 'like' the image or not. I do not vote that way - again, we are all different.

It has been stated elsewhere that 0's have always been given and no one was any the wiser because they could not be seen. Well now they can be seen and it is a fact they they were always given - it is also a fact that they were few and far between and now they are common. (can only speak for my own results and maybe my work has deteriorated to an extent that warrants them) Have the voters become more discerning ? Has the quality of uploads decreased?

My comment about certain types of voters should ashamed of themselves was in direct reponse the the bit I quoted, suggested by someone else as a possible vote pattern scenario. I stand by that - anyone that votes only in order to 'receive a score in return' is voting for the wrong reasons.

Finally I have no aversion to docksides or old iron bridges. Or raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, bright copper kettles and warm woollen mittens . . . .

"if I were to vote 0 on each and every image I thought 'yuk, never on my desktop' there would be many, and I may add that includes many of my own images"

" I do not post images I believe are worth 0"

So if I am getting this right, you believe that a 0, yuk, never on my desktop is some sort of gentle dislike, whereas I would put it down in the 'god awful image, so yuk'. That at least explains the misunderstanding. I did wonder where you had posted these 0 images as I had not seen them.

" it is also a fact that they [0 votes] were few and far between and now they are common"

I can't say I have noticed an increase in 0 votes since we have been able to see them. I usually get 1 and sometimes 2 zero votes on every image I post.

"Has the quality of uploads decreased?"

Probably not yours, but I would say so.

"Finally I have no aversion to docksides or old iron bridges. Or raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, bright copper kettles and warm woollen mittens . . . ."

I don't think I said you did, only that some people might. I suppose I should have said 'Does one' rather than 'Do you', meant in the general sense, only I find that expression rather pretentious.

'Yuk' is not generally part of my vocabulary but I do see images that I would not choose to have on my desktop - for varying reasons. Often I see the merit in them and understand that there will be others who would appreciate and enjoy them. There are certain subjects I have an aversion to and I guess the fact they triggered some emotion makes them successful on one level. These are the ones if I were voting on personal preference for my own enjoyment I would give a mental 0 to and in some cases would prefer a blank desktop. That does not make them rubbish.
One mans meat . . . etc

Even subjects that turn me off and I find unpalatable don't get any less than a one vote from me. But, I have been liberated by the above discussions of Chris and Les and shall vote those zeros on anything I find 'yucky' or which I find totally unimpressive as that seems to be the criteria outlined. However, if my voting pattern changes to more frequent zero votes, those will now be thrown out. Perhaps it would be best to stick to my ones. I need advice.

The scale is 0-10. Feel free to use as much or little of it as you like.
It is a subjective metric. It is entirely subject to you.


subjective
- dictionary results
sub·jec·tive
   [suhb-jek-tiv] –adjective

1.existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).

"It's what I think about it, not what it is."

2.placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

"It's all about me, not the picture."

Hey Lyn
How did a simple curiosity with no complaint end up another endless thread about the C-Index?
__________

I vote all 10's. It makes people feel good.
Some times I lie ;0)

OH MY GOSH! This thread has become fascinating.

"That will be the reason for so may zeroes - I can not believe I did not think of that sooner."


"But, I have been liberated by the above discussions of Chris and Les and shall vote those zeros on anything I find 'yucky' or which I find totally unimpressive as that seems to be the criteria outlined."


Sarcasm is ok, now?

If it suits the narrative of a few ... it is accepted and not commented upon?

(*shakes head*)

No, I really need to know if my zeros will get thrown out.

'Aberrant' votes are not zeros only.

Keep forgetting about those undeserved tens, those votes cast in haste (perhaps, can happen) or because of a lack of discernment on the voter (happens surely).

Those votes discounted or thrown out in the calculation of the C-Index.. vary from image to image.

Depends.

More 'tens' (10s) found ... here.

Figured I'd save everybody some wear and tear on their e-shoes. No need to e-travel as far.

This discussion concerning zeros and tens and calculations in the c-index, all underscore something Joseph Stalin once said, "The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” So be the c-index. It does not matter if your zero gets thrown out or not. Nor your ten, or five, or three, or seven. The tallyied votes by a variety of casters are just part of what will make up the final score. So be it too.

If most vote 5 or higher and you vote 0 the 0 will have little weight. That means it wont change the score much. If most vote drastically different from you on a regular basis all of your votes will have little weight. If all your votes are the same every time regardless of the image ( all 0 or 10 every time ) your votes will be "thrown out".

If you would vote 1 out of kindness and choose to begin voting 0 on images that deserve it the vote will count with the same weight as before.

The votes of people who vote in ignorance or with malice carry little or no weight. That is one reason the C-index is not the average of the votes cast.

Cindy: Because you vote with integrity and sincerity and because you vote with reason and consistency your votes carry the weight they should and effect the C-Index accordingly. :)

/\ Now why didn't I say that.


Has to be worth at least a few creds, methinks.

:oP

Heyyyyy!!

Think 'we' have our very own version of "Godwin's Law"!!


That being;

'As a Caedesian online discussion grows longer, the probability of the topic of the C-Index being broached.. approaches 1 (100%).'


The opportunity for infamy on the interwebz is nigh!

:oD

"That will be the reason for so may zeroes - I can not believe I did not think of that sooner."

Sarcasm is ok, now?
_______________________________

Les that was not an attempt at sarcasm it was tongue in cheek humour - after all I am British, perhaps the nuances of it are beyond your scope of understanding. It was not directed at you anyway and the person it was directed at has not complained.

(shakes head)

Perhaps you may care to answer my original enquiry ?
I have never had this happen before.Have you?

Others it appears have had it happen to them - hey, perhaps this means I am 'normal' ?

No response to that is required, your 'normal' may not be my 'normal'

"I managed to get a very wide variety of scores in the VB on one image - from zero to 9 which confirms that everyone sees things differently, but it does surprize me that one person considers it trash (zero) and another gave it a 9. I have never had this happen before.Have you?"


Care to post a link to the voting distribution for this image, Lyn?

Think it would be of benefit to put some perspective on things, and to understand the 'nuances' of your understanding of 'variation'.


Since.. you know, 'we' responded to this thread without really knowing at the outset of this discussion.

Certainly.
Purr Machines

Variations - yes. but not so wide.

It was a simple observation which I found interesting. I wondered if others had variations as wide.It was not a request for comment, neither was it a complaint, and it did surprize me that someone considered it a waste of space and another considered it what in my personal voting habits is a top score.

Not really sure what it is that was not understood at the outset - my understanding of the of the meaning of 'variation'?

Ok, thanks Lyn.

To me, on the second image.. the range (variation?) is near identical to that of the first noted image you linked to.

0 - 9 versus 2 - 10.

I don't differentiate that much, personally, between a vote of 0 and that of a 2. The matter of statistical differentiation is negligible in my mind. (And I don't consider.. 'malicious intent'.)

Both say, to me (either the 0 or 2).. that the voter does not like the image, thinks there is substantial room for improvement ... doesn't know what they are talking about ... whatever and whichever.


Distribution is different, though. (With respect to the variations in the clustering of some votes and actual distributions.)


Have I experienced this range/variation?

Yes.


The voting thing really comes down to apples and oranges for me.

Without controlling the whoms (in other words, keeping the group constant as opposed to varying those that are casting votes ... although, it could be argued that given the number of people voting and those that vote frequently, that pool/group might provide some measurable consistency).. the voting distribution/the final assigned C-Index is, as I've said before ... but a simple guide and some additional feedback.

Nothing.. else.

No more, no less.

The distribution of Purr Machines seems to be entirely normal. That is, it is a normal distribution curve (See Wiki for the shape of these curves), in as far as an 11 column bar graph can represent a smooth curve.

The voting distribution for the images linked to below can he found here.

The sharpness of the peak in these curves represents the certainty of an outcome. Should all members see an image as having a certain perceived value, say 5, then there will be a sharp peak around that value with few votes more than 2 points away. (spread 3-7). If the members see things differently then the curve will be more spread out, in which case votes of 9 or 1 would be very possible. 0 too, would not be impossible.

Take Fishing. This has a tight grouping of votes (5-9). This means that of the voters most saw it as a fairly good image (by whatever criteria they use). Personally I dislike this image and it would have got a 2, 1 or possibly even a zero depending on how I felt at the time, but it has served for an experiment. Lets call this a certainty of 2 and it shows the taste of a group of voters, the more prolific ones as it has not been voted on for very long.

Now a very similar image Lonely Vigil has a much broader spread of votes, centred on 6, ranging from 1 to 9. So a certainty of 4. In this case there was much less of a consensus of how to vote.

If the uncertainty of consensus is 4, and centred on a mid value of 5, then a 0 vote is actually quite likely. This is just normal population distribute statistics. It has nothing to do with maliciousness, laziness etc. In fact 0 votes, which I get a lot of, are more to do with how people react to my images than anything else.

Take Sleek. This has two normal distribution curves overlaid one on the other. On is centred on 3, and includes 2 zero's. These are the I don't like B&W and I really do not understand this image at all. The other is centred on 6 and is slightly higher, and is the I like B&W but this image does not do much for me voters.

These votes, and others on my images, say nothing to me other than the voters at Caedes are normal humans with a range of tastes and judgements. I see no real malicious voting, and no real lazy voting either. At least not recently. I do not feel that any vote is a judgement on the quality of the technique, although some might be. All we have is a bunch of normal humans with normal taste ranges. They may not be our tastes, but they are still valid. A 0 vote does not have to be malicious, or mean that an image is sub standard. Some people loathe pretty kitten images on their desktop and express this preference. Perhaps this is hard to understand from the viewpoint of someone who thinks this awww, cute.

Personally, Purr Machines, if I saw it in the VB (I may have done), would get a very low vote from me. I dislike over vignetting and I really do not do cute. I would see this as a tarted up pet snapshot with little merit and epitomising all that I dislike. I do not care how well the image was taken, as I am not judging it on that basis. I dislike the image, a lot. My right is to vote as I see fit. (Apologies to all cat lovers and lovers of such images, but surely you realise from my own images that I might see things differently.)

Further apologies to Lyn for expressing such a viewpoint in public - I would normally keep such feelings to my self, or at least only share privately. However, you now know the reason for at least one of the low votes it got, possibly. This does not apply to all her work, as she knows.

[Foot note. The relative sample of these statistics is small, so the fit may appear loose, but is statistically entirely valid. Perhaps there is someone around that has the time to do an analysis.]

No apologies are needed - except perhaps to my cats (not kittens!) who would object most strongly to being labelled 'cute'. They are elegant self sufficient home owners who condescendingly allow a couple of humans to share their space :) :) The only thing I object (mildly and with a smile) to is 'tarted up'. They need no tarting up - they are perfect :)
I agree the distribution looks normal, although having a numerically challenged brain the Wiki article is enough to give me nightmares, and after a brief look I need a cup of tea to recover.
Votes on that particular image were pretty much as I would have expected and the total score higher than I expected.

17 days after my original observation which was not intended to be confrontational it seems there is agreement with 'everyone sees things differently' and what I thought perhaps was an unusual range of opinion is in fact not unusual at all. Six others have said they experience the same variations.
I promise not to post when/if I get a vote summary filling every number :)
I can not promise not to get slightly agitated if I see a bunch of several 0's appear on consecutive images in an extremely short space of time as has happened in the past (but not recently).

*wades exhaustedly out of the discussion wondering do I have the energy to go and vote or should I just join the purr machines in front of the fire and listen to their contented sound and try to convince myself there is a remote possibility I am 'normal'*

Okay, my simple two cents worth:

Voting Booth:
Submitting my images to the voting booth, for me, is a selfish effort to subject unwary voters to my images in hopes to get any kind of feedback I can learn from. I do this because I know that any non-member has to vote 10 times before they can submit an image (in all fairness, when I vote I usually try to vote on between 16-20 images). I really don’t care if they vote 0 or 10 as I pay no attention to the c-index. I learned that from the many flames I’ve made, everyone has different taste and fractals tend to be low compared with nice sunsets. If my goal was to say, test a product advertisement image, certainly the c-index would be of value (throwing out the zeros AND tens of course).

To zeros:
As has been mentioned, gotta have em to have a middle number. No effort deserves a zero in my humble opinion. One shouldn’t take it so personal when getting a zero though. Take a look at any chat room or message board and you will find “flamers” whose sole purpose is to get a rise out of someone. It’s just a fact of the anonymity of the digital world – like being mad at someone in morning traffic because of the anonymity of being behind a windshield when you would not do that in line at a grocery store.

Voting Booth Values:
My approach is a bit different but makes sense to me. Zero = blank page. Ten = absolutely professional level work. Two-five = average snapshot or beginner abstracts. Seven = good snapshot/image with artistic effort. Eight/Nine = excellent image with a flaw (in my eyes anyway).

Could you please let me know why my photo,s like museum 2 is not being posted as I have promission to post the said photo and does not breach and code of conduct they are holiday photos .Plus for some unknown reason other photo that were some of my best of sea gulls have been removed too.I have sent the email from Flsmbsrds graphic manage that say I can use these pictures and he is pleased that I am.Roger Pester ask Gizmo1

Your image has been restored to active after the moderaters researched the Copyright rules of the museum.

If you have permission to photograph in a museum, please note that in your comment.

Thanks for your patience.