Something strange is going on around here. I've noticed my index scores dropping WAY down on images with nothing but positive comments. What is going on. It seems that there are a number of people going around targeting certain artists with very low scores but without making comments. Some of my best work is dropping rapidly like from over 80:100 to under 40:100 with NO negative comments. That means some VERY low scores. That just is not right. It seems nasty and vengeful. I don't mind honest critique, I do mind sabotage.

How would they be able to target certain artists? In the voting booth the images appear randomly (and, supposedly, anonymously). Given that only the votes in the booth count towards the c-index, you may wish to re-evaluate your hypothesis.

Are you talking about old images? It may be that the old, high, c-index (now obsolete) has been deleted and replaced with the new c-index, based on the latest votes. I have images that used to rank in the 90's and are now in the 40's.

Thanx for the input. Perhaps this is what happens. You mean that all the voting I do at the image no longer counts? I sometimes vote for thee dozen images in a day! I hate that. Wasted effort.

I notice the same trend in my gallery as well. It takes a real effort for me to get an image above 60 now when I used to be saddened by anything below 70. Keep in mind I am bashing my own gallery when I say this, but isn't that the goal of the new voting system? Votes are no longer based on artist prestige and detailed comments on how it was, but the image alone. I used to be embarassed by voting beneath a 6, but now I give out several that are quite low indeed. I only wonder if I am voting on the right things when I do it...

Moved to "Non-Art Website Issues" board.

Yes, it's my understanding that votes on the image page don't currently count, only votes made in the booth.

The 'new' votes tend to be lower (but to be fair, generally more accurate). The whole bell-curve for the votes has altered. I don't know exactly what the new average is.

One side-effect of the new voting system is that old images which in their day may have been judged to be good and have got high votes could well be viewed now (years later) as little better than average. Methodologically, this is unfortunate, but I think on balance the new system is better.

My problem is that I've already voted three times for the image that keeps coming up in the voting booth!!!!

Hi, Matthew. In response to your comments, a standard bell curve is more fitting in a context with a group of beginning artists, not in a context of advanced hobbyists. That's the problem with suggesting that the average here should sit right on 5 or 50/100, when the majority of artists here are putting out work that would be characterized as above average. The curve in this instance would obviously be skewed to the right with a more fitting "average" around 7, yet the attempt is apparently being made to have votes weighted in such a way as to have them span across the distribution, with a mean of 50. Sorry, but, IMHO, that kind of curve doesn't fit this population, and it's understandably creating frustration for those who are getting "average" (read 5) or below average scores for better than average images. The question that I have is, "average" compared to *what*? "Average" compared to the general population or "average" compared to other Caedes artists? In short, "average" is a relative term and it's not really clear just *what* it's relative to here. To put it differently, I understand why people like &DigitalFX think there might be nasty, vengeful sabotage going on. After looking at the scores on a number of good art pieces here, I think he may be right.

Yes, but how would that sabotage take place, given the recent changes to the voting system to restrict exactly such behaviour?

Whilst I take your point about the bell curve, I still think that the vast majority of images on the old voting system were greatly over-rated (purely my subjective opinion). In time we will see whether things have swung too far the other way, but I reserve my judgement on that.

So if voluntary votes don't count.. then a whole lot of votes i have done have been for nothing?! Does this mean once you get 10 votes on an image the c-index wont change?

As far as I know, an image can receive any number of votes through the voting booth, with an ideal minimum being ten. However, because the system is still relatively new, many older images haven't yet received votes. The voting booth will pick up images with the least votes, but it will be biased towards new submissions (I think). However, after the backlog of images in the permanent galleries have received a spread of votes, then there is no reason an image should not continue to receive votes past 10 (as long as new submissions have been cleared).

That's my understanding, but I may be wrong.

I believe the current troll method of sabotage extends to opening and closing the images in the voting booth before they load which still affords them the opportunity to register indiscriminate low votes and then to upload whatever lame excuse for a piece of work it is they're after. It's incredibly childish and I guess is intended as some sort of protest against the new system.

Waves back to Phil. lol That's a cute fella.

Is there a new bar graph available so folks can understand where the new averages are?

That's Morph, BJ, who's sadly deceased now - that's one sick icon, Phil ;-)

The bar graph is here.

If people are childishly voting in the booth, then this is very sad. However, being limited to 40 votes per 12 hours I wonder statistically how much impact they would have. I still don't see though how someone could target a specific artist, as has been suggested. Also, I would like to think that someone voting consistently low is going to stand out.

Thank you Matthew. The link I had saved no longer works.

It is obvious that a number of people are making it a routine practice to dish out very low votes in the voting booth. Their intention is anyone's guess, but 40 votes per 12 hours is actually quite a lot if someone is handing out zeros left and right. Again, that distribution simply doesn't fit this population, IMHO. You should see significantly more scores to the right of 50 than the left. While it may be true that the previous system dished out too many 10s, this system is dishing out far too many 0, 1 and 2's, IMO. Such scores should be reserved for truely *bad* images and, on this website, such images are few and far between.

The question of whether 40 votes per 12 hours is statistically significant is impossible to answer without knowing the total number of votes cast over a given period.

I think it's difficult to know about the averages until we have a large enough sample of new votes. Already the current average on the graph is in the area of 50-60, with 60 being the highest. That certainly seems to tie in with most images I see. I would say that graph reflects my voting habits fairly well.

If people are consistently dishing out 0, 1 & 2's then it is statistically aberrant, and will surely set the alarm bells ringing on the new voting system. They run the risk of being barred from the site.

I'm just frustrated because I've been voting my ass of at the image page...and I keep doing it out of habit. We need to get rid of the vote option there then so I don't keep wasting my time. I figure here in Colorado it takes about 50 seconds to register a vote on average. I bet I waste 15-20 minutes voting where it do not count...and I still get that same damn image to vote on...and I truly have voted on it three times now. It's a boat on a beach that needs some contrast adjustment.

Peter, I continue to vote on the image page because we have yet to be told those votes will never count. Last I heard, they were going to figure them into the equation somehow so I'm assuming that is why the option is still there and until it's gone, I will continue to vote that way right along with my comment unless I have an upload.

I'd like to see the distribution of scores on Photographic images only and the distribution of scores on non-Photographic images only. I think you would see that photographic images are fairing significantly better than digital/computer generated images.

It would be interesting to see any breakdowns by category.

With regard to voting on the image page, it is true (as far as I know) that the votes are still being stored, but are currently not used in the c-index. Whether they will ever be used, I don't know.

why would you see that photographs are fairing better (very doubtful) than cg images. you seam very sure of this.

I don't know. I think photos have always faired well on this site.

I'm much more interested in computer generated images than photographs, and have noted that photographs in general seem to be scoring higher than digital images, which, as a group, seem to be scoring quite low. I don't know what the distribution curves look like, but, based on my personal observations, photographs seem to be scoring higher overall. I don't know why this should be, except that there may be more people who frequent this site that favor photography over computer generated art.

I think there are about ten times more photographs uploaded here than CGI, so statistically it makes sense that there will be more high rated photographs than CGI.

I think my images should have atleast a 80 or 90 not because they are good, but just because by golly I deserve it. LoL

I would beg to differ. The fact that there are more photographs here overall should not impact the *proportion" of photographs that get high scores relative to the *proportion* of computer generated images that get high scores. I'm refering to the *proportion* of high and low votes, not the absolute number.

im sure you would.

In other words, pretend that everything's working just fine and you'll get along just fine here but, dare to suggest that it's not?....See Phil's message above.

I just know that I have come to the point where I don't even look at the c-index anymore because frankly it's just plain depressing! I've even had some of the people that comment on how nice some of my images are remark how rediculously low the c-index is. I admit I am no Rembrandt, but I have made some progress since coming to caedes and I am quite happy with some of my images. So I keep striving to learn more and more about these programs and produce better and better images even though I get very discouraged sometimes. I vote in the voting booth as often as I can and try to be very objective with each piece of art whether it is a photograph or a fractal. I think if people are going to vote in the voting booth (whether they like it or not) they owe it to their fellow artists to evaluate each image and give it the score it deserves. That doesn't seem to be the case however. I have to admit that it is frustrating to say the least.

"The fact that there are more photographs here overall should not impact the *proportion" of photographs that get high scores relative to the *proportion* of computer generated images that get high scores."

Well of course it would. The fact that there are ten times as many photographs would generally mean that the number of good photographs in proportion to good CGI would be 10 times as many. You can claim that's "pretending everything's working just fine" if you like but to me it's just common sense.

Hi Digital, and all. I'm one of the crazy few who doesn't upload, but who just sorta voluntarily hits the voting booth from time to time. I'll be honest and go out on a limb. Let's say I see a bluish square with a few fractally bubbles in it that look kind of interesting if you were someone liking fractally things. I have no idea how to vote on this, and given me druthers I'd not have even picked it to view. So... what should I vote? I don't want to say it's bad (even though I don't like it) so I can't put a 0. Likewise, I don't want to artificially vote 10 either. So, I just toss a 5 or so 'cause I actually don't know what I should do..?

Sounds like a recipe for undeserved low votes on what might be higher otherwise (and no comments to me.. should I just vote 10 on things I don't know how to vote for?

Or maybe some checkboxes could be added in the Voting Booth to turn on/off image categories. This might be an easier solution than storing user preferences for that sort of thing.

PS. Btw, that Browser refresh trick doesn't work for me, in case anyone was thinking to recommend it :-)

PPS. No offense against those of you who are skilled in fractals. And some of you may even feel the same in reverse toward photog shots!

This discussion about voting on images that are outside of our normal field of experience has been had before on other threads.

Whilst I sympathise with people, I still think you can apply basic aesthetic criteria to any piece of work. Whether it's a CGI or a photograph, there should still be things you can look at - palette, composition, clarity, etc that can help give a feel for an image.

It is easier to appreciate a piece, it is true, if you understand the methods that were used to produce it. However, it shouldn't prove too hard to evaluate other styles. I can't see Caedes changing his mind on this anyway.

Yeah, I agree. Although Digital asked a sincere question why this is happening, and I'm offering a plausible reason, since I see how I myself might be unwillingly contributing to someone elses unexpected low votes. After considering your response, though, I've decided that the voting booth just isn't for me. Hey, I hope I didn't offend you re the fractals, now that I see your icon! My apologies if so. Was trying to provide a realistic example for explanation to him.

No, I can assure you I am not offended. I think there may well be some truth in what you say. As for fractals: there are a lot of average ones. Of course the whole 'low vote' debate comes down to one thing: expectations.

Quiet,
My usual modus is to look at the new images and the ones on top of the opening page. If I see something I like, I vote and comment on it. But in a way I want to see what the person said about it in their comments. I've been doing my voting quota in the booth, but It's not the same as picking my own and voting after reading what the image is all about and thinking about it. Granted the booth is fast, but I don't get to vote on images I particularly like. So I do find this new system somewhat distressing.

Ditto that. I do my best in the voting booth to respect the fact that someone put some time and effort into each image and I owe them a conscientious vote. Nonetheless, I'm finding myself becoming "desensitized" there. A good percentage of the images that come up, I would not have chosen to vote on. So, when an image finally does show up that I would have selected to vote on, I don't feel the level of enthusiasm for it that I would have if I hadn't just voted on a pile of images that I, personally, cared little for. It becomes a "chore" rather than something I do because I enjoy it and I feel like I'm not giving the images I like the kind of attention I would like to as a result. Wen

I've discovered another problem with the voting booth. When I see an image that needs some obvious work; perhaps the artist doesn't know what can be done in Photoshop etc. I usually make a comment on how they can punch up their image with various techniques. I can't do that in the booth. I think the booth would be better if we got the poster's comments and the ability to make comments as well.
ALSO, I find that becuause I have to vote on a ton of images that I would not ordinaryly vote on, that my average rating has dropped closer the the five. I tend normally only to vote on images I either really like or really dislike but not in between. Perhaps that's a good thing. We need some sort of hybrid. I'm okay with ten shots in the voting booth before uploading. AND another thing, if you read about "voting" on each image page it says that BOTH systems are in use. I wonder if this is true? If so, then my hundreds of recent votes at the image page may akshully be counted...that would be grand.

My understanding is that "selective" votes are being "counted" - - as in tabulated - - but they are not being "counted" - - as in considered or included in the formula - - in calculating the c-index. If memory serves, Caedes said that he wasn't sure what he was going to do with the selective votes over time. In short, they are being tabulated, but my understanding is that they are not being used in any "official" sense right now. Wen

As you say, Peter, the whole point is that we vote on images that we wouldn't normally choose. This means that the average votes drop, because normally we tend to choose and vote on images we like. This should give a more 'realistic' score.

On the old system, the scores were inflated through partisan voting and also unrepresentative due to too few votes in some cases. The new system should also make it difficult to deliberately target an artist and vote low or high on their images.

With regard to commenting on images, you can still do this from the booth (and I do) by clicking on the image thumbnail at the bottom of the page. All the images you have recently voted on in the booth appear in thumbnail form at the bottom, in order that you can then visit that image page if you want to.

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing in the voting booth is a confirmation of what gallery the image is in.

I beleive Wen is correct about the selective voting thing. I doubt it will ever come back as being counted in the c-index as it is too easy to manipulate and this is the reason it was replaced in the first place. However maybe caedes will find a way to counteract this at some stage.

CH I suggested that the gallery be displayed and caedes was going to implement it, but I guess he forgot. I'll remind him.

I have not read that before on here Sam. Perhaps I missed. If that is in fact the case, then apparently those like me who have been voting "out here" under the assumption that those votes would eventually factor in somehow have certainly wasted that time and consideration. Staying in order and viewing new images sorted by date has always helped me to feel like I've given the majority of images the fairest amount of my attention and though I do miss with so many uploads, I am far more likely not to if I continue to go through the images this way. I don't know how much more time I can put in than I already do and many more images will be missed if I stay strictly in the booth. ;( I'll do whatever counts though I would prefer the selective vote option being removed all together if you are in fact correct Sam. I'm not sure I quite understand the manipulate theory there either since it's just as easy to vote 0 or 10 in the booth as it is to do that on the image page. Oh well....to the booth I go I guess and my apologies to all for my statement above. That is the last I had heard it from Caedes.

Thanx Captain...I didn't know about clicking on the thums to make comments. Like your new logo Sam. I used to breed Cockatoos. That looks like a gray to me.
-P-

I have come to the conclusion there is no point in voting at all.. The scores do not represent the quality of the images.. Looking through the galleries I find images I consider to be quite poor, with high scores, and very good images with extremely low scores.. I don't remember partisan voting at all.. I never did any.. I voted on the images I viewed and gave them the vote they deserved.. I am really tired of this constant bickering over it..

It's a Rainbow Lorikeet Peter!

Yeah Sam. I love all kinds of parrots. I've had as many as 14 around the house, but when they get to screaching...well let's just say that I now have a bad case of tennitus...constant ringing in my ears from the din. So now I only have a quiet cat and a quiet dog and 35 very quite Koi. <grin>.

Strange how this went from a serious subject to such a whimsical one...I love 'birdtalk" but was there anything at all resolved in this thread yet? Did I miss it somehow? I read all the things that were said even!

I don't know about 'resolution'. I think it was an exchange of views and information that naturally petered out (pun intended).

I have to laugh at the current voting system. At first I thought it would be an improvement, but now I'm not so sure. When we had the distribution available I noticed my images were getting a consistent full range of votes, 0-10... on the same image (not just in the extreme ends but all the numbers). The standard deviation for this means all the votes are useless, as is any information derived from these numbers, i.e. c-index. This would make using the c-index to help determine worthy images for the permanent galleries useless as well.

The other problem I'm seeing is that few, if any people take the time to explain a low vote. It's just easier to move on to the next vote, thus people don't get the feed back they need to improve their art. Granted, the request for comment helps to combat that, but still....

I still hope the selective vote is used again someday. No bad feelings here, just thought things were getting kind of funny around here. ;D

I agree. I do take the time to make comments on about half the images I vote on now. Used to ALWAYS make a comment as long as I was there. It's time consuming to go to the image in the gallery and make comments, but I do feel an obligation on anything less than a seven. That's usully because there's some technical deficiency that could be easily fixed and I often will suggest how one might fix it. But again...it was easier the old way...but then again, I'm one of the ones complaining about vote manipulation. So I applaud Caedes for his efforts to find a way to make us all happy.

I think it's great that Caedes is trying to devise a rating system that is accurate as well, but continue to see holes in the new system which I hope are addressed over time for the sake of the artists who post here. For one thing, like many others, I simply don't have time to vote in the voting booth, where I know my votes are counted, and then visit images again in order to register a selective vote. If it were up to me (of course it's not), random and selective votes would be counted together so that, if you voted selectively or randomly on an image, you wouldn't be able to vote on that image again. I think it means something about the quality of images when a number of people are drawn to certain images without outside prodding. Yes, people might tend to gravitate toward images of friends, but they may also find those images in the voting booth and, often, they will know who created the image. Unless"selective" voting is done away with altogether (something I think would be a mistake), people can look at new images *before* they go to the voting booth. So I think it's a myth to think that people can no longer reward their friends or punish their enemies in the voting booth. Again, I'd encourage Caedes to find a way to combine selective and random voting.

I have the same problem, vooting booth is not working as it should be.
My most "Cute" pictures has skyhigh C-Index, my personal best Picture but a bit abstract (very good comments on it) has the lowest C-Index.
weird system, also the first 9 votes you have in a couple of hours/days but then its staying there, its like you don't get any more votes after 9 votes???

Dimitry: I think you're speaking about your 'Leafs'. Very nice photo!
Don't worry about the c-index. There are two others good signs about this image: 1) the comments are really good and 2) it was moved in the perms.
The c-index is just an instant value. Many of my preffered images in my own gallery have low c-index, maybe I give them a sentimental value that the others cannot perceive...

I also think that the Red panda photo has alot more value than just being "cute". Personally I think it is the standout photo in your gallery, followed by the leaf photo which is also excellent.

Oh, and regarding the number of votes: at this stage, because the system is new, caedes is trying to get the site to a point where all the images have a c-index. In order to acheive this once image reach 9 or ten votes they don't appear in the booth so that the other images can have "turn" and get a c-index. Once all the images on the site have a c-index this will not be necessary and all the images can receive more votes.

Now that the booth is running full steam, does the original method of voting still work? Does it mean anything?

No ..

(you should stay in more and read the forums)

some people dont like computer generated images...at i would think most of the ppl on this site are photography type people. So the people who at first click on the images find them interesting, vote high, nothing wrong, and the people voting because they want to upload pics (most likely ppl who like photographs) vote low and never come by to comment...am i right!? =D

Captain Hero.I read several times you do not see how one can be targeted..I can tell you some artists have told me they can easily recognize anoth'er s work I can too now....after awhile, if one is here often, the style of an artisit become is evident.......so, sabotage is possible..I would hope people are NOT doing this, but given human nature, and the tenddency to clique, I believe it is happening.....

That is true, but the voting system records the usernames who voted and their vote, so cheaters would be easily caught.

Does the "voting points" really matters that much? I go on what the people who view my work, tells me. Because I think that if people really care about or like my work, they will leave a comment. When I see something I like when I browse through the images, I usually leave a comment. And sometimes some of those images have low scores, but I like it, so I will tell that person. I do hope other people feel the same, cos I would surely like people to leave me comments if every they find any of my work to be kind to the eye.

Mmynx: I am glad o read what you wote; I concur...it is helpful to receive valid comments-except those that are just looking for some minute detail to criticize....and, i thnk most people are vain enough to like the vote numbers too-I am! LOL.it is human nature to like to know how we are dong compared to another person, i beleive

But if the image is going to be on the desktop, you're going to have to look at it all the time, if you're as computer-obsessed as me. =) That's why the people do care about details, because this is a wallpaper site. I don't see any harm in pointing out one negative thing about the image, because I like getting constructive criticism on my works.

Hernor.there are always people who are going to find fault-no matter how good a photo is..their goal is to make sure the photographer is reminded he/she is not perfect AND some do get jealous....I am not speaking of all negative comments; one can tell when a comment is just to criticize becaue it is some pointless comment such as the border is too small, the sky could be just a "little" bluer....art is SUBJECTIVE..no one person's opinions are terribly valid--inclusive of mine.i always like constructive comments.keep the silly ones, the non-instructive ones out....i learned quite a lesson with little Deaths.very few people understood the ramifications of color choice/darkening; I was-and am-absolutely certain I was correct to alter the original fom b/w...no amount of criticism is going to change my mind....if the comments had been based on knowledge/intuition re: the photo, i would take it seriously; some DID get the work as presented, and i am grateful for that.

Andre - Will you please explain what exactly do you mean by "no amount of criticism is going to change my mind" and then you wonder why some of your images (but NOT all) have a low c-index? Yes, I know the c-index is NOT important, but you seem to think it is.

Take my image "Fiery Sunset Over a Snowy Landscape" for example. The original photograph had a c-index of around 40, but I followed the suggestions made by some critics and did a little cropping, even though I preferred it the way it was. The c-index of the cropped version went all the way up to 70. Trust me - It WORKS. I actually don't like sunsets, but I take pictures of them because a lot of people here like sunsets

And, I agree, you don't have to please everyone. but at least try to. People will appreciate you and your work more. =)

True what you say hernoor, you dont have to please the people. But they sure give good advise sometimes, as you've pointed out. I dont mind what critique I get on my pictures, everything that I get, i try and use, and help me to be a better photographer.. I dont take it personal if it's negative comments, because I know every person is entitled ot his/her own opinion, and that's not necisarily what I will like. But at least try it, and see if you like it too. So.. my suggestion.. see the c-index.. but believe the written words.. :)

Well said!

A work of intrinsic value ought not be altered/influenced by the whims and fancies of the average comment: if I were to listen to the ideas of others-no matter what they are, I would likely not photgraph at all! When something is not broken, do not fix it.....To listen to please others is not intelligent and is not staying true to oneself. The next time someone suggests you guys alter your work even though you believe it is valid as is, ask yourself your motives for being easily swayed. VanGogh sold very few pieces. I suspect he could have sold a great deal if he had listened to the Salon (read history of French painting); I am so glad he followed his own intuition and talent. I am open to concrete, knowledgeable and useful criticism; I am NOT to vague, self-serving and frivolous ones...and certainly not to those who would want me to part company with my own vision. I would never photograph subjects I do not like because the public would like that i do. I am not that hungy for praise, to be accepted.

As you say, art is subjective, but some of the "silly comments" are meant in good faith, and are frequently good advice. Something as simple as widening a border can actually make it less distracting, and change the balance of what draws your eye focally.

It is of course your choice whether or not to follow that advice, but sometimes it really helps to take a step back and see what others are seeing. Not because you want to mess with the artistic integrity of your piece, but because it's entirely possible that one of these small changes can help you convey what you're looking to better.

I am not saying you need to follow that advice to become better or more popular, I'm simply saying don't be too quick to throw it away as useless.

As for the c-index - yeah, I pretty much tossed caring about that out the window when the 1st comment on one of my images was "FINALLY the perfect Chrkistmas wallpaper for my desktop". I enjoyed making that particular piece, I laughed my way through it, and as long as somebody likes it, I'm happy. (This isn't to say I wouldn't like a nice juicy fat c-index on my next piece… as you say… it's human nature 8•P)

Yes, I agree with that. And, Andre, I understand if you feel disappointed. I also do sometimes when my Paint creations get a c-index way lower than my sunset photos. Digital illustrations are way harder and take longer than photos. But it's not the end of the world if you get a low rating. And, now as the images are archived, I don't see much reason to be disappointed as they won't be deleted anyway.

Also, I want to say that I visited your image 'Little Deaths...What Have You Done?' and the c-index was 16, but the lightened version had a c-index of 21. If you want it to go higher, just upload a larger resolution. =) As I said before, people will appreciate your work and you personally more if you are a little more open and considerate to their suggestions. =)

I appreciate hearing from the artists and their own perspectives. Truly.

That dialogue that sometimes gets opened between myself and the artist whose works I have commented on, have and will continue to be one of the things that I love about this site.

I have learned much.

I have learned to look ... really look before committing some words onto an images' page.

I am learning to be sensitive in those words.

But, above all ... it is my distinct impression that this site not only exists for the viewing and posting pleasure of the members ... but to try and learn from one another. And that ... is a journey that never ends in my books. :o))

Well said Les.....I completely agree

Philippe .. You will see very few works actually get changed and re-uploaded because of comments from viewers .. the artist has to agree with the input to the point that they truely believe that making the suggested change will better the image .. more often than not, they will add it to the collective data bank for future works .. or they will dismiss it

remove this and that and then it ...

you have to factor in that alot of the membership here is new at this .. maybe they have downloaded images from here for a year or two and now they want to give back in whatever way they can ... some people BEG for advice and don't receive anything .. because most are hesitant to say anything

I am a digital artist .. I have a very small bag of tricks and I stay in my comfort zone .. there are many people here that have extensive photoshop experience and if they offer advice on how to better my fit and finish issues .. I would be grateful and listen ...

It seems people are not reading what i write and certinly have not re: Little Deaths; I DO pay close attention to what others writ.......much of it is NOT useful ( often is just oohing and aahing if liked and something nasty at other times....very few people give concrete suggestions re: style, form, tone, intrinsic value, mood, etc. .those i take very seriously)....thgis is not to say the oohs and aahs are not appreciated and I le the writers know it in my replies. This tthread began after Hernoor made cooments here about my work that just do not pertain to my work and are highly suggestive that I ought to listen and follow---no matter the content; it is to that I have replied here, at large. So...to you who have the impression i do not care what others think, that I never take another's ideas , that I am "disappointed" by the c-index numbers, and that I am beyond being willing to learn, i say, fooie! (sp?) PLease re-read what I awrite and you will see I make good sense. Interjection of what one thinks another says vs. what one does say is another human fraility; I am sometimes guilty of it myself. Finally, I am more reluctant than most to alter my work because I am a professional painter with a solid background , a great eye, and have sold many paintings and photos. Some will use that sentence as bragging; not my problem. It is included simply to inform and perhaps, if i am fortunate, persuade some that I do not need a great deal of basic teaching. I do need advanced knowledge. Regardless of all this. I truly do appreciate the visites to my work and the comments of appreciation and sometimes the instruction. Hopefully, this will settle the matter as i am too busy to continue in this vein. Thank you for listeneing et bonne journee. Philippe...BTW I have seen this 8.P before.......what is that. please??

It's a smiley face with the tongue poking out .. it's an indication that humor was intended

=)

LOL. I remember Keith saying on another thread that there is a possibility that you might be submitting "artsy" shots that don't make very good wallpapers.

Your images are wonderful, but some (not all) don't...exactly.. look good on the desktop. I visited Riot and I love the bright and vibrant colors of it. The composition is good also, with the three colors intersecting at the center. Remembrance also reminds me of the woods near my house, and the overall mood is very...melancholy.

I don't like dark images, but I'm not mentioning it above or in my comments because that would be criticizing upon my personal taste.

And there are many artists and photographers who are better, and their comments are not just "average" comments as you put it.

Anyway, I think you're getting a little bit confused about the difference between what is good art and what makes a good desktop. =)

Arg, it is my curse. I keep thinking that this is an art site and design my images to fit. Can somebody put me out for the duration?

Merci Keifer.........Hernoor; glad you took a look at my work and acknowedge it is good and that there is a difference between wallpaper and art photography( some here also are well qualified to be art, no matter the title); I think you are relentless in attempting to persuade me to your way of thinking-that is simly not going to happen. The ability to know when to disagree and quit is a good one. Yes, Keifer and several others have pointed out I am likely to do better in an art photo format and that Caedes is slowly changing this site to that end. I want you to know I have repeatdely availed myself of many people's aid here---have not posted it so you would not know. In fact, i recently asked one of the most popular photographer here because I very much admire and trust his work....he obliged and we are in correspondance. I will continue to do this as i judge necessary and beneficial. This is written for your and others' benefit because many have argued i just ignore and am not open to profitting from others' advice. Again, I hope this is the end of this thread.I wish you and all others well..do what you do best; that is always good enough-no matter others' ideas of it. To this own self be...........Philippe ,bonne soiree