I haven't said anything for awhile, as I've been waiting to see if the new voting system corrects itself. Sadly, such doesn't appear to be the case. The only fractals that seem to get some degree of acceptance here are Apophysis flames (some that are fairly mediocre.) There is clearly an aversion here for fractals generated from other programs that I can't understand but that is obvious. The numbers on complex, well conceived fractal images are routinely less than 50, with many very good fractals scoring in the high 20's to low 40's. Perhaps those rating such images so low can explain the rationale for doing so. There are people putting a lot of work into images that are not getting the kind of reception they deserve.

I vote for how appealing it is, generally heavily influenced by how sharp and flawless the render is, but I am sure I am subject to the Halo/Horns Effect. My fractals are hurting too, so I have been sticking to photography lately.

I would imagine it depends entirely on the quality & originality of the image. I just looked at a sample gallery (Igmac's) that features a spread of fractals using different software - Apophysis and UltraFractal (to which I assume your are referring) - all are quite original and different from each other and have quite uniform marks with little or no disparity between the styles. It doesn’t matter how well conceived or executed an image is whether it be apohysis, UF or even photography - if there isn’t an element of creativity and originality in it, it isn’t going to get very far anywhere.

I think as a rule fractals suffer, irregardless of the program used, with some notable exceptions, of course. The majority of people are photo people & find it possibly difficult to vote on abstracts. As to your assertion that only Apophysis seems to find favor here on the site, I beg to differ. There are plenty of programs that produce incredible results, works of incredible beauty. Look at WENPEDER's gallery or nmsmith's gallery, to name 2 artists who do cross program work with stunningly beautiful results. I work primarily with Apophysis as right now I find it the most comfortable for me. I find TieraZon to be awkward & unwieldly, probably because I haven't worked with it enough. A vicious circle, yes. While I don't expect to ever reach the artistic heights of some on this site, I am hopeful of improving. To that end, I keep on putting up images & ignoring the c-indexes, & I pay more attention to what is said to me, critiques & compliments alike.
As for your assertion that people are not getting the reception they deserve, I'm afraid I can't answer that as I don't know what your expectations are.
As someone with a fairly fragile ego, I'm grateful for the reception I have gotten. Site members have been encouraging & helpful. What I want is simple: praise if deserved, if not, a gentle criticism & a way to correct my mistakes. This is an ongoing learning process for me, & I am sure, many others.

The results from voting can be nothing more than a measurement of the degree of appeal that a given image has to the average person. If you'll read the FAQs concerning the c-indx you'll see that a primary use of the c-index is to allow visitors to sort a given gallery by that metric. As such, when viewing the fractal gallery it doesn't matter that the c-indexes are on average a bit lower than in the photography gallery because there are no photography images in the fractal gallery.

Also, I do not believe that the amount of time spent on an image is always a good indication of the image's worth to the general viewing public nor do I believe that there is a way for the voter to be able to tell how much time was spent on a given image.

I agree with Lauren and Phil.. it depends on creativity and originality.. I have used almost every fractal program and I have had reasonable voting and critiscim on them.. some programs are very easy to use and dont need much to put out an image... a good fractal can be created in 5 mins or 5 hours the length of time is irrelavant it's the final product thats important.. I think the reason you seem to think that Apophysis is getting all the attention is because so many of our fractalists are using that program as there is so much more you can do to create unique images than eg. tierazon... As Lauren pointed out there are great fractalists who use different programs WENPEDER, nmsmith, Vamoura these people make stunning and unique images from UF, Tierazon, Chascope etc... as for low indexes (here we go again *sigh) its a guideline. also I cant see how you can say that fractals are hated on here... I have many photographers who comment on mine and I have quite a few with an "index" over 50... so as I said before it comes down to creativity and originality if you do that you will get the votes and comments and the precious c-index will be higher... Also I would like to know why this is upsetting you so much when you dont even have a gallery!

When I vote on fractals in the booth...they all have sharp edges (bad quality as it seems) but if you zoom in it clears up...why is it like this? It goes for some CG images and some photography.

I believe RUBrite was commenting on the reliability of the new c-index and I have to agree that fractals overall are not fairing very well. A couple of people remarked that they thought I made high quality fractals (THANKS, BTW)....Have you looked at my fractal scores of late? Check out Shadows of Dreams, a layered Ultra Fractal that took considerable time and that I think is quite pretty. It started out with a fairly high c-index. It's now at 28. Check out Amusement Park, Centered, Elegance, The Void (which is already in the Permanent Gallery and now has a c-index of 28)...The majority of my fractals are scoring in the 40's, hardly a roaring reception, if you're trying to gleen information about the artistic merit of images from c-indexes (which I believe is the idea.) Listen, I continue to upload things here regardless because I like the people here, but I've given up on the c-index as a reliable measure of artistic quality and, in that sense, I think RUBrite is correct. There is no question that photographs as a group are fairing better here than computer generated images. It's just a fact, for whatever reason. Wen

Not really.. Both my fractals and photographs are doing equally lousy..

"The only fractals that seem to get some degree of acceptance here are Apophysis flames (some that are fairly mediocre.)"

Question: Mr/Mrs/Ms RUBrite.. have you worked with apophysis? do you know how to use the program? if you have then you will know that there is a lot of work with that program, what seems mediocre (would be interested to know what you mean by that comment) to you could have taken that artist awhile to do that particular image, yes I agree there are a few "snapshots" but you have to remember there are people on here who are just learning the program therefore are not up to "Your standard" .... what seems mediocre to you could seem a masterpiece to others and that is a matter of personal opinion...
I would also be interested in seeing a couple of images which you think are "mediocre" and a couple which you think are "outstanding"...

Jacqueline, I'm sorry that you found my remarks so offensive. In fact, I think that you are one of the better fractal artists here, yet other than some of your Apophysis images (most of which are superb, BTW), your c-index scores are unfairly low (IMO.) In fact, I can't believe how low many of your Apophysis images are scoring. Sorry, but I just happen to think your work is deserving of better numbers and I'm trying to understand what it is about this site that makes it so adverse to fractal art. And, yes, I have worked with Apophysis. As I've said before, I just don't have time to create art for desktop wallpaper and I come here to see good art. I'm simply noting that I think much of the talent here is underrated by the voting system and I'm wondering why. As for Apophysis flames that I consider "mediocre," I don't intend to single anyone out. My point was that Apophysis flames seem to be more popular here than fractals made by other fractal software. I may be wrong, but it just seems that way to me.

OK, I keep saying this but no one seems to be hearing it. The "voting system" is not giving the images low scores, the voters are!! That's the whole point of voting. It is true that fractals generally score lower than photographs, however as I've stated before, this is not a problem. If you go to the fractal gallery and sort by c-index you'll see the most popular fractal images right there on the first page. This is one of the major functions of the c-index.

You've mentioned that "Apophysis flames seem to be more popular here than fractals made by other fractal software" as if that fact is something that is somehow wrong or incorrect. I fail to see the problem.

Thankyou I'm very pleased you like my work... unfortunately i'm a person who doesnt take much notice of the scoring.. =D If people enjoy looking at it, thats great.. I do this for relaxation and enjoyment.. I think anything with a score in the 20-30's is average, 40's is really good anything over that is excellent.. but i could be wrong.. but thats how i look at it.. The voting system isnt going to change or the c-index, no one will see images scoring 80's/90's like they used to.. so its time to realise that its not going away and people are going to have to adapt to the fact that 30 is a good index.. =)

As for apophysis flames being more popular is because i think about 90% fractalists use that program because there is much more variety and more margin for creativity, than tierazon, mbf, etc.... Morwyn uses chaoscope and has put out amazing stuff, Wendepere, Vamoura, and nmsmith (King of fractals) puts out awesome images from the tierazon programs... I have used MBF quite a few times and found that they actually score higher than my apophysis images.. lol.. which to me MBF is a walk in the park compared to apophysis.... =)

Another thing you have to take into consideration.. there are more % people who only like photography than there are fractalists.

Exactly Caedes!!!!! Its the voters not the system... I Hear you!! lol.. doesnt it feel like your banging your head against a brick wall sometimes... LOL...

My mistake for contrasting Apophysis vs. other fractals, Jacqueline. That really wasn't my point. As I titled this thread, it just seems that fractals in general are not very well received here. I'm glad you take scores above 30 in stride, Jacqueline, but, when I go through and look at images, I find myself shaking my head at the low scores that good quality CG Images are getting. I know that several people have left this site as a result, and can't help but think that others may do the same or that it may discourage new artists from posting here. My reason for caring is that I like the site. It's well conceived, well constructed and easy to use. I am definitely much more attracted to abstract art, which makes me notice how poorly it's scoring here in relative terms. Caedes said, "The "voting system" is not giving the images low scores, the voters are!!" All right. Then, again, my question is, why is this site so adverse to fractal art? I visit other art sites with similar images, and abstract art fairs much better.

As I understand it, a 0 is considered "poor," a 5 is considered "average," and a 10 is considered "good." If that is the case, then scores below 5 would be considered "below average," yet, as you point out, Jacqueline, you are now considering scores of 20-30 average, scores of 40 "really good," and scores above 40 "excellent." Sorry, but, while that may be how things are panning out with the c-index, I just don't understand why people are rating very acceptable images so low, and, again, the computer generated work is being met with particularly low scores in the voting booth. All I know is that I rarely vote below 5, as I think that most (not all) of the images here are above average, yet that is not what is reflected by the c-index scores. I'm just wondering why.

The c-index can only be a relative comparison between the images on the website. This means that exactly half the images are below average and half above (by definition).

In my opinion the photography is ahead of the CG and fractal images on the site (in terms of quality). If you want an example of what I consider to be pretty good CG then go take a look at digitalblasphemy.com. I'm not sure of a good place for fractals though. Of course we are to some degree trying to compare apples and oranges.

This whole discussion basically boils down to the fact that you think the c-index for fractal images is lower than it should be. Rather than the simple explanation that the photography is in general more popular it might be easier to believe that there is some kind of conspiracy against the images that you like. Is it really so hard to accept that other people might not like the same things that you do?

With all due respect, Caedes, you've just strongly suggested that it's not simply a matter of voters that are dishing out unfairly low scores on fractals. It would seem, rather, that it's statistical adjustments that you are applying to scores that attempt to ensure "that exactly half the images are below average and half above (by definition)." I've said it before and I'll say it again. The quality of the art here is simply not reflective of a "standard distribution," yet, from your "definition," it would seem that you are trying to force a distribution that should be skewed significantly to the right into a standard distribution in which "exactly half of the images are below average and half above."

I'm not asking other people to like the same things I do. I'm asserting that something appears to be amiss with the statistical scoring system you are using, but it's very clear that you refuse to even consider that possibility. I'm not suggesting a "conspiracy" against the images that I like, and it's too bad that you feel the need to mock my questions by suggesting such a thing. Could it be that, rather than some kind of conspiracy against the images that I like, there's a bias in favor of photographic images here given the high relative number of photographers here compared to CG artists? Not to mention the fact that it doesn't appear that you're simply "averaging" scores, but rather, weighting scores to force the c-index into a standard distribution. Is that what you are doing?

Personally I don't understand why you seem to always focus on the negative aspects of the site... perhaps you should try contributing in a more positive way? Unless I'm missing something you very rarely leave any comments on images or upload anything or give any feedback on the site except to say that you don't like the c-index system. You suggest in your opening post that you have been keeping an eye on the c-index scores for at least some weeks; couldn't you have found time to contirbute in some positive way? Offering advice and criticism is all very well, but when it's all you do you tend to start seeming very negative, and you shouldn't be surprised when you resieve a negative/defensive response in return.

As for the c-index, it is simply a reflection of what is more popalur on the site. The old notes of "Good" "Bad" and "Average" on the old rating system were, I believe, simply intended to show people what the "Low" and "High" ends of the scale were. They did cause a little confusion, perhaps that's why they aren't utilized in the voting booth. I would tend to look at the new c-indexes in terms of percentage; so, a rating of 30 means that this image is scored in the bottom 30 percent of images. This probably isn't precisely accurate, but I think it makes more sense than just saying it's "bad". The primary purpose of the c-index is to assist people in finding the more popular images and I beleive that the current voting system allows this to happen. I guess we could start the c-index at 50 and go up to 100 so the numbers would look better for those at the lower half of the scale, but what would be the point?

I have nothing more to say except something that has already been said a million times: You shouldn't judge your images based solely on the c-index. I have quite a few images that are rated lower than 30, but I dont take this to mean they stink. They just aren't popular among the majority. Alot of art isn't popular, in fact the majority of the public will say it is rubbish, mainly because they don't understand it; but that doen't mean it's bad. However the c-index is there to measure popularity, and I don't beleive there is any system that could give an image a rating based on its true artistic merit, or how much effort the author put into it, or whatever. Just treat the c-index as what it is, a single factor which is designed to assist, and not the be all and end all...