I am not so sure about this, and think I'm doing this wrong.. so can anyone please enlighten me as to....

If i choose a number to "vote" but do not hit the "vote" button, and then type a comment and then hit the "post" button beneath, will that enter the vote too, or do I have to first vote, by hitting the vote button and the post a comment by hitting the post button? ermmmm does that make sense to you? cos i'm not so sure i understand it myself......

and please.. no funny answers.. LOL be gentle with this newbie OK.. *shy smile*

Only votes cast in the voting booth count. The vote feature you refer to does nothing, no matter what button you press. It's just a leftover.

Ah OK.. thank you very much. So i've been hitting it all this time just for fun. Thanx Sam for the quick reaction. Much appreciated!
Have a great day

what, really? is that true?

Yup, it is

Then what's the point of it?

It's a scandal… next thing you know we'll be counting the chads. 8•)

According to some reports, the votes from page button are being recorded, but have no effect on well… anything… It's leftover from before they brought in the shiny new voting booth w/all it's updated touchscreen lil gizmos.

If they remove the lil' vote dealie it throws the page offbalance .. and everything slides off to one side .. You gotta turn your head sideways to see the image

so .. keeping it there cuts down on neck strain

ahhh Ok, that makes sense.. well, we dont wanna have spastic necks, now do we?

LOL! It's "just a leftover," and "does nothing." If such is the case, isn't it time to do away with the voting botton on the image pages? I know I vote there a lot. Sounds like I'm wasting my time. Wen

I always vote at the image page. Seems to me if one of the benefits to being a Cadre member is not having to go to the voting booth before uploading......it's almost encouraging members not to vote. I at least thought my votes counted on the image page.

Someone tell me how the "random" voting booth is fair. Even though I am a Cadre member, I still vote...and most of the time on the full 40 images we're allowed at one time. More often then not there many of one or two artist posts coming up. I actually counted one time and 40% of the total was all from one artist. How can that be random?
This just seems more unfair to me now that I found out votes at the actual image site don't count.

as the site gets caught up on "new images" in the vote booth .. it cycles in the OLD images that have been here for years. Back in september, when the voting system changed, ALL images had their scores wiped to zero (including the permanent galleries) .. and the site started over

So .. I would guess you saw a day when that happened

Unfortunately I see this many days...since I vote on 40 images a day.

Keifer, I love your hat! Suits you well! =P

I don't have access to any secret information... the fact that the old system isn't in use anymore has been general knowledge for many months... if you go through the discussion boards it was mentioned several times.

I'm just asking, how really random is the random voting?

Well, it's fairly random & it all depends on your memory. There's still nothing to prevent you from getting on site, going through either your friends list or the new images gallery to see who uploaded what while you were off site, & then trotting over to the voting booth & voting high on any of your friends images should they happen to pop up. Nothing, of course, except your own sense of fair play.

That has nothing to do with the randomness of the voting. If you vote on 40 images...out of a few thousand artists and you see the same person's posts 10 of the 40 times, that is not random. The odds are just against that happening.

Hey, I love this site....it has become a part of my daily life. I am certainly not knocking it. I am just saying there seems to be a major flaw in the voting system.

Some of the artists here .. like "PhotoImagery", for example .. Michael has a Gazillion Pages of images .. most of which have successfully landed in the 'perm' galleries .. if you voted a day when the site was caught up on new submissions and decided to clear up some images from his gallery .. then the most you could say is the site could handle this backlog a little better (randomizing a gallery .. be it an artist's or a theme's)

I don't vote nearly as much as you .. so I've never seen this that you speak of .. and these are just my speculative offerings

I have been in the voting booth already where I ended up voting on the maximum, and when I looked back over the posts more than 1/4 where Paul Gerritsen's. I know he has a large gallery, so Keifer's suggestion makes sense. But should the phenomenon you described happen so often? That's where I can see Asrai's point too.

Well, according to the stats at least, all the images on the site have the same number of votes, so there can't be a bias toward anyone in particular otherwise that wouldn't happen... I think...

A totally "random" system would not take any images out of commission once they are voted on a certain number of times, yet that is my understanding of what's happening in the voting booth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that new images get priority until they get 5 to 10 votes. Then, I'm not sure how it's set up, but my understanding is that those images are much less likely to show up in the voting booth and newer images, again, get priority (until they obtain 5 to 10 votes.) Somehow, old images get a certain "standing" in terms of priority in this system so that, after new images get their day in the sun, old images are worked in. That is not a simple "random" voting system, as certain images are tagged in some way based on how many votes they have gathered. A totally random system would give every image the exact same probablity of showing up in the voting both, regardless of how many relative votes they've accummulated. Wen

If it was truly random then odds are that some images would receive no votes at all. I don't see that as a good thing.

I didn't say that I thought it was good or bad. I simply pointed out that it's not really random. As I've said before, averages based on only a handful of votes tend not to be very reliable. Allowing all images a chance to accumulate more votes would definately provide a more reliable quality index in the LONG run. Wen

Most of what you've written in the second to the last comment is incorrect. This should be clear when you look at the distribution of number of votes per image. The vast majority of images have 9 to 10 votes now. There is no distinction made in the system between old and newer images.

Ahhhhhh. So, all images are on the table for the "random" voting pool and, regardless of the number of votes, they all have the same probability of showing up there? Previous discussions have stated that, once images obtain a target number of votes, they are less likely to show up in the voting booth. Is this no longer the case? Wen

That was only when we first started the new voting.

Great...glad to hear it. Wen

We can vote?

Wow, this is a true democracy. :oP

Yes we can vote, but, if the site is going to maintain opportunity to vote on images on the image page, it would be nice if those votes counted in some way. Wen

*raises eyebrow*

I feel a test is in order for this convoluted system. Someone should upload an image and allow it to reach ten votes. Delete it and repeat. Do this at least five times. Just like when two different groups take political polls of random people and get very similiar results, each c-index should be fairly similiar. I highly doubt this will be the case.

*raises both eyebrows so fast it parts his hair*

showoff

Ahem ... anyone know the meaning and derivation of statistically significant number results?

Do some regression anaysis and get back to me. Take your time ... I got some fractals that are still rendering and I'll be around for a bit. (JOKe.)

I know that the likelihood that a statistically reliable average can be obtained from ten or less votes is quite low. The number of votes would have to be much higher to yield an average that could be considered reliable/valid. I did an experiment similar to what you suggested on an image, Lithfo. All I did was flip the image horizonally in photoshop so that what was on the left in the first iamge was on the right in the second image.. The first image obtained a c-index in the 30s. The second image obtained a c-index in the 70s. Same Vue image, just horizonally flipped....Wen

when a photo comes up in the voting booth you HAVE to vote or you can't move onto the next one. so, i don't understand how a photo appearing in the photo booth can get no votes. jen

I think that's the issue the random voting system (voting booth) is trying to deal with, but with selective voting, the people get to choose which pic they want to vote on, so those images may not get any votes on them.

Well, I think that an issue here is....why do I so often see "not enough votes" for a C rating, when the image may have been looked at and downloaded 20+ times? Is it because they votes don't count unless they were made in the voting booth? Interesting and a little confusing.

I'm not sure, but I think the c-index is from both systems of voting. Many people probably don't bother to vote, they just view the image and download it, I'm guessing.

Actually, most people view the image, but don't download. At least it seems there's a large number here who say to themselves, "Hey, ya know, I like this image, but I only want to see it very slightly larger. I like photography, but not enough to wait three seconds while a full-size image loads."

Currently, as I understand it, votes on image pages are not counted....only votes in the voting booth are used to calculate the c-index and, clearly, a lot more people are looking at images than voting on images in the voting booth. Cadre members don't have to vote to put up images and I, as a Cadre member, prefer voting on images on the image pages rather than being compelled to vote on groups of images that I have little interest in one way or another. Yes, Jeenie, when an image comes up in the voting booth you HAVE to vote on it in order to proceed to the next random image. People have suggested allowing viewers to skip images they'd rather not vote on or allowing them to choose which TYPES/categories of images they want to vote on. Currently, neither suggestion has been put into play. WEN

Allowing people to skip images defeats the purpose of having a voting booth, how ever stupid an idea it is anyway. Allowing votes on random images in categories, on the other hand, will provide more accurate c-indexes. Unless I come across a rare "fractal", as they seem to be called, that I think is really cool, I almost always give those images 5s and move on. That's not fair to people, but I almost never have a favorable opinion on that crap because it mostly bores me. It's like asking a baseball analyst to break down this year's NFL draft picks.

But yet you feel YOUR work should be evaluated on its merits ... oh, let me guess, you don't care

hahaha... its more like he doesnt care about how much time artists spend making fractals... its a bit more complicated than lining up a shot and clicking the button.. and yes I do photography too.. and believe me.. digital art is a lot more time consuming and takes longer.. but that is another argument... and as you quote "I like photography, but not enough to wait three seconds while a full-size image loads." that works the same way as you giving digital art a low vote... guess that makes everyone even??

here we go again......

1) It's like asking a baseball analyst a football question. You wouldn't ask Jerry Remy (Red Sox analyst) to rank the ten best Patriot players of the last decade. It works the same for me. I like photography. I like real images. If I rated all those fractals on what I personally thought of them, they would almost all get 2s. If I could skip them, I would.

2) Not viewing an image in its full-size and giving baseline votes are apples and oranges, so not it doesn't make everyone even. I have no desire to place an opinion on a fractal.

3) This isn't about which is better, photography or rending images. It isn't about which has more merits. It isn't about who invests more time. I'm sure being a good physicist has more merit and invests more time than a good photographer or a good fractal artist, but I'm not about to study physics, and I'm certainly not going to start rating them. I like photography. I only want to view and rate photographs.

4) Just because painting can be associated with photography doesn't mean I necessarily like it (although I do), so why should I like fractals? A fan of Bob Dylan is unlikely to like 50 Cent, but they're both artists so it's reasonable to ask a rap fan what he thinks of folk? Do you expect much objectivity?

5) I've said it isn't fair for me to give baseline votes to fractals. I've also said its a lot less fair for me to be asked to vote objectively on something I dislike. Aside from making an effort to have as little effect as possible on these images (baseline voting), I'm also advocating separate categories so I have no effect here. You should recognize and support these efforts rather than trying to justify not looking at full-size images because I apparently made you angry by saying I don't like something that you do like. Hey, I even look at full-size versions of fractals before giving them 5s (which, again, in my opinion, they mostly don't deserve, however much work you put into them).

6) Please, phil, either add something worthwhile to this or don't add at all. Placing yourself on a high-horse of arrogance does not put you above this conversation like you clearly think it does. It just makes you appear pretentious. It's apparent you've seen this discourse before, but that doesn't mean it's invalid simply because you've tired of it.

that wasn't what I was referring to but thanks for validating my point.

*wanders over to bar...pours self a drink*

*thinks, pours phil a drink as well*

Lithfo, I believe phil is trying to say we've heard all this before...it is a constantly recurring complaint....which is why the voting booth is random.

If he was trying to say we've all heard this before, then my comment stands. That's exactly to what I was referring. It'd be like me hearing two people talking about an English class I took last semester. If I said, "Oh, English 351? Yeah, I already took that." Well, that adds nothing to the conversation. If I say it was fun or hard or boring, then I've added something. phil added nothing except that he thinks a topic isn't important once he's tired of it.

Well, I think the above dissertation is a clear indication of why people should be allowed to vote on chosen image categories. Lithfo is hardly the only person here who has said that he dislikes fractals and, hence, uniformly gives them low relative votes which he, himself, acknowledges is unfair. When I vote on images in the voting booth, I try to evaluate them based on artistic merit rather than simply personal liking. For example, I'm not a "flower person," yet there are many superb photographs of flowers. I try to rate them on the basis of their quality, not my personal liking. Nonetheless, this is not necessarily the status quo and Lithfo (Michael) is one of a significant group of members who has said he routinely gives fractals low votes because he doesn't like fractals.

It shows in the c-indexes. For example, I put up two fractals this past weekend. They have "earned?" a 24 and 31 c-index respectively, which I, personally, find offensive. One of those images actually made the top ten on another art website. And I wouldn't be typing this if it were only MY fractal images that routinely scored low...such is hardly the case. I, personally, can continue to upload computer generated 3-D images, which seem to fair somewhat better here than fractals. However, there are a number of good fractal artists who simply flew the coop because their images were met with near hostility in the voting booth.

As things currently stand, this site (a wonderful site in so many ways) is catering to photography and discouraging fractal artists from uploading images. If that's what people here want, so be it. I, personally, find that unfortunate. Wen

I was actually referring to the fact that yet another thread gets hijacked by a crass troll attempting to incite a flame war – you steam in and dismiss a large portion of the Caedes communities work as mere crap that isn’t deserving of your attention let alone your vote and then accuse me of being arrogant for being tired of that.

It seams irony isn’t dead in the states after all – even if subtlety is.

Actually, Wen brought up the fact that she doesn't like voting on images in the voting booth because she doesn't have much interest in them. I backed up that notion through example. I apparently offended someone. At that point, someone ELSE directed the thread elsewhere.

Now, I hardly think you'd accuse Wen of going off-topic with her post, correct? And my post was in direct response to her post, right? Now unless we have radically different definitions of what a "troll" is, then I don't see logically concluding that I've hijacked this thread. If anything, the topic changed from the voting booth *after* my post. On top of that, I would hardly call anything in here a flame war, much less an attempt to incite one - no matter on which side of the fence you sit. Now, if you're tired of discussing the VB, then simply don't do it. Don't try to demean any attempt to exchange thoughts by people who haven't talked or read about the subject as extensively as you perhaps have.

Now, going back to the topic before the 7-post break, there should be two simple categories on which users can vote: Photography and Non-Photography. This would make voting more fair, more accurate, and more enjoyable. It's still essentially random.

I believe the point of the random voting system was to enable all the images to be voted on, rather than what you are proposing which is that certain 'preferred' images being given votes, and others being neglected. I consider the present system to be an acceptable compromise.

Excuse me, but, if people are routinely registering hostile protest votes on certain categories of images, how can that be considered "an acceptable compromise?" There's the old distinction between "quantity" and "quality" that seems to apply here. I'd rather have fewer votes on my images if they are "quality" votes, meaning that the viewers had enough of an interest in the image to take the time to rate it on its artistic merit. Wen

Unfortunately this place has become occupied by people with a grudge.

However, I note that Caedes mentioned this when explaining his rationale for using this system, in that the irrelevant votes would be cancelled out.

I admit two categories wouldn't be fully random, but it's not like I'm saying we should break it down to nature, landscape, animals, etc...I believe two categories would maintain enough randomness while, as Wen indicated, increase the quality of votes.

Alternatively Caedes himself could make a final statement on the issue. (hint)

or perhaps he already has...see here.

And your point would be what, Andrew? Are you saying that we should consider the issue closed and that those who see problems with the current system should not express their opinions?... That only those who find the current system "acceptable" should share their views in these discussions??

As for the claim that "random" voting makes for a fair vote for all images, Michael makes a valid point with the "baseball" vs. "football" analyst analogy. The vast majority of posters here are photographers (they're "baseball analysts"), a number of whom have been honest enough to state openly that they hold a general distaste for fractals and routinely give them low ratings in the voting booth to register that dislike. There's no question that fractal images suffer a significantly lower average rating here as a result. One way to deal with this would be to put photographs and fractals on separage vote distributions (to calculate and weight their votes independently to produce a normal curve for both sets of images.) Currently, with one overall distribution, fractals are generally scoring in the lower half of the distribution on average and photographs are scoring in the upper half. You could argue that this is because the photographs here are generally better than the fractals, but you also have to look at WHO is evaluating images here. Photographers vastly outnumber fractal artists and their BIAS is only logical. Again, there are different ways to address the problem, but to deny the problem doesn't make it go away....Wen

I'm not saying there isn't a problem, I'm merely pointing out that we let this system run for a while in order to make sure it works. Why do people have such a problem with that happening? Isn't it worth finding out what works and what doesn't?

When enough information has been gathered, it is adjusted accordingly.

Those people who are deliberately low grading images obviously have no interest in the efforts people made for those images...be they photographs or otherwise. So why are they here?

you want 2 sections?.. what about the people who do a variety of art work? I do and I dont want to have to chose between photography or digital for which I want to vote on.. I like a variety of art to look at.. The voting system isnt going to go away.. and I agree with Andrew, about the deliberately low grading, that shows no respect to the artist whatsoever, everyone has different styles, everyone has different view on certain images.. but to deliberately give a low mark because your "not-into-that-crap" is not very fair, and is making the system work harder than it should.. its funny after all these threads about this damn voting that it pops up into every discussion... ITS NOT GOING TO CHANGE.. you have to deal with it... you need to open your minds more and realise that there are a lot of different styles of art around and be a bit more respectful to other peoples tastes, styles, creativity, time and hard work...

oh yes.. and this was hijacked.. because the original question was a very simple question as to how to do something...

I'm not sure, because, for example, one of my new images got 7 positive comments in two days, but the c-index is 17 ?

When I vote or comment, I analyze the image from a neutral point of view. I'm not a fan of many galleries, but I look at it from an artistic point of view. Would I like this image as my desktop? Do I like the colors, composition, textures, placement, focal point, etc. of this? I ask myself. And then I vote on it. As again, I keep a neutral point of view, but I generally vote about a point less for images that aren't my taste.

why do you vote a point less because they are not your taste? what is the point of that?

Isn't that the one of the points of voting? To get insight from the members..

yes but as you said "I analyze the image from a neutral point of view." taking a point off because its not to your taste isnt being neutral... personally I dont take any notice of the c-index.. to me the downloads, views, comments and criticism mean more.. but i do know that many on here view it as the only rating of their work.. as I said before its not going to change and people are going to vote that way regardless of how many times this discussion is going to be brought up.. time to move on and live with it...

Wendy, if I may ... I think your art is exceptional ... in particular, I love
Solitude ... Heaven's Wake absolutely gorgeous ... fantastic textures in The Other Side of Nowhere ... I could go on. And my apologies for not having paid a visit to your galleries ... yet. You are on my 'to do list.' :o)

Lithfo ... Michael, if I may ... October in New England is a fine, no ... strike that ... excellent composition. What a beautiful image, serene ... peaceful. I particularly like your subject matter and concept, title of Fallen to Rise ... it is quite a beautiful image to me.

Discourse? Discussion. Sure, you bet ... I have no problem with that.

Dissension? Hmm, I have been thinking about this one alot lately. It is my opinion that this medium is not always best suited for such. Words alone, do not always convey the intent of the message. Some loss of content and perhaps, context seems to happen along the way.

Here ... as a suggestion ... a thought ... can whoever that is participating in this discussion this time ... fully grasp the others' intent? Could you argue, for lack of a better word the opposing side, if ... if ... there is the appearance of opposition?

I think clarification is a good good thing.

I would like to reiterate one point I glibly added before ... and that is this ... the numbers being considered, not the infamous C-Index, but membership numbers and their respective votes ... are not all that significant, valid, whatever in my mind.

Just an slight indicator, no more ... no less.

Surely, everyone here, must be ... to a degree ... be aware of their artistic strengths.

The people I have omitted in adding some commentary on their work here ... on this thread ... I hope it is clear to those whose galleries that I have visited are aware of how much I appreciate their own particular artistic endeavours ... you should have some of my words on your pages already and ... and know how much I truly enjoy allllllll of your works.

My two cents, or as I like to say ... one and change.

Thanks for your gracious references to my gallery, Les! I dont' participate in these "discussions" to "argue." I participate from time to time because I think this site is worth improving upon.

Jacqueline, there doesn't have to be "2 sections" to vote on...an either/or kind of thing. Rather, people could have the OPTION of voting on ALL images or of limiting their votes to specific types of images (i.e. Photographs, fractals, CG images, Illustrations.) If you want a cross section of various types of images, you shouldn't have to restrict the types of images you vote on. However, a number of people here have stated that they have no desire to vote on certain types of images (i.e. fractals) and, when called upon to do so, they routinely rate them relatively low out of boredom or a general dislike for those types of images. Given that images progress to main galleries at least in part relative to how high their c-indexes are, and, given that c-index scores are based on less than 10 votes, wouldn't it be better if votes on images were from people who specify that they have a genuine desire to vote on those types of images?

You may be right...It may not change, but does that mean that those of us who find the system somewhat problematic must not share our opinions and/or suggestions? Wen

Thank you for your comments, purmusic.

"to deliberately give a low mark because your "not-into-that-crap" is not very fair" (J_272004)

Let me start off by stating I used the word "crap" very liberally. I won't go into the details or lengthy dissection of my vocabulary, but it should be clear no one should take personal offense.

Secondly, I'm aware it isn't fair that I give images low ratings due to their type, BUT I realize that and offer higher scores than I would normally give. I simply don't have the interest needed to give any sort of qualified opinion on most fractals.

Believe me, I don't like the lack of fairness, however much I try and offset it, either. And I realize it is a bit disrespectful to give baseline votes, but I also realize it would be disrespectful to make/lower upwards (of) one tenth of a person's c-index based on disinterest. I'd think a two category system would be a great remedy. And as for your issue with liking both, well, you could just vote in both areas, I'd imagine.

ok.. #1.. Your vocabulary doesnt offend me.. I have heard much worse than that believe me.. I have teenagers.. LOL....
#2.. The reason for having a voting booth in case you didnt know was because of certain members who were voting over and over on their own images.. this way its fairer on ALL members.... read. The reason why we have the voting booth

other discussions on this topic here are a couple to read.. link , Link there are other discussions, I just couldnt be bothered getting them..

The c-index is not the end of the world.. its only there as a guideline... heres a question.. how would you feel if all the fractalists on here decided that they didnt like photography and voted low because it wasnt their style and they couldnt be bothered to look at it... can guarantee the next thread that would pop up would be why is my index so low... I personally think its time to put the discussion of the damn index to bed for a few years... because its the same argument over and over again which crops up in almost every thread, (yes even if its got nothing to do with voting, index, comments or anything) and there will always be those for it and against it, so it's at a stalemate... photographers will still vote low on digital art regardless of how many times this is brought up... its part of life... I always thought everyone did their artwork because THEY enjoyed what they create... whether its photography or digital art.. we are all artists in our own unique way and when we lose sight of this, it's a waste of time doing it when the enjoyment of seeing how something starts from an thought and turns into a piece of art turns sour all because of numbers.. i know that most of the people came onto this site without the knowledge of voting or c-index, to become a member of the art community, to share their great works, maybe get a few tips along the way.. too many have forgot why they came to this site and why they posted their images in the first place, im sure it wasnt to get a high number on the c-index... anyway thats my opinion.. and i know you all have yours too...

Excuse me, Jacqueline, but I don't know if it's accurate that "the [primary reason] for having a voting booth....was because of certain members were voting over and over on their own images.. " Perhaps a select few members "were voting over and over on their own images" but that was hardly the status quo. The random voting system is not "tamper free" if people want to create aliases or have their friends vote on their images. Images are still quite easily identified on Caedes and, those who vote regularly in the voting booth can certainly cast votes of hostility (or affection) toward images of those members they don't like (or like) personally. In fact, I have little doubt that such a practice is occurring and it would not be all that easy to detect. In short, if people want to cheat or rain on others' parade, they can and will find a way to do so no matter what system is in place.

The random system is good in the sense that all images are likely to get about the same minimum number of votes, but it can't guarantee "fairness" in other respects. No one system can guarantee that. That depends on the integrity of Caedes members. Wen

they probably are still doing it.. but its monitored more now as far as im aware (i maybe wrong - mods feel free to jump in here.. ) if one image is receiving a lot of 10's then it is investigated same as if images are getting a lot of 0's and 1's... and for them to have their vote take effect the image has to come up in the random voting and not from just going into their image and pressing the vote button lots of times...

Back to the original post in this thread which focused on the selective vote option on image pages. Are there any plans to incorporate selective votes into image ratings or is this function now defunct and only for show? Wen

Sam already answered that question...

"Only votes cast in the voting booth count. The vote feature you refer to does nothing, no matter what button you press. It's just a leftover."

Jacqueline....I read Sam's comment and responded to it above. Caedes addressed this issue some time ago, stating that he hadn't decided how or if votes cast on the image pages would be used. I think you'll recall that the voting function on image pages was taken down for a time and, essentially, brought back by popular demand. I was really directing the question at Caedes, thanks. If it is indeed a mere "leftover," then, as I suggested at the beginning of this thread, it seems like time to do away with the feature so that people like Marietha and Dorothy and a number of others here, including myself, are not taking the time to vote on images on the image pages believing that those votes may be used in some way, if not now, in the future. Wen