Can someone please explain to this dumbo the effects of having our images archived?
I am thinking maybe it means no more votes?
No further chance of being selected for the permanent gallery?
Is time since upload a factor?
Thanks :)
Eve

Basically if the image is archived, it will appear only in your personal gallery. Archived images will have a lower chance of getting comments since the only way to see them is by going to the author's gallery.

I think somewhere in the forums it was mentioned that once an image was archived, it would stop getting votes in the booth.
Nope, once an image is archived, it won't have a chance of making it to the perms. On another thread, some people were asking about allowing second chances for archived images to get "permed".
Um...I think so, sort of. After about a month, the image is looked over by the mods and permed, archived, or deleted (only if it violates the Code of Conduct). Also, during spring cleaning of the perms, the "older" images are sometimes cleaned out.

It's just an alternative to deletion. This way you get to keep your comments and people can still look at it in your gallery if they want to.

In the past, due to server storage space, images that didn't 'make the cut' were deleted .. now .. due to the server upgrades that took place at the end of the year (maybe) .. Caedes-dot-net is flush with empty sectors and therefore there is no pressing need to DELIGHT IN DELETING .. the +mods are biting their fingernails without the outlets of old

.. and now that I can see which of my own images have been 'archived' I'm thinking the thread Second chances by Moe (OneSpock) .. has GREAT MERIT .. ;o) .. even though I foolishly argued against it at the time .. (sorry moe)

When you don a pair of non-mod shoes this looks like a wonderful plan. My feet are large enough and thanks for playing along:-)

As a Non-Mod, I gotta say it looks like a terrific plan .....now that I see the amount of archived works in my gallery

Thank you, just as I thought.
Well it seems most of my gallery is now 'archived', including 10 with C Indexes in 70s and 80s, so I now give even less credit to the index feature.I have seen some of them recently in the Feautured Images section and now they are gone :(
I fail to understand why low rating images are not archived first, after they have received a certain number of votes.
I can see that this is much better than deletion, but it seems a shame that some very good images (I am not referring to my own, there must be others who have had high rating pictures archived) are now out of circulation.
Am right in thinking it is best to now personally delete these images?
Eve

Not necessarily! I have a couple that are archived (CookieWorld & I'm So Well Rounded V2 to be specific) that I know people enjoy (one cuz it's my self-portrait), and I would like them to continue to be able to access them… even if they have to hit my gallery to get there 8•).

You should only delete images if upon looking @ the rest of your gallery YOU feel that it doesn't hold up against the rest of your work and you would rather not have it represented there.

Thanks Cat, that was exactly what I intended to do as my gallery is getting too big. But the archiving thing has confused me. Ones that I thought were ready for deletion - mainly those with low ratings. I guess I was just surprised at the great number of mine that have been archived. I have 10 images in the permanent gallery and have to admit was hoping that at least 2 others would make it as well, as they were well reviewed and have good ratings. I do realise that there is always room for disappointment and I am not moaning (really I'm not :) ) Will just have to make the decision which to delete - low rating ones or archived ones or simply use my own judgement and keep the ones I like. Which are not necessarily liked so much by others :) Oh decisions, decisions, I'm getting too old for this :)

Yes, that's my motto as well ... "there is always room for disappointment"

At some point, I'll probably do some deleting, but for right now everything is staying in my personel gallery. I've only been doing this since late October, early November & it's nice to look back on the journey.

In regards to your question as to why low rated images are not archived first, images are archived automatically after a set period in the "New images" gallery (ie if they aren't permatised) I think some mods do go through and archive some of the old images to make finding images to move to the perms easier, but generally there isn't much manual archiving done, it would take too long.

In that case, I'm concerned that many images might be archived without careful consideration for the permanent galleries by moderators. For what it's worth, I strongly support giving members opportunity to request reconsideration for archived images, as discussed in the "Second chances" thread that Keith highlighted above. Wen

If you're concerned about images being archived without careful consideration, how will adding more archived images for a second chance increase the odds of new images being "permatized"?

I hate it when somebody throws the monkey wrench of logic into the mix

I was hoping for the logical answer of "It won't".

*votes for more mods*

Second that !

I do not wish to sound 'petty' but I do find it somewhat upsetting (and I use this image only as an instance to illustrate what I mean, not as a 'moan" about this particular image) that my image Michaelmas with a C Index rating of 79 never made it to the Permanent Flower Gallery and has now been archived, and when I look in that gallery I see images with C-Indexes as low as 19. Once again I do not think it gives the voting system much credibility. The votes I make I would hope go towards elevating an image to Permanence but this does not seem to be the case, and makes me wonder if there is any point at all in voting, except of course for the personal benefit of the artist in seeing a high number. I am not denigrating any permanent images with low numbers, its just that I find it difficult to understand. One of my own 'permanents' is 58. I can not believe it is more deserving than an archived 81. Last Rays
Is this because some of those lower rated ones were "permatised" when the galleries were smaller ?

Perhaps as a new member, I have only been here since February, I should not be questioning or commenting on this issue but I hope perhaps I may be speaking for others who are similarly puzzled.

I am not sure about the 'second chance' idea. It should not be necessary.

Eve

:) Samatar - further to your response can you tell us how long the 'set time' is that new images remain 'new images' before being automatically archived? Also how often they are reviewed for Permanence.

The reason why we have the voting booth and c-index is basically to bring out the better quality images to the frontpage and to the top of the galleries (when sorted by c-index). Some of the mods do use it as a guideline to perm the images, but that differs between the mods who do the job. The c-index typically does not determine which images are permed - the "originality" of the image also counts in so as not to have similar-looking images in the perms.

The c-index is still in the process of having it's kinks worked out, and we'll have to wait until more votes are being garnered per image (please take a deep breath and have patience and KEEP VOTING) before we see how it's working out.

All the c-indexes sitewise were wiped when the voting booth was instituted, and the older images in the perms have received theirs (sometimes again) through the booth now, but they were already in the perms by then.

A moderator may see something of merit in an image that makes it worthy of perm placement despite the c-index score which is not a totally reliable indicator @ this time. You also have to remember that the moderators are people who Caedes has chosen for the artistic knowledge and understanding, and the people who use the voting booth are well… not all of them are the kind considerate people you would like them to be. see here for more info on that one.

Most frequently, as Noor said, the reason some of your images may not make the perms, no matter how well received they were, is that they are in a category that is overrepresented. So unless there is something that is absolutely unique and stunning about your image, it won't make it because well… sorry hon… they got there 1st!.

That's one of the great reasons to have images archived to your personal gallery which allows people who like your other work which they see to go investigate what else you have… and now it's still there for them to see 8•)

Edit: Sorry Cat I was writing this when you posted your message.

Yes, but how can a high c-index image be seen on the front page or rise to the top of a gallery if it has already been archived?? The only way for these images to now be viewed, as I understand it, is by viewing a members personal gallery.

I seem to remember reading elsewhere that the mods used the c-index as guidance and perused the top 15% or so for inclusion into the permanent galleries. But I have become so confused I may be mistaken on that. Apologies if that is so.

Once again without meaning to sound 'petty' if images of high calibre are being archived, and they are, then so many interesting and good quality pictures will remain unseen, and sink into oblivion.

Every single one of us, if we are honest, will at some time consider one of our own pictures is more deserving of inclusion than another one, personal preference being what it is, and I do understand the difficult job the mods have to do. I would still be interested to know how often they are reviewed. This would be a help in considering our own images for deletion, if we knew that after a certain time there was no chance of them avoiding archiving.

The front page displays one random image from the perms (any c-index), and two images in the New Images gallery in the top 15% (c-index), so an archived image will not appear on the front page. It may have appeared there when it was in the New Images, before it was archived.

My apologies, I forgot to include something in my first post on this thread - an archived image can also be viewed using the Wallpaper Search feature.

No, there are a lot of images in the perms with pretty low c-indexes - as mentioned before on this thread.

I personally would agree on that all of us feel that we have images that were overlooked. I have very few images in the perms and I do feel maybe a few of my archived images were overlooked, but archiving them is a lot better than the old system of deleting them.

I'm not a mod, so I can't offer any input on your last comment - but yes, perming the images is a pretty tough task.

Thanks Noor for info that archived images are accessible through Wallpaper search. I was not aware of that.
I wholeheartedly agree that archiving is better than deletion.
I have just had notification that my ISP is is going to be unavailable due to upgrades What next, first my images get archived then my ISP goes awol lololol that was meant to be a joke. At least you will be free of my moans for a few hours :) :)
Just a final thought, I wonder if, as the Permanent Galleries are a showcase for the very best of the best, if at some stage there should be a purging of less than top standard images to make room for some more of the very brilliant talent I have seen during my short time here.

I believe that already happens on occasion.

A final final thought :)
Calling all Mods
I am a moderator on another site so am aware of the time and dedication it requires. I have also moderated on a fledgling Photographic site, where although my duties only involved approving images, once again, time consuming.
It can sometimes be a thankless task.
so
THANK YOU ALL MODERATORS
for the work you do, it is appreciated.

Noor, your statement above regarding images displayed on the front page saying "two images in the New Images gallery in the top 15% (c-index)" are selected is incorrect.
One of my images, Gone West, has just appeared there and its C-Index rating is 65. I am delighted to see it there :) :) but it only adds to my confusion.

nope… she's right… a c-index of 65 may well be in the top 15% of the scores in the new images gallery 8•)

I give up, I can't understand it.
If it says on my image it c- index is 65:100 so surely the top 15% would be 75:100 or above.
Please, if there is an explanation requiring me to think too hard, dont tell me :) I will willingly take your word for it and I apologise to Noor. Anything to do with numbers confuses me :) even more so at almost 1.30 am.
To keep myself sane I have banned myself from looking at my Caedes Control.
I think seeing 78 of my pictures archived all in one swoop may have sent me a bit further round the bend.

Keep myself sane ? lol. Perhaps it is just too late for that.

No worries =) These stats can get confusing at times. I don't mean to offend anyone with this, but it may be that the New Images gallery is more likely to have images with a lower c-index, so a c-index of 65 would be considered fairly high compared to the other New Images. Not sure exactly how it works.

I must admit I went just a tad bit insane when I saw almost my entire gallery had been archived =/ Okay, maybe more than just a wee bit =)

I third the vote in support of more moderators to increase the chances that all images will be evaluated/considered by moderators prior or archiving, regardless of c-index scores. Wen

All my images have been archived and it really kind of annoys me... especially since I've seen one of my images featured on the main page, but it was still archived! I don't understand that at all. If it's good enough to be featured, why is it archived? Or maybe I don't udnerstand featured images... I just know this is irritating.

Hi Erin, Images featured on the front page are 2 in the top 15% of c-indexes for the "new images" gallery, and one from the permanent gallery.

C-Index doesn't determine permanence however, it's only a general score. Moderators choose which images are promoted to the permanent gallery, and sometimes really good images don't make it because they are in an already well or over represented category. Unfortunately this means that cuz the other suckers got there 1st, you have to work even harder to make your images in those categories unique and really shine. 8•)

Keep trying… you've got some nice stuff in your gallery. I have every confidence you'll make it there. 8•D

Thank you so much Cat! I really appreciate your response and knowing all that because I didn't understand how the featured images were working. Plus, what you said makes me feel... better... about my photos... I guess like everybody I just want my work to be noticed and it's frustrating sometimes. But again, thanks so much.

I've got a few (very few) images in the permanant gallerys, and I can personally say that I think I'm glad that some of my images haven't made it in based on c-index. Unfortunetly, lately, some of my better work seems to have a lower c-index. The c-index, for me, is just an example of how people will abuse a system any way that they possibly can. Bias in the voting booth is nothing new, and I'm sure it won't ever be gone. I just hope it can be reduced somehow.

I am puzzled again - which is not unusual lol.
I was under the impression that works elevated to the permanent galleries were not archived but it seems this is not so, as on looking at my Caedes Control I see one of my permanent pictures has the archive * beside it.
Am I wrong yet again???

Alas, I have to say that you are right, and that it shouldn't be marked as archived...unless *caedes started to archive the permanant galleries....

How puzzling - a mistake . . . . . . ?

Finale Photography->Sunset/Rise * 13 126 78 60 57

Anyone else throw any light on this one ")

Further to the above I have now noticed that every single one of my pictures EXCEPT the permanent ones have been archived - fair enough, but I am a tad upset that a 'permanent' has gone the archive path as well.

Off to cry myself to sleep now :)

I would PM Piner or Caedes, and ask if there was a mistake...I'm sure they would be happy to fix it; Or they may have decided that the gallery that picture was in was over-saturated with that kind of picture...either way, I'm sure you'll at least get an explanation.

chances are it is a case of the latter explanation from Tim - occasionally the perm galleries do get a bit of a weeding out in order to keep things fresh.

Certified organic...no preservatives!

I pm'd *Caedes yesterday and will let you know the outcome :)

still crying . . . . . . .

9 days on - still crying :( . . . . . . .

"Further to the above I have now noticed that every single one of my pictures EXCEPT the permanent ones have been archived"

All images that aren't moved to the permenant galleries are archived, so that makes perfect sense.

As for one of your images that was in the permenant gallleries being archived, as Phil explained the perms are cleaned out every now and then, they have to be otherwise they would continue growing exponentially. We want the perms to display the "best of the best" so to speak so every now and then it is necessary to review them and remove some that aren't considered up to par any more. Those that have been around for a while will remember the great spring cleaning when many hundreds of images were removed from the permenant galleries as they had simply grown too large... the perms are permenant in name only, you shouldn't expect that every image that get's moved there will remain indefinitely. I hope this answers your question.

Well said Sam and as your talent grows so do the quality of your images. That is why it is a great idea to go to your gallery every so often and get rid of those images that don't reflect your current talent level. Makes spring cleaning so much easier on everyone. Showcase your best!

Thank you for that concise answer. I have stopped bubbling now and it was not a great picture anyway, with a ci of only 60. At least it had its moment of glory.

What to cry about now? . . . . my all time favourite pic which achieved 82 ci not even getting a look in.

I have begun my own purge - 3 down and heaps to go. :)