Am I the only one who feels as if the voting system on here is not anywhere near a true voting system? I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how some of the photos I post score so low and others that are similar, or not even as good, score so high. I am really starting to think that it would be a good idea to have people choose categories they would like to vote on and submit votes only for things they can relate to and give a good, honest evaluation. What I mean is, I love to shoot birds, but a person who does not like birds may have no idea how difficult it is to achieve some of the shots or, for that matter, what a great bird shot should even look like, and then score it low for lack of knowing any better or even caring at all. It would be great if bird people could vote on bird shots, sunset people on sunsets, fractalists on fractals, etc. It's very upsetting sometimes to post a picture that is obviously very good and end up with a 50 or 60, or even a 35, which, to me, is totally unacceptable and an unrealistic depiction of the quality of a photo.

oh crap, the bug bit a new victim...

Robert, a lot of members, including myself have been alternately annoyed, frustrated, confused, offended, and indignant by low scoring images. It's not perfect, but part of the reason, as you indicated, is the voting body itself. Look through the posts if you get a chance. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and wont change until a) people pull their heads out of their butts while voting, and b) those that CAN implement change, actually do so.

'Nuff said. Thanks, Rob.

I agree with you Robert.

Thanks, Gregg :)

Robert: we are a lot here to be a fan of your birds captures and many of them are moved in the perms. Is it not the best recognition?

Something to consider: Many people consider that the system of voting for the government in their country is unfair/fundamentally flawed/doesn't give the correct result. So... entire nations with billions of dollars and hundreds of years to get a voting system right can't do it but people seem to expect that one person running a website for a few years should be able to?

Maybe we will just have to accept that there is no such thing as perfection...

Thanks for your comments, Pierre and Sam. Pierre, while it is nice to have images in the permanent gallery, I honestly do not think the ones that belong in there ARE there. Even if you look at the C-index of the ones accepted, the number is not great on many. That decision is not made by all of my peers, either, from what I understand, but by a few people.

Sam, I agree wholeheartedly that it is not easy to accomplish, and while I do not expect perfection, which is impossible to achieve in any field, it should be closer to perfection than it is. I think this is a great site, but people are being misled if they think the C-index represents the quality of an image. Sometimes it does ... sometimes it doesn't.

the fact that a given c-index is not made by your peers .. is exactly how *caedes wanted the system to work ..

in the beginning, the voting was done on the image's info page .. so, therefore, only your peers that were drawn to the image voted on it .. scores were often in the high 80's - 90's .. fractal enthusiasts voted up fractals and flower enthusiasts voted up flowers, etc

in an effort to give a more realistic score, and to prevent vote-rigging, (yes, it happens) the current system was set in place .. by allowing non-enthusiasts to vote on your image it tempers the WOW factor of friends with a little HO-HUM of "the man on the street" ... and averages out to be a more sound figure

yes .. we have had no contentment

while some claim to see the logic in the theory .. others have speculated on conspiracy theories plotted against them


I am certainly in no position to speak factually on the future of caedes.net .. but, it wouldn't surprise me if change came ... someday

The "Perfect" Voting System .. by caedes 09/7/05 9:55

I hope it does change, Keifer, because, as far as I am concerned, what people are seeing in the C-index is not always a true representation of the quality of an image, and until that is remedied, I will take the C-index to mean nothing. I will surmise that if they had a great day, the voters will give my image a 10 and if they had a crappy one they will give it a 5. That's the only logic I can come up with here, because the scores don't add up. Some of the people voting should be downright ashamed of the scores they hand out, too.

If you check it out, there are not many people who DO vote in the VB. As I suggested once before, if 'everyone' who posts were required to vote on ten images for each upload, then the diversity of voters would change and the index might more closely resemble the number the image more truly deserves. May I ask how many images you have voted on this past week, Robert?

I have a question, if I may...sorta related and sorta not. I don't mean to divert this thread.

"Caedes is a close community of artists, designers, and photographers who share their work through the medium of computer desktop wallpaper." << that's on the main page as well as "Caedes Desktop Wallpapers" in the upper left.

Anywho, I do vote and maybe I'm wrong but my overall thing I look at is "would it make a nice desktop wallpaper". Whether it be a photo, fractal, CG, etc. I try to absorb the different components; comp, lighting, colors, placement, flame integrity, yadda, yadda, yadda..whatever I'm looking at be it a fractal, photo, CG or other. Then I ask myself, "self", does this make a suitable desktop wallpaper and rate it from all those aspects. The site, to my understanding, was and still is a desktop wallpaper site...right? I post many images that I simply want to share and that I think are OK, yet, wouldn't make a nice desktop wallpaper and would think the score should be less. Other post of mine I do try to incorporate it for utilization as an actual desktop wallpaper.

I was just curious as to others if when they vote think about all aspects of what they're looking at as well as it simply being used as a desktop wallpaper??

Thanks!! And again, I hope I haven't steered this thread in the wrong direction.

~swerves back onto the pavement~

I have always factored that in .. and have used it as a rationalization to others when they ask why their photos are not fairing too well

the size allowances, made recently, confuse that argument a bit .. but I feel it is still a valid point

Caedes said he changed the sizes that could be uploaded to allow for widescreen wallpapers AND non-wallpaper 'artistic' images. And I disagree that if the image is not totally suitable for a wall paper that it should get a lower score. That makes no sense.

~takes foot out of mouth~

Dang!! So it does say that!! I should read what the man writes from time to time. 8~D

~stands by Keith and watches our theory fly out the wind~

Men!... Just kidding!

Yeah!! Men are sick!!

8~O

I'm not sure either one of us said they should get a lower score .. or that we score them lower

we said we think like electrons arranged in a horizontal rectangle while perusing the pixels .. and flexing our pectorals

we are men, after all ..

Randy suggested the score should be less if the image didn't seem to make a great wallpaper.
"I post many images that I simply want to share and that I think are OK, yet, wouldn't make a nice desktop wallpaper and would think the score should be less."--Hottrockin
I guess he was referring to his own images there.
Men aren't sick, Stewie, they're just...just...well, just men.

That is what I meant until I read you rebuttal. Perhaps I need to re-configure my voting ways.

~heads to the dark side~

8~)

Hey, what did you do with Stewie? He's cute!

Cynlee, how does one know how many people vote by going to the voting booth? And what difference does it make who votes? We are all supposed to be artists, right? Each artist should be responsible for their own ability to judge an image, no? I try to vote on 40 images at a time a couple of times per week. I take EVERYTHING into account when I vote on an image. I can appreciate a good fractal as well as a good bird shot, and I hand out nines once in a while on them. I hand out very few tens on anything. I feel that I am always fair, though, no matter what the subject is.

Hi Robert, I just wanted to say that if people want others to vote and spend time considering the merits of their photos, then they should be expected to vote on other people's images as well. I know it takes time to vote and I don't do it every day either. But, I thought that if everyone had to vote on 10 images for every upload they are allowed to make, including the votes the non-Caedes cadre members make, then there would be more input into the voting system and with more people voting, the chances of a fairer c:index that is more in line with the merits of a given image increases. No one has commented on the merits of that idea, so I assume that not much is thought of it.

The voting booth doesn't show who votes or how many times, however, The Most Active Members Portal gives an idea of the top 100 people on the site who are uploading, commenting & voting. ::legster69, ::legster69, well I've looked through the list twice and don't see you on there. Perhaps I've simply missed your name, if so...all apologies.

The thought of "MY" image is good, is STILL opinonated..by you yes whilst others may have a differencing opinion. You say potato, I say potato...you get the drift. Just because YOU think it's great, doesn't make it great for others. YOU have an outstanding gallery...I've thumbed through it!! You & I like it...that doesn't mean it's great or even good. The next three people may say "ick"!! YOU know what you're doing, but again, that's you. Others may know more or more likely less than you, but, that doesn't make them wrong. IT is in the eye of the beholder no?? Do your thing, 'cause it's great for YOU, not others.

ps: The green diffused glow on "Steppin'" is totally rockin' dude!!

Perhaps a more intricate voting system?? Instead of 0 - 10. Possibly have 4 to 5 categories which can be picked 0 - 10??

Composition 0 - 10
Originality 0 - 10
Colors / Color Selections 0 - 10
Use as a desktop wallpaper 0 - 10

Just some thoughts + all the above would work in regards to photos, fractals, CG's, etc. I just tossed'em out there, they could be tweaked of course, but, they'd need to be tweak to absorb ALL artwork uploaded.

~unsubscribes from thread~

Legster69 is 44 on that list you mentioned, Randy. I have looked through your gallery too, Robert and I like what I see there, I just don't always get your images when I am voting.

Randy, you know, even if I were not one of the top 100 active members, my point would not be diminished. I do what I can on this site, including trying to post at least one image a day. Not every person has the capability of being in the top 100, obviously. I won't say that my pictures are all great, but they are all at least good, and good to me means at least a 70. None of my images deserves a 38. Granted, not everyone thinks the way I do, but to not know a good image when you see one is a really bad thing, as far as I am concerned, and it's a slap in the face when at least 10-15 of the voters out of 18, 19, or 20 vote an image a 3. That means that, collectively, there is agreement that one of my images deserves a 30, basically. Therein lies my problem. I suppose I will have to accept it or leave, so I will accept it. I will never understand it, however. Thanks for checking that, Cynlee. Now I am done with this thread.

I as well see Legster69 at 44...my appologies!! My bad eye...more so the scothch!! 8~O

I believe a fairer, more balanced indication of an image's overall worth could be obtained by the number of votes on each one being increased, perhaps doubled.
For the record, I can not shoot birds, and have proved it by trying, as some of you will know :) but I do not agree that this fact prevents me from recognising a good one, or appreciating the difficuly in getting it.
There will always be those who not not take the time to consider the degree of difficulty in each image, but in the end, does it matter? A difficult to get shot does not always result in a good one.(sorry ,change good to popular, there is a great difference.)

Believe it or not, some people think that flowers are 'easy' lol

hmmmpppffftt

Lyn, I was not saying that everyone cannot recognize a good bird shot if they do not shoot them. I was just throwing out possibilities. Of course, most people can spot a great image no matter what it is of, but there is always that chance you will get ten people voting who want nothing to do with a bird shot and know nothing about bird shots, degree of difficulty, what have you, and that's the way they prefer it. It is the luck of the draw in the voting booth then. That's what the problem I have is. It should have nothing to do with luck.

"hmmmpppffftt" ? - got a frog in your throat Keith ? :) :)

Robert - I agree, luck should have nothing to do with it, but as you point out there is always the chance "you will get ten people voting who want nothing to do with a bird shot", just as there is the same chance applying to (for instance) flowers, and they think "oh no not another flower". They do, and have admitted as much. Hence my thoughts on making the vote count higher, lessening the odds.
It takes only a couple of irrationally low votes to drag a good image down, and I believe as long as there is a voting system it will continue to happen. An overnight plummet when only a small number of votes has been cast is understandable but when the numbers have climbed and the same thing happens it becomes clear a very low vote, against the grain has occurred. It happens. It is disappointing. Its a fact of life.
Your category idea has merit, but only if each of us 'categorises' ouselves. I, for one, would not like to vote on just one type of image. Voting for and evaluating all types of images is an encouragement for many of us to experiment with other types and other genres.

I have viewed your gallery, you do fine work :)

Thanks, Lyn, for the compliment. I have recently noticed your work, and I think you are a fine photographer.

When I said we should have categories, I meant we should be able to pick from several different ones, not just one. For instance, I can give a fair vote on a bird shot, a landscape, a headshot, or a flower shot, but other than maybe liking the cool design of a fractal, I don't know much about them. I am not sure I know a good one from a really great one. And I actually feel bad for the flower people right now, because I have seen some really great photos of them with some really low scores, and I think that really sucks. Each image should be evaluated for how good it is, regardless of its category.

"Each image should be evaluated for how good it is, regardless of its category." That is exactly right..
Unfortunately a lot of people have tunnel vision when it comes down to this.. they don't care what the image is unless its what they do.. then 90% of the time you get those people complaining how unfair it is that their image didnt get a high rating etc.. they don't take into consideration that maybe.. just maybe others are thinking the same as they are and that their image isn't everyones cup-of-tea..

Hear hear.

I think care should be taken about differentiating between 'complaining' about a low rated image and questioning 'why' in an effort to improve. The Request for Comment forum is an ideal place for such questions but there is always the risk that a question may be seen as a complaint.I would use it more often otherwise, but when I have used it I have had thoughtful and helpful responses.
Like most of us I have had 'rubbish' scores on what I (of course lol) consider to be mini masterpieces at the time of uploading. Of course they are not,and although I do not consider the c-indexes the be-all and end-all of an image's worth it is useful to know what others opinions are. Sometimes they are disappointing.Sometimes, regardless of their score, they are elevated to the 'perms'.
Other times they are surprizing, depending on the whims of the voters, maybe even the weather, and what is at the time 'popular'.
Never ever I have I seen anyone ask why their image is voted too high, and what did they do right :)
I think perhaps it is not just a case of people voting low on categories they do not like or understand. There MAY even be (heaven forbid) those who vote low on their own speciality to boost their own scores. Something we will never know. Too nasty to contemplate? It takes all sorts to make a world and all sorts to make a web community, so it is a possibility.
All the rest of us can do is continue to strive to vote as fairly and as much without bias as possible.
And keep clicking and smiling. And learning,
remembering . . You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time(very rare !:) ), but you can't please all of the people all of the time. ...

Well said, Lyn :)

We did have the choice of what images to vote on when I joined this site early in '04.
We have those to thank who fouled it up so vigorously by cheating repeatedly. That is where our choices were removed.
Back then, the voting was done by personality rather than principles of photography/art.
No system anywhere is perfect. As long as humans are part of the equation here, there will be inconsistencies.

No system anywhere is perfect. As long as humans are part of the equation here, there will be inconsistencies.

my two Stormy Bridges shots can speak to that, Mimi. :|

But many thanks to those who had such kind words for them, at least.

I like the idea of breaking votes down so that people vote on different aspects of the image - composition, colours etc. I think this would help structure voting by helping voters identify key aspects. It would also require slightly more thought than I suspect some voters put in at present. Also, it would provide more feedback to artists even when voters fail to comment by giving people _some_ idea of which aspects of pictures went down well and which ill.

It would obviously take more time to vote, but I think it might be worth it. How well it worked would depend on how seriously people took it, of course. There's always the risk people would just say "flower" - 1,1,1,1... - but it might make more voters take the time to stop and really look at _this_ flower.

It might also help people, like me, who struggle when voting (and commenting on) lots of the images. There are many images which I just don't know how to evaluate fairly...

- cfr

Robert, it's become quite obvious to me that the c-index is simply not a reliable/valid index of image quality. I'm disappointed that more will not be done to address that, but it seems unlikely that such will happen (responses from site moderators on this subject make that quite clear.) More than a few good artists have ceased to post here as a result and, while I love the art on this site, the ongoing c-index issue has ultimately led me to invest less time and effort here. Abstract/Fractal art rarely scores above 50 here . . . With time, a number of good Fractalists have left as a result. People can say what they will, but average scores in the 30s to 40s just don't motivate people to want to share similar types of images here.

There's only one SCORE on ALL images - - the c-index score - - If it's not a reliable index of quality, then, in my opinion, it should not be posted or represented as such. As it stands now, it's an ongoing source of frustration for many, but it appears that it will continue to be posted, regardless of its unreliability. Wen

What is the preferred method of 'scoring' images on other photo sites that make them more enticing than this one? Since I really don't frequent any other sites, I am curious. Thanks for helping me out on this ;=)

well, at photosig.com, the distinction is made between a qualifying, and non-qualifying critique ("this sucks, is great, etc" would be non-qualifying). then it has a 1-3 thumbs up, and a 1-3 thumbs down, with an accompanying description of what each score signifies. there's also a separate, non-critique (no scoring) comments feature. it's monitored, and seems far more efficient than a simple 0-10 rating system, where arbitrary numbers could be, and most likely are, handed out. there's more. the author of an image can see who rated their images with what score, and can grade, in return, the critique as helpful, or non-helpful.

now, after I've spent this time and energy, who wants to place bets it'll be totally, and completely ignored by "management"? or just shot down, as seems to be status-quo...

thanks for taking the time to explain one system to me Rob. much appreciated. :)
So 1-3 thumbs is a scoring system and then on comments, what score you give an image is not anonymous..do I have that correct?
and who determines what is a qualifying comment and what is non-qualifying? :o)

the site has "admins", which seem to be counterparts to the mods here. it seems as though critiques and comments are posted immediately, then are scanned in groups for any "hiccups"

thanks again Rob. I am trying to figure out why some prefer other 'scoring' methods over this one, why scores carry so much weight & what makes other systems seem better :o)

hmmmmph!

hmmmm... "the scoring is NOT anonymous"... I can see so many problems on this site with that.. people get abused now when they give advice or a helpful critique.. and with all the complaints about the scoring now, I can just imagine the abuse when people find out who scored their images low..

here, TU's are thumbs up,and TD's are thumbs down. 3TD's usually go to images that wouldn't be allowed here (on Caedes) anyway.

3 TU's: Artistically and technically flawless
2 TU's: High-quality photo yet could be better
1 TU : Overall good effort but in need of improvement
1 TD : Uninspired and uninteresting
2 TD's: Seriously and irredeemably flawed
3 TD's: Offensive or repugnant

watching... listening.....so all of ours on Caedes are 1 TD

actually,no. I'd say the full spectrum is represented here...

Yes, I am fairly new to Caedes but it's been a couple of months anyway. I have to vote for every image I upload which I think is very fair. I truly like the VB, it gives me a pulse of the site as a whole because of the randomness of selection. I'm actually pretty stingy with my 10's. Nine is excellent work, ten is perfection.

I just like to get feedback on my creativity, I really don't care about my rating. Regardless if I make it into the "permanant archive" or not means nothing to me, I have it on my HD. By the time that decision comes along, probably no one is looking at it anyway. The big thing for me at Ceades is the feedback I recieve on my work.

Just my view of things and this view does not make the system fair. I just feel fortunate to have a sounding board for my creative output.

-mike-

~unsubscribes from thread~

~what Hottrockin said~

Ok, just trying to add some ... some perspective here ...

First, Robert ... I do think that your idea to segregate the voting pool does have some merit. The idea has been floated before and the objections that were and have been raised are not necessarily the ones that I would make mention of.

Me? I think it would be a coding nightmare for our webmaster. Revamping the code and then getting members to assign themselves to categories would ... in my humble opinion, impact on my next point as well ... and that is ...

... two; given that the voting booth is not ... well, this is a guess on my part as to actual numbers, but I do get the impression that 'not well attended' is an operative phrase here. Or ... could be better let's say.

So, it might ... might, if your idea was implemented ... dilute the numbers more so. And then, once again ... the smaller sampling would skew our infamous number more so.

What criteria would be used to determine who is qualified to vote on what? Personal preference? Leave it up to the members to decide? That won't guarantee the kind of quality and informed voting pool that I think you are suggesting.

It would still be prone to some manipulation and the other evils of voting that pop up from time to time.

Is the C-Index reliable?

Hmm, not quite sure ... it does, however ... to an extent, provide a simple barometer for those that wish to integrate it into their approaches to their work.

What I feel is the real issue is the lack of constructive criticism in comments posted and in the reviewing of images. The author is left guessing as to what and where the problem lies with their posted works.

And of course, if an image is wonderful, excellent ... nothing more needs to be said. But, I do think that by offering some personal thoughts, the root thinking and base that this site was created on ... could enhance the experience, particularly for those that are novices to whatever genre of art.

Sharing. Simply stated.

And yes, maybe I am a bit too idealistic or pollyannic in my thoughts and thinking here. However, I offer up my own personal profile page as evidence of the kind of impact that 'you' (collective you implied here) can have on others. This is a big part of my own personal enjoyment of our site. That dialogue between artist and viewer.

Annnnnd ... lastly ...

If you do have a suggestion, I would post it here.

You initiated a discussion ... and this might sound harsh, I don't intend it to be though ... to post a comment such as yours above ... wellll, good or bad ... views will be part of the deal, I think.

Making a statement as ambiguous as that ... isn't quite acceptable to me. Leaves too much room for interpretation.

And I don't think it was in response to Mikes' words, but it bothers me that a new member who is trying to contribute may come away with the thought that he did or said something wrong.

To tell the truth, that is what really prompted me to weigh in on the discussion here.

I think ... think I have said as much as I wanted to ... take my thoughts as you will. No personal affronts proffered, and certainly no slights intended.

That's the problem with this 'just words alone' medium ... I really feel you do have to spell it out ... or risk having your thoughts or words misconstrued.

I try ... try to avoid that.

With all due respect, Les, I really feel that I have the right to unsubscribe from a thread that I started. If you guys want to keep talking about it, go right ahead. I received my answer a while back. I am sorry if you are not satisfied with that. To me, the writing on the wall is that the voting system does not work. Maybe it is the best we can do for now, but sometimes that's just not good enough, unfortunately. I applaud anyone who creates a site. I know it must be difficult. Along with that, however, goes the fact that, although I feel the site is very good in many ways, it is NOT in others. I apologize to Mike if he took my comment to be evasive, but it had nothing to do with him. For the most part, I really like this site; otherwise, I would not be here.

Old people repeat themselves - my excuse for repeating my opinions of this much discussed topic.

Voting should be a privilege - given after certain criteria is met - perhaps length of membership or number of uploads (or commments for those who do not submit images but contribute by their observations and opinions) - personally I feel I was totally unqualified to vote fairly when I first joined this site, depite my sincere efforts.Once that privilege is gained then voting should be compulsory.

Secondly - the number of votes per image should be increased - 16 votes can not possibly give a balanced and fair indication of the worth of any picture.


Back to my slippers and cocoa . . . . .

Ok ... read the above postings since my comments and ...

Thanks Robert for your polite reply. I do appreciate it.

And I seriously meant that I didn't think, and now completely understand ... that your 'unsubscribing' from the thread was not done in response to Mike's posting here ... and of course, it is your right to do so. No qualms from me on that point.

I will reiterate though ... that those three words alone ... could be ... could be, misconstrued. That simply was the point I was trying to make. 'Nuff said. :o)

Lyn?

Welll, again ... reiterating ... discussions are for sharing ideas and thoughts. No worries.

And I don't say that to sound magnanimous or whatever. Just trying to be clear in the expression of my thoughts here.

Some very good suggestions have been made, and I would encourage all of you to post those ideas to the Feature Bloat / Bug Squash discussion pages.

My thinking here, however obvious this may be ... is that that is the one place where if a certain idea is put forth and if supported by a large enough group of people ... will get the attention of our webmaster and implemented when changes are addressed. 'Nuff said on that too. :o)

I already mentioned about higher numbers of votes in Feature Bloat / Bug Squash way back in December 2006 during another 'discussion'
Maybe I will go back and mention it again, along with my other thoughts.

Lyn, I happen to agree with the things about which you have spoken, for the record :)

:) Robert, I have posted it again in the Bug Squashing forum - it will be interesting to see of anyone else agrees :)

Time will tell :)

Robert, I appreciate your starting this thread -- and I also appreciate all the thoughtful comments that followed. I'm a newbie, and though I dutifully read the FAQ, some of the site's procedures and ... folkways? ... have stumped me. Little by little, I've been sorting things out, but this thread's been a good, fast class tonight.

What I like about the voting booth: It's a quick look at incoming photos I probably wouldn't check out otherwise. I learn a bit even from the bad ones because the voting process makes me think about why I'm inclined toward a certain score and not one up or down from it. (When just browsing, I'm more given to pass/fail (like/don't like) and to look only those I like at first glance.) In the booth, when the occasional 10er pops open, it about makes my day. I usually click through to see what the owner has to say about it and often have a little gush in a comment.

What I don't like about the voting booth: I had to invent my own meanings for the scores. Well, I like inventing things for myself, yes, but I sit there wondering what do people think a 5 should be? Average? Decent enough to be on the site? Five times decent enough to be on the site? Am I too stingy with 10s? Too hesitant about 0s? Issssh...

I'm sure we are indeed of many different minds about how to apply the scale, and I strongly agree with LynEve's suggestions that voters qualify for the privilege (instead of requiring it of newbies, for goodness sake, who are the least likely to vote with savvy) and that more votes be weighed for each pic. The variations in how the scale's applied by different voters would even out, perhaps quite a bit, if more votes were tallied.

Thanks for your input, Leslie, and welcome to Caedes :)

Thanks, Robert! Glad to be here. The scenery's great!

I like your suggestion that people vote on categories of their choice. I find it difficult voting on computer generated images, for instance.

If I might offer a suggestion, and this has been said before, judge what you see. Composition, lighting, colors, etc. Perhaps that might help.

Its not that hard to vote on generated images even if you have no idea on how its done.. i'm sure you can see if it appeals to your eye, do you like the colours, do you like the design... not hard to do..

It's the same for people who don't know photography.. ask yourself.. does it appeal to you.. is it blurry or sharp, are the colours good or washed out, does the exposure look ok... just to name a few ideas..

0=sucks 5=average 10=awesome the in-betweens=degrees of suckiness,averageness,or awesomeness depending on how close you are +or- to 0,5,10.

I fail to see why this is so perplexing.If you are continuously scoring low on stuff you post maybe people voting don't like it,mind you I didn't say it suck I said people that are voting on it didn't like it.If you are the kind of person that cares about that sort of thing then maybe you should re-evaluate your technique to accommodate your peers.

When I first started posting here people were brutal,if you uploaded something less than desirable you heard about it.

0=sucks 5=average 10=awesome

mind you I didn't say it suck I said people that are voting on it didn't like it.

actually, you just did. now,I've posted this image in the R4C forum, but I'm reposting it to make a point. The image in question is currently scored at 22. so, based on what you've said just now, it hovers just above the town of Suckville.

have a look at this strictly for purposes of this conversation. I'm guessing something isn't right.

Further, this statement:

"If you are the kind of person that cares about that sort of thing then maybe you should re-evaluate your technique to accommodate your peers."

is misguided to say the least. I've been following your last few posts in the threads. I'm not going to win any friends with this next statement, but someone needs to say it. Seems like you're seriously burned out, and as such, might be having a less than an optimally positive role as a site leader. Sorry dude, just calling it like I see it. Might be time to join the sidelines, perhaps.

0=sucks 5=average 10=awesome

Is my interpretation of the scale,that is based on how the scale has been used in my life since I can remember.

third_eye please explain your interpretation of the scale.

So you feel that image is as good or better than the other images in your gallery,even though most have a lot higher value?

yes, actually. it's not a "pretty" image, per se, but I feel it stands on it's own merit. I've lost count of how many images get comments like "wow, this is good. can't believe the score is so low". And if we're using that idiotic scoring method to determine the quality of an image, some of myhighest scoring work are images I'd consider little more than snapshots, taken for fun. And also, some of my highest scoring work has been archived, whereas lots of my "permed" stuff is in the 50-70 range. But you know..that last sentence in your post speaks volumes about your mindset. it's also in direct contradiction with what we're supposed to believe about how the C-index isused.

Quite honestly though, this isn't about me. I've already come to the conclusion that the majority of my work won't get a high score. This is a site-wide issue.

One last thing. The timing of your post seems a bit off. If you'd followed the continuity of the thread,you'd see the last few entries were advice given to a member who was unsure how to vote. So either you might want to brush up on your ability to pay attention, or you might want to consider the true motivation behind your comments. They come off as being somewhat inflammatory. And that, once again, leads me to think maybe the pressure of being a +mod has finally overcome you.

See once again what I have been saying all along rings true.You said "yes, actually. it's not a "pretty" image, per se, but I feel it stands on it's own merit" and that may be true but judging by the low C-Index the people that voted on the image don't agree with you.
You say "And also, some of my highest scoring work has been archived, whereas lots of my "permed" stuff is in the 50-70 range" which once again proves the point that things don't get moved into the perms gallery based on C-Index.

How exactly do you know what my mindset was when I posted that?If you are wondering Ill tell what it was when I posted. I was thinking about how after I was offering advice on the numbers you intentionally posted a link to one of your images with a low score to try and get me to publicly say it sucked.

You say my timing was off?You are right about the advice being given,Composition, lighting, colors, etc.I was explaining my interpretation of the actual numbers on the scale.

You say "Quite honestly though, this isn't about me" but I beg to differ.You obviously don't like being clumped in the average range according to my interpretation of the scale.So Im sorry I hurt your feelings.

"I was thinking about how after I was offering advice on the numbers you intentionally posted a link to one of your images with a low score to try and get me to publicly say it sucked.

You say "Quite honestly though, this isn't about me" but I beg to differ.You obviously don't like being clumped in the average range according to my interpretation of the scale.So Im sorry I hurt your feelings"

you're kidding, right? I'm not sure if you're projecting here, or if this is a reaction you're accustomed to receiving, but you're wrong, very much so, with both statements.

I will say it's unfortunate that a person in your position (on the site) is given to such pettiness. no wonder this site is hemmorhaging membership en mass. I'm done here.

Well, with an attitude like that, your sure to win everyone over to your point of view.

"...you might want to consider the true motivation behind your comments. They come off as being somewhat inflammatory."

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

honestly, if that's all you can contribute to this, perhaps you should've refrained from commenting.

"I'm not going to win any friends with this next statement, but someone needs to say it."

I may lose one w/my next, but I hope you really take this in the spirit that it's intended. Your anger is clearly showing through a number of your posts, and I think it's affecting your ability to both hear what's being said, and to debate about it in a manner that is not abrasive.

I'm sure it's not your intent Rob, but what I see coming through is not somebody who is trying to make a valid point, but someone who is becoming combative upon hearing something they don't like. While you may have valid reasons for your anger, please stop and think about whether your posts are going to get you the results you want in terms of this conversation.

It's very hard for someone to respond when they are feeling attacked, and what I'm seeing here is exactly the type of stuff that makes mods burn out and not want to respond, and indeed walk away from contributing period. Again… I'm sure that's not your intent, but it's what I see when I read through here. Please take this in the spirit which it's intended and not as an attack on you.

I'm sorry Rob, but I have to agree with Cat on this one. It seems to me that you are very angry with either the site in general or the mods in particular, judging by what I've read lately. If they don't respond they're ignoring you, and if they do respond they're attacking you. Who can have a viable debate or discussion like that ?

I also agree with Cat. And you have shown your anger on a few of my threads. I snapped back at you, then apologized in a pm to you. I got no response and that is why I removed you from my friends list. And I bet you will lose alot more.

Unless Rob asks for it as part of a larger discussion, I'd like to request people refrain from posting about this. My post was not meant as a bandwagon, and I'd really like it not to turn into one. Thanks one and all.

Time for elephant graveyard I think...

I'd agree, Pierre. After these last words, I won't add anything else.

I'm a bit disheartened, not that people disagree with me. Heck, I embrace that, as healthy debate. to suggest, more or less, that I start an argument, or become abusive because someone sees something differently than me is insulting.

If anything, I find myself becoming irritated (perhaps excessivly) at the fact that the actual point has gone unaddressed. Not just in this thread, and not just in threads where I've participated.

this last line in tbob's post, "You obviously don't like being clumped in the average range according to my interpretation of the scale. So Im sorry I hurt your feelings." is an excellent example. I could care less about someone saying (or indirectly implying) my work is "average". Everyone has their opinions. Lord knows I do.

It's when words or phrases are taken out of context, or whole statements are miscontstrued, and all due to someone neglecting to take the time to actually read what was written...that bugs me.

In the year or so that I've been here, I've seen horrible, shameful displays of temper, selfishness, stubbornness, and all sorts of other negativity. In a few cases, those displays were by long time members. yet rarely, if ever, are those members taken to task. they're appeased, patronized, or for the most part, ignored.

I took on what I saw was a legitimate issue, namely the burning out of certain mods, and the possible negative effect their attitudes can have on everyone else. Prior to that, in another thread, I tried making allowances for what I clearly understand as "simply too much". apparently, noone bothered to read THAT.

oh well. I gave a damn, and spoke out, rather than just piss and moan in PM's. I guess that's a sin here.

Rob, I think you've misunderstood a portion of what Cat was trying to say here. Her question was not whether or not you were raising valid points, but rather the manner in which you were raising them.
Sadly you do not seem to see yourself as angry and combative as you come across to others ... if multiple members have said that this is the way that you come actross to them, then you need to be aware that your words aren't having the effect you intend and you might need to reconsider how you phrase things. Maybe taking a look at things & phrasing them a little differently will allow you to make sure that your words are heard as you intend them, & your posts will be responded to as you would like them to be.
As far as other members not being taken to task on the site, I'm sorry that you feel that way. But it hasn't been my particular experience, in fact I can list any number of other members that it's happened to, including but not limited to Terri, Keith, Larry, Phil & by the way .... myself.

Yes, thank you. This is primarily what I was trying to say. I'm sorry if you feel insulted by people's perception, but I brought it up because being aware of it, it's a thing you can change. Not by not raising the issue, but knowing how it's been coming across will allow you to change the way you discuss it to produce the results you want - an open discussion.