I wonder, if there is any price on caedes, for the lowest
"C-index" ever ?
After 15 votes, the C-index of my 'masterpeace'
'Teach your children' is worth a lousy 2 (two) points!
That means for example: 14 times a zero(0)
And from one person a two (2)...,Very much appreciated, "unknow person"!
What I like to know from you, is this really as bad, that it deserve only '2' points?
John

EDIT
6 hour later!
Yippee!!!!!!........C-index=17 !!!!! (lol)
Riddle riddle: yet still 15 votes......!

the score probably isn't from 14 votes as they are calculated only once per day whereas the votes appear as they are cast. regardless of that though - 2 is a ridiculous score.

I must be being really slow, but I just can't figure out where you find the scores on your photos, or how the system works out.

Shewolfe? Don't try is my counsel.

Our infamous number is a gauge ... a simple one at that. Use it as a guide, not as an indictment.

John?

2 is ridiculously low.

I really like the idea and concept.

And since you are here, as am I (<--- little joke) ... I hope you don't mind as I have a suggestion for you, food for thought ... and it is this ...

Would have loved, if permitted ... for you to have closed in tighter on that of the children's expressions. The angle is great, the lie of the brushes in their collective hands serve to guide you to the literal canvas and so on ... just thinking here to elevate it a little more ... could be accomplished from moving into the shot.

Annnnd ... I do agree to an extent with your friend Cornelius, in that your image is a tad, a touch dark. May be a question of artistic licence on your part, and of course I can respect that.

But 2??

An anomaly. Happens. I am sure it will adjust somewhat and bear in mind, for whatever reason ... 'people' photographs do not generally score as well.

To reiterate ... I like it. A few minor adjustments and it would go from good to great in my mind.

Sadly, a C-index of 2 really isn't an anomoly, I've received, as have others, single digit scores. It's not a great feeling, so whomever it was that handed it (them) out. congrats, you've succeeded in making folks feel crummy. :o(

Thanks, Rob!
John

I got you beat, John. How about a "1"? It's what one of my photos got. Not a 'great' photo but the horizon was straight, it was in focus and the color saturation was good. So why a "1"? Why not something in the minus range? And yes, it succeeded in making me feel really crummy. I can't imagine giving out a "1" except as an insult.

End of my discussions about c-indexes. I had to get that one out. Now it's over. Zip. Zilch. Nada mas.

Mary, congratulations!
You are the winner of the caedes lowest C-Index price!
Or is there......?
John

Nah... Can't be anything lower... or maybe..... nah, I won't even go there. ;-)))

Aaah! Another forum about our favorite topic: the c-index!!!
John: I don't know if your are often visiting the Voting Booth. But if you do it, you'll receive a panel of images, each different from others.
When voting, you can't read any comment from the author, then the only criteria is the beauty of the image and the quality of the composition.
Your 'Teach your children' is not really an artistic image. It just tells a story and this story is not available to the voter.
That's all...

Mary: your lowest image is Hopi wisdom with a c-index = 18...
All your landscape keep higher votes.

Already time for Elephant Graveyard... :-/

Pierre is wrong. I deleted the photo that got a "1", the reason being, I felt pretty damn humiliated! I am delighted that Hopi Wisdom has made it all the way to 18... it started as a 6. To be honest, I thought it wouldn't get that high.

Look at the name of this thread. As far as I know you can't get any lower than a "1"... right? Is there anyone here who can admit that a "1" is ridiculous? That's all I'm asking for.

mary

one time .. when visiting "Fisherman's Wharf" in San Francisco .. friends and I couldn't afford the big name restaurants and so we "settled" for a place right across the street .. "the Blue Marlin", I think

the food and service were SO BAD that we left a dime for a tip (it was part of our change, we just left it on the table) ..

we didn't even make it out of the restaurant before the lady went to the table and discovered our "tip" ... she launched into a vocal tirade, hurling Asian curses at us till the cows came home

none of us have been able to have children since then

Now I'm getting competitive. Y'know how in "Hearts" you can win by amassing all the "bad" cards? Suddenly, I need a 0.

Who's with me on this?

Lolol.

Wellll ... I think this is an anomaly of how the two indexes are calculated ... however, in the initial period of a posting ... a value for the RCI seems to get assigned before any voting has been taken into consideration.

And I can't quite remember the exact score on an image of mine, but Mary's "1" seems to ring a bell.

"Is there anyone here who can admit that a "1" is ridiculous?"

Of course it is Mary.

So ... give some ... some adjustment time, for the scores to sort themselves would be my counsel.

Thank you, Les.

This is a bit old to revive, but I think it is interesting. My lowest c-index picture is "Simpleton Placeholder" @ 11. It is also my 5th most downloaded image ahead of shots in the 50's and 60's. So just because there happens to be a lot of people that don't like it, doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people who do, just that they didn't happen to vote on it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the c-index your image gets is a reflection of either the quality or popularity of your image. The system puts some unfathomable weights on each voter's vote which essentially renders it meaningless.

Well, since almost everyone with a "&" or a "+" in their name constantly re-iterates the uselessness and insignificance of that "number", why is it still being used?

Since it's not (supposedly) the gauge for placing images in the perm gallery, and it's not to be seen as a measure of quality or popularity (I'd disagree to the latter..strongly), what then, is it's purpose?

Just do away with it, and use comments. That, more than any other single thing, would go leaps and bounds in the direction of building a stronger Caedes community.

Comments?

(*votes on the above statement by coloring in a dot and clicking a button*)

(*waits for the page to refresh to see who made the statement*)

(*snickers to self*)

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the presence of a "&" or a "+" means anyone (other than we) takes us seriously. I think we all get those in front of our names if we just hang around and harass people long enough. It's clearly not an indication of intelligance.

Ahem!

Regmar, my mention of the various symobls referred to you guys as representing the site, carrying out, and enforcing the rules, regulations and policy here. In other words, you're voicing the site's official position. Wasn't meant as an assault, slight, etc. So I'll readily apologize if it was taken as one.

*makes an exception, and assaults Keith for his ill-timed irreverance* ;-)

the short answer is .. it's still being used because *caedes wishes it so .. and that's not meant to be a 'smart alec' reply ...

either he:

1). does not wish to change it

2). does not have the time to code something else

3). or something deeper and wiser than a mere mortal such as I can ascertain


we used to joke, nervously, that this was all a college thesis project .. a psych evaluation for what people do when they have a button to push .. I think college is behind him now, possibly he was recruited directly from his graduation line, capped+gowned, into the CIA to continue his studies

having GOOGLE collect your surfing habits, or your CABLE\TIVO collect your TV viewing habits all goes into a folder on you, sections 4 + 12 respectively ... but section one is labeled .. PROJECT CAEDES

either that, or .. by Quentin Tarantino, for a movie script

Oh boy. I guess my little joke fell awry. No offense taken, Rob. It hadn't occurred to me until just now. No I was just trying to suggest that in the discussion groups unless we're stating official Caedes policy (and the "&" in front of my name most assuredly does not give me the authority to do so) what we have to say carries no more weight than what you or anybody else has to say. Your opinions are just as valuable as anyone else here, my friend.

Huh. I just wanted a few new wallpapers...

-M

I thought a c-index of 15 was bad (with 17 votes), see my 'Goth Faerie No.1'. But the whole c-index thing makes no sense anyway.
As most of you will know (if you've seen any of my images or my gallery), I'm mainly a 'Digital Artist'. However, I have posted 3 photos, out of a total of 54 images.
Guess which images have the highest c-index?
Surprise, surprise... it's a PHOTO - 'Bassenthwaite Lake (Hill View)', at a c-index of 77!
Second highest(joint)is... a PHOTO - 'Bassenthwaite Lake (Shore View) with 61, matched by a digital image - 'It's 7 O'Clock'.
Not bad for a 5MP, point-and-click digital camera.
Did I mention that I mainly do 'digital art'? Or did you all get stuck at the word PHOTO lol.

I got a 4 HERE , but that's what I was after!! Yeah, I'd have been upset if it gotta 5 or more...

8~O

Beat that!!

The c-index is really flawed and needs to be revamped ASAP it seems to be how many friends you have not the image that matters!!!!