Usually, I don't care much about the c-index rating, but I've heard lately that some members had a 20 points drop on the c-index after several hours or a day. I know that mathematically, it takes a lot of very low points to make a good rating take a dive like this...So, what's happening? Thank you for the replies.

I'm not going to get involved too much in this thread, I've been over the c-index for awhile now...but I just wanted to say that this has happened to me recently as well...

Well, I can see this is not going to make me a lot of friends ... however, undaunted ... I shall try to answer Josette's query.

You ready? Both eyes open now, please ...

How the C-Index is calculated:

<--- Votes showing up in your Caedes Control, found to the left or thereabouts ... as in, number of at any given time in the intial voting period on an image are not necessarily factored into the number/score.

The score is calculated and adjusted only once in a 24 hour time frame. Typically, at or in and around 8 - 8:30 in the a.m. EST. It does not fluctuate throughout the day. Calculated, adjusted only ... once. That's it.

So, continuing on with our infamous number ... an example, using the Caedes Control to illustrate how the 10 - 20 dips happen (get ready lynch mob):

Image gets uploaded ... starts to accumulate some votes, a score is not shown until this number reaches 8 or so ... here is the actual figures from an image of mine; "Still", that is a rework of another artist's wonderful photo:

Your Caedes.net Control Panel:

Image.........................Gallery........Votes...Views...Dlds...CI†...RCI‡

Still - Rework ....new images->Rework..17......67......31.....44.....40

Those are the actual numbers. Initially, the CI score was 40. That was adjusted this morning when other votes cast were factored in and then adjusted and now the image sits at 44.

Further on the 10 - 20 point drops. And this has been explained many, many times ... do a search of the forums using the term(s) "C-Index" and read for yourselves the complaints, arguments, at times; rational debates et al.

During the initial period of voting, wellll ... your 'friends' are indeed the ones most likely casting the votes that weigh in on the intial number that gets reported. Typically, it is higher. And until the first adjustment occurs ... you see this number and feel good about your image.

In some instances, there are still biases against certain genres, sizes of images and the litany of prejudices exhibited by some voters does not stop there. So, you may not see a high number.

Or ... your work stinks. Just kidding a bit. Although, in all seriousness I am sure we have all seen that one snapshot that has little artistic merit. Carrying on ...

Ok, I am stoked ... pumped, I knew that this was a great image!!, says you reflecting and basking in the warmth of a good C-Index score. Fast forward to the next day, in particular ... morning ...

Holy crap!! What's going on here!! My image that had a 92 is now at 78!! Life and the whole darn thing is unfair and I am a victim of a corrupt system!!

Well ... no. Not really. What happened is now votes from those outside those that you know are starting to be factored in.

More importantly, those voters that tend to be high voters ... meaning that the scores they hand out in the booth and that have shown a pattern of assigning higher than expected or what statistically would occur ... scores ... have had their weight in the matter ... adjusted.

Think about it, what are the chances ... the probabilities ... that if you went through an extended vote time in the booth, that alllllll the images you see were worth, oh let's say ... 7's and 8's??

Statistically, that doesn't happen. The images you get in the booth are randomized enough that you should ... should get a spread of quality.

And if you read the comments on images, you can see that there are some members that do tend to vote on the high side. Nothing wrong with that, that is, if you are aware that these votes usually result in that number that made you feel good ... and unfortunately, you let validate your art and determine your worth as an artist.

Seasonal variations.

Happens.

Proliferation of a type of image ... results in voter apathy.

Happens.

Unknowledgeable voters in the booth.

Happens.

Get ... over ... it. And have some faith in the administration that a quality image is seldom overlooked. If deemed to be so ... you will have your time in the permanent galleries.

Leave your egos ... and foolish pride ... at the door. And enjoy your time here. Why would you not do that?

Changes needed? Make a suggestion.

Complaints about the voting et al? Don't speak about it unless you are participating.

/\ That's unofficial speak from yours truly. Easy to snipe from the sidelines. Answer me this question ... if ... if you that complain were the only ones doing the voting, would it be a better and foolproof system? Would the scores handed out, calculated, adjusted ... be the RIGHT and DESERVING scores?


Lynch away. :oD

I think you have explained the whole system perfectly Les. Thank you.

All very well explained Les - and all understood - except for this statement
"During the initial period of voting, wellll ... your 'friends' are indeed the ones most likely casting the votes that weigh in on the initial number that gets reported."
How is this ? - if the images are random - how would my 'friends' get preferential access to vote on my images in the initial period? I only occassionaly recognise images from those on my friends list when I vote and that is mainly due to their distinctive style or subject matter. They most certainly do not get higher votes because they are recognised.
I hope I am entitled to speak because at the moment I am not participating - hope I qualify by virtue of past votes :) And anyway it is not a complaint - just a query.
(As for my ego left at the door - I dont have one any more.)

:) :) :)

Hmm, ok ... not sure why you would think that you are not entitled to participate in whichever regard you choose to Lyn, however, I shall try to answer your question.

friend (frěnd)
noun
A person whom one knows, likes, and trusts.
A person whom one knows; an acquaintance.

The 'friends' I was referring to may be those who you know, like, trust, as well as, a certain number of members, active ... that I would think qualify as being familiar. Perhaps, even acquaintances.

I believe it is a fair statement and would bear out statistically, that those active members have a high probability of getting your images in the voting booth due to their level of activity.

I believe it is a fair statement and one that would be supported statistically, that the images one would get in the voting booth are correlated to said same members due to their active status, referencing frequency and number of posts.

The 'others' I was and am referring to once again here, are those members that are not as well known. Not as active, in either postings/commenting/voting et al.

Fluctuations occur. There might be an 'influx' of newer members due to seasonal variations and ie. holidays, school breaks, etc ... at certain times of the year.

The randomness in the booth I was referring to was said in light of both; images from a member's postings standpoint ... which correlates once again to that which is mentioned above regarding numbers and activity ... and then, quality.

Have I answered your question?

And an aside ... Hayley Westenra - "May It Be" ... one of, as I discovered, New Zealand's own daughters. I find her music to be a good accompaniment to many activities. Such as, the calming clicks of a camera. :o)

You should be proud of her, and I am sure that you are ... she has a truly wonderful, and as I have been describing it ... angelic voice.

Cookie? Still have a few chocolate-covered shortbreads here and I would be more than happy to share them with you. :o)

"Complaints about the voting et al? Don't speak about it unless you are participating."

above was what I was referring to :) I am not voting just now, but took the liberty of speaking anyway.

Hayley Westenra - have a couple of her cd's and saw her in concert - she is one of my all time favourites We are all very proud of her in NZ..

I think you answered my question :)
Have just made a cuppa so will be happy to share a cookie or two. Will put Hayleys' cd on :)

Back to original subject - I think most people have experienced 'the plummet' - sometimes it is more noticeable when a flock of plummets arrives at once (not to be confused with plovers) It can be disapppointing when one has been preening oneself (keeping the bird theme going)on attaining an 88 with 16 votes to discover the following day 17 votes = 62.

Personally I find comments, whether one word or 50 are more encouraging than any number. An thats what its all about - encouragement. The fact that an image that gained a c-index score of 39 is in the Permanent Galleries proves without a doubt that it is not the main criteria for selection. Perhaps I should not have mentioned that - it may have been a mistake that it got there. :)

http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=LynEve-1183470435.jpg

Makes up for the 30+ images I have with scores in the 80's that are archived.

They are just numbers.

I'm glad you said this Lyn, and I quote from your above words;

"... on attaining an 88 with 16 votes to discover the following day 17 votes = 62."

That 88 did not have all 16 votes factored in, nor any adjustments. I would almost be certain of that. The 88 could have been on 11, 12, 13 ... whichever and whatever permutation and combination.

And I am not trying to be insensitive to the fact that some numbers do drop significantly when allll is said and done. Truly.

To be clear here, I don't wish for some to get the impression that one or two, or let's say a modicum number of votes are causing these drops. That is simply not the case at all. And yes, adjustments account for some downward changes, as well as, some upward movements.


You saw Hayley?? I am envious. If you do see her again, please inform her that I wish to bear her children. I will ... "make it so".

:oD

It's ... uh, a bit of an inside joke everyone. And simply a joke. :o)

My advice would be to try holding off looking at the c-index until it's had a week or so to normalize.

That is good advice Sam - but - it IS nice to view the comments on an image and it is impossible to ignore the numbers.
If it were possible to delay the showing of the c-index number until it has normalized after all votes are cast, then I believe this would prevent a lot of confusion, angst, annoyance and misunderstanding.

Les - I only said it can be disappointing when it happens - even when one understands the reasons behind it. I can empathise with anyone who feels this - I have felt it myself - but I dont let it bother me. Hiding the index until it is finalized would seem a simple and common sense solution. But of course I do not know the mechanisms - perhaps it is not simple.

I wasn't going to weigh in on this because these threads are always lose/lose no matter what... but having said that, I sympathize with your feelings 100% Josette & I agree with you to a certain extent Lyn.

There's no way to avoid looking at the c-index when you read the comments, sorry guys, it just ain't a happenin' thing. And while I tend to blow off the numbers anymore, taking into consideration where they're coming from... here... I admit to a fleeting sense of disappointment that they're not better.

And yes, I know that someone's going to pop with a "well gee Lauren, then you know what you need to do then, don't you, to get a better c-index score ? Make better fractals girl !" That's my particular bete noir, & no one else's.

As for Josette's question, the one that started this thread.... I don't have an answer. All I know is that it so far, *fingers crossed* hasn't happened to me. It could be as simple as a bunch of newbies not appreciating some art or just being very impatient with the voting & slamming through it as fast as possible.

And just not caring about the artist or the image & just giving low votes across the board just to get out of it as fast as possible or maybe as a form of silent protest.... in a mean form to my way of thinking. But this is all speculation on my part though.

So all I can say Josette is don't take it personally hon, you make great fractals & I think you should just keep posting them !! I'd be disappointed if you did !

Well personally I don't look at the c-index when I check my comments, but only because I don't think of it at the time. Maybe it just takes a while to develop an immunity :-P

Thank you all for that informative discussion. This query was not for me, but for a friend that felt hurt by these drops...As for me, I'm not distressed by lower marks - I don't expect to create masterpieces all the time, nor do I feel defined by the number. :)

c-index = nothing

i have pics with low c-index that get into the perms.. and pics with high c-index that get archived.

at this point i don't see the point of c-index at all. other than to add confusion and anger.

...

I can confidently say that I can predict my c:index fairly accurately before it even posts because in the more than two years I have been here, I have experienced the way folks vote and learned to one degree or another what their preferences are. I know that many look at the images only in thumbnail and vote only on initial 'feeling' and the only time they actually see the image up close is in the voting booth for a few seconds.
So, how can many of those votes be fair or fairly critical?

But back in December '07 and January '08, I thought there was discussion of changes to the site and folks were asked for input. It was my impression, maybe I misunderstood, that there were some changes to the voting, setup, etc. coming to the site. I don't hear any mention of that anymore.

It is a shame that the c-index has now come to represent a fairly worthless number, at least in my opinion. I agree with vlad421..Perhaps it would be better if this feature was simply done away with. If it is not an accurate representation of the quality or even the popularity of an image, why have it? Especially as it is causing so much distress among the members. To me, what speaks most are the comments. They have far more meaning than an arbitrary number.

I post things all over the internet.Most places I post that have a ratings system seem to rate my stuff about the same as here.Some places a bit higher some places a bit lower but over all its in the same ballpark.The main difference between here and some other sites is if a person "works" the site where they post they can get a higher rating.That's pretty much been removed from the equation here.
My advice is if you are really wanting to see how your stuff rates then goto a place where nobody knows you and post some stuff,a good place to post is artgroups that have their own websites.But be warned some places are brutal as hell.

True tbob, but if you have to post on a different website to receive a more "true" response, I think this further emphasizes the point that the c-index on Caedes is not a reliable, accurate representation of an image's quality nor a photographer's skill.

Just so no one thinks otherwise, I am in no way trying to "bash" Caedes. I love it here :) I'm simply saying that the rating system is not an accurate representation. I'm not angry about it, I just have learned not to judge the appeal of my work by it. Perhaps this is what happens when you try to assign a rating number system to art. It just doesn't seem to go hand and hand :)

Instead of trying to fix the c-index, which I am not sure is a realistic possibility, I would love to see it be taken out of the equation and see us move towards expecting honest feedback in the way of constructive comments.

But even if this doesn't happen, I still truly enjoy my time here at Caedes. I think four years as a member can testify to that...I love this community!

IMO the rating system here is a total mess. I've had images drop by more than twenty points with just a couple of votes. The c-index thing should be dropped altogether. Until this system changes I'll just be watching from the sidelines.

Not to sound ignorant (I'm kinda new :), but what is the c-index, and how is it raised or lowered? If none wants to go into a bunch of detail over this, could someone please direct me to somewhere I can find out? If, however, I do get a nice (preferably somewhat easy to follow) answer. Thanks a ton!

Edit: I was browsing the site and I discovered how you can vote for images. I guess this mostly answers my question, although I am still curious about how the c-index plays into anything... What effect does it have other than showing how people rate your picture, if any?

Most, if not all, of the answers to your questions Illusionz ... are contained in the posts on this thread.

See and wade through the above. :o)


"... although I am still curious about how the c-index plays into anything ..."

Use it as a simple gauge would be my counsel.

And it does serve some purpose in allowing visitors to the site to sort the galleries. Much like how most other sites have a similar functionality in place.

Ok, thanks. I think I have a pretty good idea of how it works.