I don't know about you, but I am starting to think that there is a real problem with the C-Index, and I am not blaming the formula...Math doesn't lie :)

I was thinking that maybe there are people just voting 0 just for kicks or something. I have seen a lot of images that are obviously good, but have rediculously low C-Indexes. I've even seen a work of Tracy's work that is a 69, but won 2nd place in a contest. What do you think could be the problem? I have seen a lot of accounts with 0 Karma, no gallery, and no posts on the profile. Please give some feedback, maybe it would help me and others out :)

Maybe you can link to some examples?

Sure:

http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=TRACYJTZ-1088811566.jpg

http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=DragoonEater-1093713678.jpg

http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=Thunderchicken-1072917963.jpg

http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=aljahael-1094034978.jpg

http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=Delusionist-1094021248.jpg

http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=raider22-1094012697.jpg

http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=Leoj13-1093195856.jpg

http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=graffitigirl21-1093494823.jpg

http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=stevepetmonkey-1093382955.jpg

http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Caedes::Infopage&image=noranda-1091948763.jpg

I could probably list dozens more, including many works from Tracy and Katz. I've even seen a contest winner who's work is at a 76! A few of my images were in the 90's for quite some time, and overnight lose about 20+ points. Think this could be a problem?

I don't think there's anything wrong here. Firstly 70/100 really isn't a "low" score. Secondly you have to remember that just because you might like an image, doesn't mean everyone else will, and they may not consider the skill or time involved to create it, just compare it to other wallpapers they have seen that they prefer, and mark it accordingly. Thirdly, a few of those images haven't had enough votes to show a c-index yet, so their current position doesn't indicate anything. As for the contest entries, these will often score low, again because alot of people who are voting are just comparing them to other wallpapers and don't even know about the contest ( I know this because they will often ask questions that they would know the answer to if they knew anything at all about the contest rules/category). I do agree that the peacock image is ranked unusually low, and that someone must have voted zero there for some reason, but in time, as more votes come in, a single vote won't have as much influence.

Ah, I see, but that still doesn't explain some of the images on this site. Some of them are really nice and obviously showed a good amount of time in them, and yet the C-Index is low. Also, when there is less than 4 Votes, and there is it does not show, it still has a value and is ranked when they are sorted in the gallery accordingly. It is just kind of odd when like my images or other peoples images go down 20 points because of 1 additional vote. I'm not sure, but thank you for telling me about the contest winners. Didn't know people would compare them like that.

most low scores come from a poor download to view ratio rather than poor user ratings. most of the time about 60% views to downloads on an image is good. if an image got all 9s. this would be (90 +90 + 60)/3
or a c-index of 80. even tho the users gave the image a 90, not everyone is going to view the full size, bringing it down alot.

I dont think people just go around voting 0s, if you check the image rankings, the raw ratings of an image can be seen, and they are usually pretty good

Edit: Eh, noob beat me to it. Oh well.

You do know that c-index is not based solely on voting, right? While voting is a large part of the equation, number of favorites and view/download ratio is important too. It's also been widely noted that it takes a day or two (or several) for the c-index to settle into a realistic number. One vote can't have made a 20 point difference, but an extra day's view/download can help this claim, since c-index is only recalculated once a day.

See here. The equation used is "cindex/100=1+e^(-favorites/10)*((downloads/views+2*rating)/3-1)"

also want to emphasize again that the c-index isnt a measure of quality but success. these ideas are infinitely different.

True, also that there is a download limit for non-members. Just thought about that a little while ago. It isn't really my images that I cared about anyway, there was just a bunch of images that really deserve higher ratings that got unusually low. But it's explained now. Thanks :)

Although it is better after the c-index change, I would say if anything that c-indexes for many images are actually too high. I see many images with like 80-something/100 and think '*!?@??'

As for contest images, they quite often get lower votes - just human nature, I guess.

Edit: I just took a look at the images you posted above, Radjehuty, and I have to disagree. With one or two exceptions, the c-indexes were either fair or actually higher than the image deserved. I noticed as well that you hadn't commented on some of these images that you liked so much.

True, I only looked for ones that were really low, that I believe didn't deserve it. Although I look back on them now, and some of them I can see now why they wouldn't deserve a much higher score than they do now. The peacock didn't look like there was too much rendering or thought put into it, but an index of 11? I have seen much worse.

And right now, it's c-index is up to 66 with an extra two days behind it. <cynicism> The c-index may not be perfect, but when dealing with people, nothing is. </cynicism> :-p

I think it is fair to say that some of the c-indexes in question have probably risen now. 11:100 was certainly too low for that image, but I think that was just a quirk.

i dont think that the c-index should have anything to do with the download to view ratio, because i dont always look at an image full size, but i will still give it a good score... like on my image Terrelia, there are 10 votes, 32 views, and a small amount of downloads... (at least i think that it is a good image) and it has a 57 because the views outweigh the number or downloads

I kind of agree, Sherpa. I remember when I wasn't a member, I would try to view a picture full screen and it would not allow me to, because I reached my limit. Sometimes the ratio can happen from accidents.

no, well i dont know what you are talking about....

I mean like, if i went to caedes's gallery, i might vote on his picture without ever looking at it at full screen... see, i might vote on the image based totally on the small thumbnail... lets say i voted a ten on his picture, but never looked at it at full size... now with the new c-index if i voted that but never looked at his image at full screen, it would make his c-index on that image bad... see what i am saying...

Oh, well yes I know what you're saying. But I always view it full screen before voting ;)
What I mean is, when a visitor comes to this site (Not registered, has no account) There is a limit on how many images they can download. Atleast that was the case for me. So basically, I would only view the images and now download them because I couldn't. So in a sence, that also kinda hurts the C-Index's, but I don't judge an image based on C-Index anyway.

oh ok.... ya, that is even worse that waht i am talking about...
is there a particular reason the c-index has anything to do with the view to download ratio?

Not sure, you'll have to as Caedes about that one as he decides all that ;)

its an important factor, an images ability to attract a user to its full size version is probably closely related to the quality of the image

I have heard much talk from Anthony on the raw ratings of images. Why is it that the top 13, all of which posted by Johanna, were deleted? Did he do it himself?

probably, Joost has done some major gallery cleaning. if you sort by raw rating and look at the top few pages, it may interest you to see whos name pops up endlessly

I cleaned by myself 6 weeks ago the last c -index images.

Uhg, I really don't think that the View/Download ratio should have as much effect on the C-Index as they do now. That Top New Images thing on the homepage is like a death sentence. for every 1 download it seems like 5 views. It's insane. I think it should play a roll, but it just seems like it has so much weight that the favorites and voting has minimal effect on it. I usually try to ignore the C-Index as it really means nothing, but it can be really irritating when an image drops 11 points in 1 day, and all because there are alot of views compared to downloads, even though the image would have gotten decent and high votes, and good comments.

and yet it still maintains its function as a measure of success the more attractive an image is the more people who will view the full size after not seeing the thumbnail, thus further organizing the top new images. Is an images ability to attract a user to view it in full size not a part of its measure of success? Also notice that the top new images tend to remain the same for a good while despite this curse.
still think thumbnails for those would be nice...

This is not necessarily true. Just because an image may look very nice full screen, much of an image's details are not visible in the thumbnail. Especially if the image is dark in the first place. They may not think it has much detail, and not download it. Or they might just jump through the top images, and not even think about it. Since they are judging the images quality based on the thumbnail in the first place, I don't think that the ratio should account for the total score in such a degree. Although I do believe that it should play a role.

What if you get your C-index only by vote?

well occasioanally You see people vote 0 just for the heck of it. I've seen someone say they always vote 0 for low resolution images, and not based on the quality. Not everyone is honest...

So I think the ratio is a good idea, but I think it accounts for too much of the C-Index. Putting the image in your favorites gallery should play a role too, or maybe it should play a role for the increased prevalance of people with that image in their favorites. I don't know, but having it based on votes alone won't be accurate since it would only be based on one dimension.

Maybe it's good to show what everyone has voted on the picture? Or do you think that that's a personal thing, and no one have to see that? Or maybe the artist only can see what everyone has voted on his or her picture?

I think it should show the numbers voted, but not the person. Obviously if you have the majority at 9's, and 10's, and out of nowhere you see a 0, That might indicate something. Good idea though...

Fantasy Pathway Vote Averages (click details)
Fantasy Pathway detailed vote layout
For their image rankings the average of the 2 vote categories is used

Hey I like that idea!

Voting on an image at different levels rather than just a 0 - 10.

Maybe it's nice to show the highest and the lowest vote?

70/100 really isn't low. My best image is 75 and has been for several days. I think the problem is just that people aren't paying any attention to the older images or the brand new ones. People vote on the ones that are at the top. I don't know about everyone else, but I arrange the images by c-index, and the ones on the first page catch my eye before the others do.

Your best image is an 82:100, and really...a lot of images might be underrated while they have a 70. Can't point out some examples right now, but I'll look for a couple. I always arrange the gallery by date so the new ones can get some attention. If we always paid attention to the old ones...why bother even uploading any?

I think most arrange by date as Dave mentioned, and c-index just to see whats up top or see if they missed a really good image. Trust me, I know what people are doing
<-the eye.

lol

Yea, I don't really pay attention to C-Indexes any more. I've seen top images at 100:100, and die the next day.

I always arrange by date.

I've always been for an 'art-skill' voting paradigm. In the Photo.net voting, separate criterion for both is taken into consideration and then factored into the image's overall rating. Such a system would work well here, too -- IMHO.

i agree

I think 0 should be removed from the scale
I've never seen an image where a 0 was necessary

Well I have, but they were joke MSPaint pics. And some people asked to get 0's lol
But other than that, I have never really given less than a 6 or 7 for more serious images.

What is the c-index rating needed to get a picture placed in a gallery permanently?

I don't think there is a requirement...I think it is reviewed for quality not C-index value, and the image has to be on for atleast a month in the new images gallery.

ooohhh i see

i dont think 0s are necessary, but never giving lower than a 6 or 7 would be pretty hard for me, in fact never gonna happen. I've rated low plenty of times, and rated high plenty of times, but never a 0, hmm, dont remember any 1s either but i'm sure i'll come across a 1 one day hehe *evil grin*

my new image has a view to download ratio of 23:18 with 7 votes, but the c index is 58. why is it so low.

It's not because the c-index is low, that there is some troubles... ;-)

I regularly vote 5's, 6's, 7's because most images aren't that amazing (I'm not necessarily saying they're not good, just that they are not mind-blowingly incredible). 5 is supposed to be an average. I do sometimes vote below 5 if an image is not good.

As for 8's the image has to be pretty good, 9's are pretty darned amazing and 10's are like 'oh my god, that's incredible'.

I get the impression sometimes that some people vote with 5 as an absolute bottom line and then work up from there. Anything half-way competent seems to get these 'Wow! 10/10 and into my favorites' comments.

Greetings, I'm new and don't mean to start any trouble.
When I look at someone's posting of art I usually do not open the largest version simply because I didn't want to fill the screen. I had no Idea that my not opening it fully detracted from the scoring!
It was just my personal preference not to open fully.
I say this not to defend my viewing, but to bring to light that just because some people don't open fully should not detract from the value of their score.

That said, I'm here to share, and learn my new hobby from others who also share thru their comments and advice not for a score.

click the 640x480 resolution link, and you can get a larger size without filling your screen or having a big download and still help the persons c-index. Everyone wins

Opening the image just to help someone's c-index pretty much defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Yeap, even worse when someone comments on it, and doesn't download or vote. Seems to me that you should be forced to download before commenting, if you choose to download. I don't think you should comment on an image based on an often times, inaccurate thumbnail. I dunno, that's my oppinion

well i mean, he was concerned that he was hurting the image by not wanting it full screen, I simply suggested that if he didnt want to hurt the image, and still not view it full screen, he could view the 640x480 version

Well, it's not really that not opening it "hurts" the c-index, it's that the c-index is (ideally) based on how many people download to use as wallpaper. I see what you're saying, but I think it's more an exception to the rule. If everyone opened things that didn't really appeal to them so that they didn't "hurt" the c-index, everything would get c-indexes in the 90's and we'd once again have a bloating problem like the one that was just "solved".
BTW, noob, I'm not trying to attack you for providing someone a potential solution to their question, but I'm hoping people won't read this and think they should start clicking the 640x480 option just to help the c-index.

good call, perhaps my "solution" would have been better sent in PM rather than appearing as a suggestion to everyone

70 isn't a low C-index at all. I'm happy to have that. One of my images is at 48 right now, and I'm not complaining because that's the way life goes.

It depends on what gallery you're looking at. In the "Contest" gallery, 70 is quite high

In the Fractal gallery..it isn't bad, but if you have a 90 and it jumps to a 70, I can't say it makes me feel all warm inside. But I have no issues anymore. This site seems to be turning more and more into a popularity contest...hope it doesn't completely turn to that...oh well.I wish there was a discussion board delete button :\

I agree to be wary of numbers on images that fly seemingly overnight to the top of the new images. There's often at least one in there that actually has one of the lowest ratings of the day before and yes, that will create the huge drop you referred to usually by the following day.
My opinion on viewing an image full-size? ALWAYS! Voting, commenting, or making a "keep it or get rid of it" decision on any image viewed only by the thumbnail is beyond me towards making any sense whatsoever.
One word I'll add about contest images: They get moved VERY quickly since they can only be in one gallery. They do not get the same view time as the rest. They also do not get deleted (unless the artists themselves do it) so there's no need to worry so much about their numbers either. ;) Some people even submit work that applies to a contest that they created and uploaded some time ago that already has a high c-index.
I'm usually terrified to post here. I hope this helps.

just want to point out that this is a good explination for contest images. contest images that stay in new images longer tend to get alot more votes and higher c-indexes, but some are moved into the contest gallery right away and hardly get viewed. low views also seem to deter people, they will see an image with no comments and very few views, and assume everyone else thought it was poor and shy away from voting high or commenting.
but it doesnt matter cause contests obviously arent rated on c-index or my 2 wins wouldnt have happened.

I agree with you BJB, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean't by the "Traps" I could put myself in. I love having a discussion board, because I believe it can help improve the site alltogether. The only thing is, is that I think you should not be able to vote, unless you viewed it full screen. Litterally take the ability away until you download it. Voting on a thumbnail is NOT a good idea, nor should it be allowed. I create images now at 1600x1200, which is very large, and you could imagine the differences between a tiny thumbnail, and the actual image itself. I've notice this happening and I don't think that should happen anymore.

My apologies. I've removed that portion of my post Dave. My wording did not match my meaning well. It also isn't important to the rest of the discussion. Thanks.

Don't you all know that the C-index means nothing acoording to Mr. Caedes. He stated to me in personal mesage that the C-index, or votes have nothing to do with an image making it into a gallery. My most recent image has a 91 C-index.

I sent a personal message to Mr Caedes asking if this was high enough for my image to make into the gallery. His response was " The C-index doesn't mean anything. It has no bearing on whether or not your image will make it into the gallery. The only way your image will make into a gallery, is if a moderator likes it, and chooses to place it into the gallery. Votes, views or downloads from the public have nothing to do with it".

This also goes with contest entries. Public vote has nothing to do with who wins a contest. The moderator's vote, and decide who is going to win. What it boils down to is, it doesn't matter how many votes your image has, or how many people have viewed,t or downloaded your image. The only important opinion here is the opinion is that of the moderator. So good luck you better get to know some moderator's if you want your image to make it on this site.

Xwild.

Now it's a 63 so see it doesn't matter