Rightly or wrongly :) this is how I vote

1 - 3 Quality

1 - 3 Content

1 - 2 'Wow' Factor (does it make me linger, does it make me think. Does it make me want to find out more about this artist)

0 - 1 Desktop Value (suitability, not necessarily would I have it on mine)

0 - 1 Personal Choice (probably should not be an issue but I think most would agree it usually is :) )

I think it’s good that you have a system. It doesn’t matter what the system is, if you use one it will be better than going by gut feeling. At least everyone is treated the same by you.

Though I might not follow this system, I do admire it, Lyn...and think that what matters is you show an effort to be fair. I like that.

I would love to hear how others work out their votes. On reflection I suppose WOW factor is the same as Personal Choice as everyone has a different WOW level. What makes me say WOW may make someone else say Yuk :)

What first grabs me is the overall composition of an image and then the colors. If it's a tonal image, I consider the varied areas of light and dark, the textures and the mood. It is hard to say specifically because each image takes me in a different direction. I do have preferences, but if an image/illlustration/portraint/graphic/fractal is eye appealing and has an aesthetic that inspires or stimulates, then I am more inclined to give it higher marks.

I do my best to vote fairly. I look at quality first as well, then if the person did anything extra special like post-processing, frames, etc. to make an image look spiffy, if the frame goes with the image, if it's obvious that some effort was put into the art, would I use it as a background on my own desktop, and lastly personal preferences for things like color and content.

I think it is almost impossible for a human being to be completely unbiased in judging things like art. Even if you try really really hard to bury your personal preferences, it's still there.

*searches*

I simply use the Diophantine linear equation, then search my soul and click a number....ain't that what everybody else does??? 8~D

Voting is hard...I generally don't give a 0,1 or 2...then again, I can count on 1 hand how many times a month (that's a month), I give out a 10. I have several friends and I have no problem giving them 4,5,6's if that's what it is...also 8,9,10 if it's worthy. I'm just sayin' I don't plug along and give all friends 9's & 10's...that'd be wrong. I look at overall quality...is it a pic, a fractal, a CG, etc and base it from there. Is it worthy of a desktop image. Was there thought put into it. Was there time and effort involved or did they just throw up a camera and snap a shot or open Apop and render what they saw. I could go on & on, but I don't want to digress. I like the above comment..."At least everyone is treated the same by you." Look at each piece as though it was yours, would you share it, would you show it off? Each piece / post is it's own work.

A system of grade! I like all types of art just about equally...so um, i usually look and think. Lets see, how hard was it for them to take/make that, how good does it look, and quality (pixel wise...size doesnt matter.)

Very interesting discussion! Since I consider 5 average I use that for a starting point, then try to figure how much above or below average it is. Nobody gets a 1(if it's worth posting, it's worth at least 2), & I have yet to give a 10, altho it wouldnt be out of the question. As they say though, perfection is hard to come by! Among other things I look at color,clarity, composition (hey..they all start with C..so thats why they call it c-index..lol) & worthiness as a desktop image. One thing that is almost impossible to take into consideration is the equipment/camera used to take a particular photo. ie-A photo taken with a $200 3mp camera with bare bones software, as opposed to one taken with a $1000 8mp camera & run through every phase of Photo Shop. Kind of like hunting big game with a bow & arrow as opposed to a high powered rifle..the "challenge" factor. Comparing my votes against the c-index on images over time, it appears that I tend to be more generous.

Hey Daniel you stole my method of voting! lol! 5 is average and a good starting point. I look at each image for a few seconds but usually make up my mind within the first second as to what score I will give - immediate impact is what I am looking for (whether it is a photograph, fractal or manipulated image). I do give low scores occasionally, but on the whole I tend to vote for most images between 5-8 with scores of 9 and even 10 when I am blown away by an image. I just give whatever the photograph deserves and do not judge any one picture on my own preferences and I do not give higher marks if I see a photograph a friend has posted.

just wondering..if the voting booth is so random, how does randy, and perhaps others, know which images belong to whom? here's an idea...release an image only after it's been voted on...that would guarantee total impartiality *runs from the almost certain deluge of conflicting opinions*

Good point! I have run into images in the voting booth that I have already commented on, so I know who it belongs to. I do my best to remain impartial on it when voting, but I'm sure it presents an opportunity for some to "help out" a friend by padding the vote. The fallback is no one would want to wait a day or longer perhaps for the image to come on the website. Including me..I guess you can only do so much.

Speaking for myself I have never given anyone below a 4 for thier work. I start at 5 and work from there. As far as friends shots go in the voting booth, I seldom see a friends shot. Third eye has a good point, one I have thought of as well but that would mean waiting for the image to appear and that can take days sometimes.I haven't given out too many 10's ...Clarity and subject are the first 2 things I look at. Then I look at composition and presentation..I think that if the poster put a lot of effort in their work ie -- photoshop then they should be commended. They gave it extra special loving care so to speak. There is nothing more disheartening for one then to put all this effort into something and get a mark of 20 or 30 in the voting booth..
just my 2 cents worth.

I found this little voting guidline in a different thread.(posted by Crusader) It would be nice to get everyone on the same page as far as voting goes. I see many images that may not be fantastic, but certainly average or above coming away with very low scores. Sorry I havent figured out how to do links yet, but here's the web ad. of the voting guide for you to copy & paste into your browser. I think it's worth reading. :-)
http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Board::Topic&id=495403

I too start at 5 to consider what score to give. I look for basically the same things that everyone else does such as clarity, composition, etc. Sometimes I see posts that someone has obviously put alot of hard work into such as stitching, cropping, photoshop, etc. that really gives it a professional look. Then there are some posts that are submitted just as the camera caught it and are beautiful also. Either way I try to be fair when voting. Sometimes I can make my mind up in just a few seconds as to what score it will get. But there are times when I have to study a post a little longer to see what the artist is trying to convey especially when it comes to rendered works. I do sometimes see the works of my friends in the voting booth and try to be impartial because I would want them to do the same for me.

if i look at an image for more than...oh 1 minute, its either A) Really Good B) Really Bad. ;-) ..usually

No matter how you go about it Zero spoils the show...evidently their intent. Signed voting and accountability for issuing lower scores may be workable. It won't run people off the site as fast as Zero will.

I need a time-delay between thinking a dark and stormy thought, and expressing it outwardly.

I'll go chew on some nails instead. If anyone saw what was here before, sorry.

I can not see how anyone could justify voting a Zero.

Almost a year later I still use the same method I originally posted, but with lesser regard for wallpaper suitability,now that the emphasis has shifted with the unrestricted sizing.

In theory a lower score could be justified by making a comment giving reasons, but this rarely happens, so I think accountability is an excellent idea for lower scores. I am not so sure about signed votes, but a reason given annoymously could be a great help.
Once personalities enter the picture it could, not neccessaily would, lead to *tit for tat voting.

If a low voter wishes to reveal their identity, they can, by making a comment, and hopefully suggest ways to improve.

It seems apparent that there are those who vote Zeros, and I for one would be interested to know how they calculate this score. Maybe they can't count, or dont bother opening their eyes.

*Noun 1. tit for tat - an equivalent given in return
getting even, paying back, return - a reciprocal group action; "in return we gave them as good as we got"

(Possibly this already happens??)

Logically you should vote zero on an image that you consider to be the worst example you have seen. If no one is "allowed" to vote zero then it shouldn't even be an option... IMO if you honestly beleive that someone has put zero thought or effort into an image, then it deserves a zero vote. Having said that, although I have seen images on this site that certainly deserved a zero in my mind, from memory none have ever come up in the booth, so I have never actually handed one out... yet.

What about 1 for the effort of actually uploading it?
And what happens when you see an even worse example?
Perhaps a grading system . . .
A: Waste of space
B: Ho Hum
C: Average
D: Not Bad
E: Pretty Good
F: Very Good
G: Exceptional
H: Terrific.

I joke, of course.
I think

I do not think that Zeros should 'not be allowed' but neither do I think they should be abused, and a qualification for using it a good idea. If someone thinks strongly enough about an image to consider it worthless, then they should say so, just as those who are inspired to praise a good one make the effort to leave a personal comment.

Speaking of Zeros, we have had a few of those temperaturewise these past few mornings :)
Brrrr

*bangs head on desk....repeatedly*

*walks away*

well, i read just so far until i got to rob's statement of knowing whose shot is whose. i keep saying the same thing over and over. it's not anonymous if the picture shows up on friends lists or new image lists. it would take a heck of a lot longer to see it after it gets a score but then it would be completely non friend influenced. as for scoring,.....i think maybe i've given one or two 10s. i'm not sure but doubt i've given a 1. the 2 &3 pics seem to me that the photographer needs to look a little more carefully at what he/she uploads. most could be made better (like clean up spots in the sky). it's very difficult. another observation is that the high scores seem to often be theme based. there are an awful lot of bird pics with huge scores....especially raptors. we also go bonkers over butterflies and bees. it's all fun. i just wish on any given day i knew which the right theme was because i've taken thousands of everything!!!!!! i want to not be competitive!!!!

"the 2 &3 pics seem to me that the photographer needs to look a little more carefully at what he/she uploads. most could be made better (like clean up spots in the sky)."

are you sure? I'm guessing quite a few artists here have images that would contradict that theory. In my gallery, at present, there are 14 images ranked between 27 and 38. dozens more in the 40's and 50's.

public, "random" voting left Sanjaya in the running on American Idol....or did it? a concerted effort was made to skewer the results. Had the three judges already in place been left with the task they were originally charged with, Sanjaya would've gotten the boot right on Day 1.

My point? Maybe, just as a select few make the determinations of which images are and aren't "permed", maybe they ought to be the lone source for scores as well. Ok, that might be too much for the dozen or so Mods. Why not have a preselected, rotating "jury"? It's done here for contests, so why not for all images? and...make the scores open for scrutiny. sure there'll still be pissing and moaning, but as for me personally, I'd like to know what votes were cast on my images. The fact that I can't, or for that matter, none of you can, is reminiscent of kindergarten.

i thought of something else. i go back and look at some of the ones i've been scored on and the scores i've been given and figure it in as a point of reference. how's that for provocative? after re reading lyneve's statement about tit for tat. i guess she felt the same way and said so.

I'm not quite sure how the word "provocative" applies here, actually. Proactive, perhaps?

I don't think lyn was promoting tit-for-tat .. I think she was defining it for those of us that cut class the day they taught it in school ... in psychology, there is Freudian, Jungian and Tit-for-Tat

the Klingons said it best .. "Revenge is a dish best served cold"

"I don't think lyn was promoting tit-for-tat"

No, I wasn't, exactly the opposite :)
I did not say it would I said it could and maybe it does.
Tit for tat is believed to be a corruption of tip for tap, or a blow for a blow. Its current form dates from the mid-1500s. Thats how wars start.
The K's also said "qoH vuvbe' SuS" and thats what T for T'ers are really.

ah, but "revenge" is Klingon for "bisque"

Personally I vote the same way as Kidder. I start with a 5. It doesn΄t matter if it is a photograph or a fractal, friends and no friends. I use the same scale. I dont give zeros. I take it like a challenge to figured out what the person behind the pictures have in mind. Sometimes I have seen pictures that I dont understand at all but I really try to see something in every one. I mean when you post a picture that everyone worldwide could see, you have something in your mind what you will show.

I think the way Rob said "release an image only after it's been voted on...that would guarantee total impartiality" could help a lot. And I think the picture needs 10 votes before it releases.
I think more people will vote (everyone want their pictures out quickley)
Well thats my opinion :)

Hi, all... Haven't had much time to play on Caedes in recent weeks. Happy 4th to all!

I'll add my two cents to this discussion. To me, a big question as it relates to voting centers on what "AVERAGE" means. As I've said before, from my point of view, most of the posters/artists here produce "above average" work as compared to the general population. Soooooooooo, the question I have is, "average relative to WHAT?"

Several have stated that they start with a score of "5" for "average" and rate each image relative to that standard. That makes sense, but only if it's clear what "AVERAGE" means. Are people comparing each image to the "average" CAEDES image or to a more generic "average" that would include work by less "artistically inclined" artisans?

I rarely see images on this site that deserve a relative score below 4 or 5....That, to me, is a relatively low score because, again,most people who post here produce what I consider "above average" work. So I wonder what others think "average" means - ? Wen

If we were to score images in relation to the "general public average", then the available scores should go from 5 to 10 and not 0 to 10, no?

I try to put my scores on the Gaussian (bell) curve, for each category separatly (fractals, renders, landscapes, bird&insect&flower macros, architecture, etc.) That is most images (like 60%) get scores between 4 and 6, some (~30%) get 2, 3, 7 or 8 and very few (~10% all together) get 0, 1, 9 or 10. A caedes-average butterfly macro gets a 5 from me. A below caedes-average landscape gets a 3. An above caedes-average fractal gets a 7. And so on.

To me 0 means the exact opposite of 10, 1 the exact opposite of 9 and so on. There are as many zeroes as there are tens. That's the theory anyway. In reality I very rarely give zeros and generally tend to give more scores above 5 than below. But tens are in any case reserved for the top 2%...

I just ask "Is this image worthy?, then shake my MAGIC 8 BALL™ .. and turn it upside down and wait for an answer ..

"prospects don't look good"

see? ... "prospects don't look good" is higher than "my sources say NO" ... so then I assign a numerical value to it .. and move on

Personally – I view a zero score as a rating for an image that is utterly pointless and has no redeeming features at all – whether it be the effort gone into it technically or creatively – or if it is a blatant rip of someone else’s work presented as an original piece.

A ten would imply perfection – in other words – a pointless score as to award someone a ten indicates that the image is beyond reproach and completely flawless. I would suggest that is far more likely a scenario to dish out a zero than it would be a ten as there are plenty more pieces deserving disdain than there are adoration. There is little or no case to hand out either score in reality but really; I’d say giving someone a ten is possibly just as irrelevant.

~claps~

I agree with Uncle Phil on that one!!

~grabs Keith's Magic 8 Ball~

Hey, lemmy see dat!! It's my turn!! Give it!!

MA!!!!

Well, I don't agree with Phil exactly on this point, though his argument makes sense and I respect his opinion. While I've seen NO images "deserving" of a "0" on this site, I've seen a number that have struck me as very exceptional and worthy of a 10. An image gets a 10 from me (I don't give 10s very often) when it stands out as demonstrative of superior work/talent and when it really grabs me in the sense that it's creative/distinctive. I don't think an image has to be "perfect" (whatever that means) to be worthy of a 10, but I don't think a score of 10 should be commonplace either. I've given a number of 7s, 8s and 9s, however, and, unless an image stands out to me as inferior from an artistic standpoint, most images get an "average" score (5) or better from me in the voting booth. I just don't see most artists here as producing below average work in general. Wen

I vote "0" on all images...is that wrong?? I figured all my c-index's would go up, but so far...nadda!!

~off to the voting booth I go~

8~P

I see I killed this thread, sorry. I guess it was gettin' old anywho. I was only teasin'...see above.

OK, the secrets out...the proper way to vote: IS HERE !! Enter "0" for the lower limit and of course "10" for the upper limit...then hit enter and bingo, a voting number for the image in question. Go to the next image...hit enter again and bang, another number vote scored. So easy a caveman can do it!! 8~O

This lazy man's way to voting IS NOT Hottrockin or Caedes approved...it's just an option.

Hehehe!!

Hey! .. I object to your characterization of cavemen

;o)

You do those Geico ads, don't you? I KNEW you were famous.

http://www.cavemanscrib.com/

I misspoke when I said caveman, that was terrible wrong of me!! I need to be more politically correct!!

What I meant was…So easy a 21st century impaired person could do it!! Yeah, now I feel better!!

Hehehe!!

8~)

The real problem here is that it is a wallpaper site and NOT a photo site. Most of us get discouraged when a pic doesn't fly because it doesn't make a good wallpaper. Most of the people that come here are not photographers and they are just looking for wallpapers. So what happens along the way? They start critiquing the pictures and really aren't qualified to do so. If it's pretty or has instant appeal it gets a good vote. No consideration for quality, effort, composition, degree of difficulty or subject matter. One must also consider when voting is to say to yourself even though I don't like this could I have done this? I recently put up a shot of a Vulture and so far it has bombed. Is it a bad shot? Is it poor quality? It's a wallpaper site! It's an ugly bird not a pretty one. The c-index is pretty driven...not photo driven. I need to get a grip. Well I have moved to a photo site and let me say it is a bit different. What flies here may not there and vise versa. But it is different how photos are viewed on that type of site.

Another problem is that commenting and voting are rushed and not really given much thought. I even had one guy comment saying he meant to give me a 9 but inadvertently clicked the 6...oh thanks...that cheered me up...have that dyslexia looked into. I must always remind myself that this is a wallpaper site and people don't come here to critique or vote and maybe shouldn't. Maybe doing away with the c-index altogether wouldn't be a bad idea. How about a critique box where you critique and put down a score 1-10. Don't want anyone knowing what you score? Don't critique. Just leave a half hearted comment as most of us do...if time permits.

*Edit: Took out posting and transferred comments to this thread ... here.

I have done a system like this too....