Caedes

The "Perfect" Voting System

Submitted by caedes 09/07/05 4:55 PM GMT

I'm glad that we have had so much discussion and new ideas on ways that the voting system and c-index *shudder* can be improved. As you may have heard, I have been working on a new system which I believe will fix most of the problems with the current one. The core idea behind this new system is that members will be asked to vote on specific (randomly chosen) images when they visit the site. The vote request will show up in your "Jobs" control panel when you are logged in. You will not know who the image is by and you will have to view the full size version before voting. Afterwards you have the option of visiting the image and making a comment. The advantages of this system are as follows:

  • After a member votes on 10 or so images I will be able to modify the distribution of their votes so that they span over the whole range of values (1-10). This will eliminate vote inflation.
  • A disgruntled member will not be able to vote all zeros on a victim's gallery. Members will not be able to vote all 10's on their friends images.
  • Votes can be weighted according to the quality of the author's work. If you upload good images your vote counts more.
  • Members will have to vote on a certain amount of images in order to upload an image. If you want 10 votes on each of your images, you will have to vote on 10 images per upload.
  • Other advantages: a new era of peaceful coexistance? Less complaining? Cure world hunger?
Update: test the system.

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion

Overflow mode, hiding 265 messages. [View]

+cc_Beowulf
09/12/05 4:35 PM GMT
Wen, I'm not saying that the votes of 0, 1, or 2 were deserved or not, you need to give the system a little time to even off. After something like 15 votes, you can get a better picture of how your image is faring.

As far as images doing well because of "buddies and fans", I was not limiting this phenomenon to you. I think it is true for everyone in general, myself included. I would usually not vote on an image unless I strongly liked it or disliked it. If it was anywhere around average, I wouldn't bother in most cases. If this is the case in general (which I believe it is) then what I said would hold true.

I'll grant that perhaps some are arbitrarily voting on images, but I have a hard time seeing why they would do that. It is an incredible waste of time to vote on images if you aren't even going to evaluate them.
0∈ [?]
"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everyone to tell me the truth--even if it costs him his job."
::WENPEDER
09/12/05 5:27 PM GMT
Sorry, Matthew, but I'm not buying. I'll give the new system time, but some of the best artists here are getting irrationally low votes...TIME will not change that problem. Something is wrong. I don't know if votes are being weighted to produce this effect or what, but it doesn't make sense - - again, I'm not simply referring to MY images. I didn't say that you were limiting your assertion about the "buddies and fans phenomenon" to me...Again, how do you think people get "fans," Matthew?

Wen
0∈ [?]
::regmar
09/12/05 5:39 PM GMT
Kudos to Caedes for the new voting system. I like the anonymity of it, and I love the new <dist> link next to the c-index that allows us to see why we got the score we got.
0∈ [?]
ж Regmar ж
+ppigeon
09/12/05 5:42 PM GMT
Wendy: I look to your gallery. Many of your bad ranked images have... 1 vote!
That's really not enough for a good idea about the quality of the new system.
I looked at my images. One of the best (with the old system) received now a c-index of 60:100. I looked at the distribution and I saw 9 + 8 + 1 = 18 / 3 = 60:100.
My first thought was this image doesn't disserve a 1, but I'm sure after say 20 votes, the score will be better. Give time to time...... !!!
0∈ [?]
-pierre-
*caedes
09/12/05 5:44 PM GMT
The c-index from the random voting will be totally different (usually lower) from that of the old system. I don't think that we can say for sure whether or not a 40 is a bad score or not, let alone whether it was a fair score for any given image.

WENPEDER: I think you've made you thoughts clear, please do not keep repeating yourself in this thread. It makes it difficult to see what everyone else has to say.
0∈ [?]
-caedes
::PrettyFae
09/12/05 5:49 PM GMT
Wooo :D
The selective voting is back!

Thankyou Caedes ^_^ I think having two ways of voting is an excellent idea...hopefully this should solve many problems...

Oh, by the way...will we still need to vote for 10 random images before uploading? I don't mind at all if we do, so long as we can still selectively pick images that appeal to our personal opinions...
0∈ [?]
::WENPEDER
09/12/05 6:06 PM GMT
I hear ya, Pierre...but, first of all, I thought the C-index was not even calculated until there were 5 votes...Second, since this is a RANDOM voting process, it would seem that DIFFERENT people are voting 1 and 2 on my images (as well as the images of others that are, without question, good images.) Again, I'll give this time, but, IMHO, something's wrong here.
Wen
0∈ [?]
::regmar
09/12/05 7:13 PM GMT
I agree with you, Matthew. I find that on a scale of 1-10 the distribution is a lot more accurate. The old scale was such that any image that received less than 70 was considered complete garbage instead of simply being an above-average image. A 6 should make us feel that we've done well instead of convincing us that we are failures. The distribution panel allows us to see for ourselves where the abberation votes are falling, so it should help us eliminate those votes from our (personally adjusted) c-index.

I also feel that the random c-index should be separated from the selective c-index. Or maybe we should be able to choose for ourselves which we'd prefer to see.

On the Shutterpoint site the system allows random voters to base their vote on several factors (Exposure / Dramatic Effect / Tonal Range / Tells A Story / Depth Of Field / Graininess / Focus). Each factor can be voted between 1 and 5 (Poor / Below Average / Fair / Good / Excellent), then the various factors are averaged to produce a rating. Each voter's distribution of votes is then analyzed to produce a weight that is applied to the average, and the result is the vote. If the voter uses the detailed voting system it counts more towards his vote / upload ratio.

0∈ [?]
ж Regmar ж
::verenabloo
09/12/05 7:16 PM GMT
Well, Ive been doing some thinking and after seeing all these comments on here..the whys and wherefores..and the good bad and the ugly...I think Im gonna kinda sit back and see how it is working out for a bit. After all, its only fair to give anything a chance..we will have plenty of chances to give out thoughts after we see how it does...but for now...I am taking the stress of me and opening my eyes..bigtime..and see what happens. soooooooooooooo ....now...... lets just "smile, nod our heads and say uh huh uh huh" for a while....^_*
0∈ [?]
We like someone because. We love someone although.
Tarvos
09/12/05 7:23 PM GMT
I'm happy now with freedom to vote on what I want and of course the random voting, I will still do that...I like this site!
0∈ [?]
MorpheusZero
09/12/05 7:30 PM GMT
I'm glad people are being more honest with their votes. The ratings were way too inflated before. Now, a 5 can actually be considered average. And because the scale is from 1 to 10, that is the way it should be. All of my images (except for one) have lower c-indexes, and my previously highest image now has a 40. These are probably more accurate, and they will become more accurate as time passes.
0∈ [?]
Tarvos
09/12/05 7:46 PM GMT
Ok, I do like being able to vote on what I want but shouldn't the selective voting still work like the radom voting? Like, you have to view the image before you vote...I've noticed that many have done that already...giving an 8 on an image and I looked at the image, it was very grainy and well, didn't really deserve an 8, it might be my opinion but I believe that people should view an image before voting on an image...
0∈ [?]
panda1300
09/12/05 8:27 PM GMT
Fae I agree! two of my images have 40 c-index also which had more than double before.. So the c-index we see is the random votes and selective votes put together?
0∈ [?]
If I'm not back in 5 minutes.....just wait longer! - Ace Ventura
panda1300
09/12/05 8:46 PM GMT
ok don't mind my post.. that's what I get when I don't read. Caedes, just read ur comment about not being sure if the votes should be individual or together. woops
0∈ [?]
If I'm not back in 5 minutes.....just wait longer! - Ace Ventura
::ThisIsMOC
09/12/05 9:09 PM GMT
Do I need to vote on 10 pics every time I want to upload? I voted on 30 images yesterday, uploaded 2 pics, and thought I had 1 upload left. I could not vote on any more images, so I know that the 30 votes had registered. Then I went to upload image 3, but I was denied because I had uploaded 2 in the past 24 hours. No big deal - I dont mind that kind of moderation.. but today I tried to upload, and I was told I had to vote on 10 pictures.... what happened to my "extra" 10 votes that I had from yesterday? Should I only be voting on 20 because I can only upload 2 a day? I know this is a costic way to look at it, I will continue voting often because its something I like to do (in fact, sometimes I will hit 30 in a sitting and in the future I will be bummed if thats all I get). I just wonder if this system is really working... The "forced" vote is cool, but comments are cooler!

0∈ [?]
The dogs are barking merrily as jerry sits on high. If youíve studied your floyd property, youíd know that pigs could fly
sansoni7
09/12/05 9:12 PM GMT
...and the Caedes portuguese user said... i was surprised when i saw the new voting method, i donīt understand very well all the comments behind this one and, like Verena, i will wait and see, because i like take pictures very much and i like this site too.
0∈ [?]
Look around and catch it ; the Art is there !
Tarvos
09/12/05 9:27 PM GMT
I've been told in a comment on an image of mine, Emotions, that the commentor gave it a vote and in the caedes control thing, it still shows 0 votes, is this like an online glitch or something? or do the random votes only count?
0∈ [?]
::xyccoc
09/12/05 10:33 PM GMT
*sighs*
0∈ [?]
And everytime I feel that my lifes a waste.. I just cant rid myself of your bitter taste.. - Me (Option21)
::philcUK
09/12/05 10:33 PM GMT
*holds head in his hands*
0∈ [?]
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps"
scionlord
09/12/05 10:41 PM GMT
*waves hands and creates bar...gets drink from it*
0∈ [?]
'Study the past, if you would divine the future.' - Confucius ............................... Please look at these: Painful, Aircraft version 3
nigel_inglis
09/12/05 10:44 PM GMT
I don't particularly like this new system YET. One of my images is at 20 which was at 70. This still hasn't resolved the attack voting problem. The losers probably don't care who they do it to, as long as it's done. Hopefully this kind of stuff will improve.
0∈ [?]
"No race in all the Realms better understands the word Vengeance than the Drow. Vengeance is their dessert at the daily table, the sweetness they taste upon their smirking lips as though it was the ultimate delicious pleasure. And so hungering did the drow come for me." - Drizzt Do'Urden.
::Torque
09/12/05 11:14 PM GMT
I think the average image can be expected to fall a good 40 points. It won't matter because just about every image will undergo the same transformation. 70 to 20 does not sound outrageous because a lot of people (myself included) almost always just voted on images that catch their attention and typically do so in the 6-10 or 7-10 range.

That means if I look at one of my images with a 70, it is probably only being voted on by people who were enticed by the thumbnail and perhaps the larger thumbnail, and they probably gave it (on average) the lowest vote they give to any image they liked enough to vote on in the first place. So images in the 90s will probably be in the 60s now, images in the 70s will end up in the 20s or 30s. The shift is going to affect everyone and is no reflection on the quality of any image, it's just a new scale. We're shifting from a "7-10 weighted by initial attraction" scale to a "0-10 no initial attraction necessary" scale. If your image ends up with an especially high c-index now (compared to your other images) it means that it probably has a better "mass-appeal" as opposed to the old meaning that it was just one of the better images in your own style (assuming your images were mainly voted on by the same group of people that enjoy your style).

It'll take plenty of time to see what a very good c-index is actually going to look like but I suspect it will be something in the neighborhood of 60. Maybe a bit higher if selective votes are factored into it in some way. I like the idea of having a R-index and a S-index because the R-index would measure the mass-appeal of your image while the S-index is a better way to judge what people who like your TYPE of image think of your image. That just comes with the caveat of understanding that two will truly be on different scales unless they are altered in some all-knowing way.
0∈ [?]
~My select image - Wading Patiently
+Samatar
09/12/05 11:22 PM GMT
I agree. I always thought the c-index was too high on many images that really didn't deserve it, including many of my own. Although I was a bit surprised to see some of my images drop to 10, 20, 30 etc. I generally think that these had much higher rarings than they should have before, and also realise that these images only have one vote so far and will probably come up a bit once they have a higher vote count. Ratings of 80, 90, 100 should be the exception, not the rule; something you can be really proud of, and that you have to work at to acheive. I think the new system might be on the right track in this regard, but it's far too early to know for sure yet.
0∈ [?]
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion- Visit the new improved rescope.com.au
nigel_inglis
09/12/05 11:26 PM GMT
Alright thanks for a bit of the clear up guys...
0∈ [?]
"No race in all the Realms better understands the word Vengeance than the Drow. Vengeance is their dessert at the daily table, the sweetness they taste upon their smirking lips as though it was the ultimate delicious pleasure. And so hungering did the drow come for me." - Drizzt Do'Urden.
*caedes
09/12/05 11:27 PM GMT
I think Torque has given a well thought-out assessment of the new c-index scale.
0∈ [?]
-caedes
heidlerr
09/12/05 11:50 PM GMT
I went to caedes today just to check the new images to see if anyone commented on my upload. I didn't log on but I noticed that there was a voting button on my page. When I logged on the voting button went away. What's to stop someone from just going to their image pages and voting several times during the day without being logged on? It seems like there are some holes along with the problems mentioned with this plan.
Russ
0∈ [?]
"My own eyes are no more than scouts on a preliminary search, for the camera's eye may entirely change my idea." Edward Weston
*caedes
09/13/05 12:01 AM GMT
Even if the button shows up, you can't cast a vote unless you're logged in. I'll about getting rid of the button though.
0∈ [?]
-caedes
heidlerr
09/13/05 12:31 AM GMT
The buttons appears to be gone. Thanks
Russ
0∈ [?]
"My own eyes are no more than scouts on a preliminary search, for the camera's eye may entirely change my idea." Edward Weston
Tarvos
09/13/05 1:18 AM GMT
Do the selective votes count in the C-Index?
0∈ [?]
::Torque
09/13/05 1:20 AM GMT
From Caedes:

"Selective votes are being stored separately from the random votes. I've not decided exactly how they will come into play (whether to incorporate them into the c-index or show them separately). I'll let you know."
0∈ [?]
~My select image - Wading Patiently
Tarvos
09/13/05 1:36 AM GMT
Ok gracias!
0∈ [?]
DevilsJohnson_2
09/13/05 3:40 AM GMT
WEhat happened to teh votes already made. I have some that has 50 votes now at zero. I fear that this will end up in a deleting of an image that was on it's way to a perm gallery or as once before removed from the perm gallery. Now I want to say right out. I think the image mods have a hell of a job to do sifting through all the images and trying to figure out what stays adn what goes. But if any of the vote stats are used in the formula then I'm guessing that everyone is back to square one with zero on all images. Am I correct?

I don't mind having to vote a set number to be allowed to upload but I am not allowed to choose teh genre adn I fear I will not vote correctly bering I don't know about some genre of art here. I can mearly say "Yeah - I like that" or No - I don't" and that might cause a low vote just because I don't nkow what it takes to make the image. I do know more about others..like the ones I post. I know what it takes to make them and can give a more enlightened critique and /or advice.

No matter. I'll go wit the flow no matter what teh protocal is being I have made many friends here and I do like the art of many here But the random thing I believe is not getting many votes my way..I still show zeros on 80% on my images and hey had over 10 on 90% before. I can give a crap about the index..I do like to see the votes count though :-)
0∈ [?]
::Torque
09/13/05 4:44 AM GMT
The change to show the "Last voted on" link on the voting page for the next image instead of on its own intermediate screen does help to streamline the voting process, but it carries the unfortunate side-effect that by the time you see that link you have already been shown the next image. You must then decide whether to vote on the next image, or visit the page of the previous image, causing you to lose the opportunity to vote on the new image since it will refresh to a different one when you return to the voting booth (not sure if this can be avoided by using the back button or how quickly you would need to go back before it changes). The quick fix would be to have the "Last voted on" link open up in a new window (as if shift-clicked) but in the long run I still support a more comprehensive history of images voted on to visit their discussions that way.

Also, any word on the large-size issue? I find it harder to see the real beauty in an image that is pixelated due to my browser's inability to properly resize things, and I think it probably accounts for a one or two vote drop accross the board on most images.
0∈ [?]
~My select image - Wading Patiently
::Iincognito
09/13/05 6:09 AM GMT
I have not had the chance to go through every one of the above posts but I think, unless someone has already suggested or discussed the suggestion, that it would make sense to have the "description" of the picture available during the voting processes. Some pictures tell a thousand words -- words sometimes tell a story that we cannot readily see...
0∈ [?]
meteor
09/13/05 6:46 AM GMT
I've just been trying out the new voting system and I have to say that it far from impresses me. The random voting DOES NOT work in its current format. Some images need the explanation that comes along with them. If you can't post an image without a description then why on Earth can you vote on one without?!?!?!?!?!

Not just that. I can appreciate all images for what they are but it doesn't mean I'm going to like them. Quite frankly I really don't like fractals and will probably give them a really low (unfair?) score. You should not be forced to vote on images that hold no personal interest!

I don't know if this has been addressed yet because I hardly have time to write this but it is something which should be considered. I thank Caedes for the work so far and hopefully a universally friendly system is not too far away.
0∈ [?]
"Better a fantastic image of something plain, than a bad image of something great!"
::kjh000
09/13/05 8:57 AM GMT
Hm... I'm thinking it could take perhaps more then a week to fully assess the effects of the system but I'm convinced it will work out just fine in the long run. We must first come to a point when most images will have more evenly distributed votes. Preferably 10 or more...

One thing to add perhaps to my previous stated opinions. (And I imagine this could help solving the above issue with getting enough votes on enough images... (I'm not sure if others mentioned it earlier.))

Can't we be allowed to vote on some more random images then 30? Seeing the point of a minimum number to vote on is not hard. I think I see the point in limiting it (I must say I'm not that certain though... ^_^) but why not let us vote about up to, say 50, totally optional naturally.

I find random voting a nice way to spend some time when I can't sleep at night. I quite enjoy the opportunity it gives to explore new artists works that one might otherwise have been ignorent of. It is always a slight bit annoying that I can't do some more random voting that day. ^_^ (I know... some of you will perhaps think I'm a bit crazy... :P)
0∈ [?]
::kjh000
09/13/05 9:59 AM GMT
Or how about not limiting it at all? (Very few would go on and on for ever I guess, (no not me either...) so it would be self limiting most probably.) Someone, refresh my memory. What was the reason for limiting it to 30?
0∈ [?]
panoramaster
09/13/05 10:22 AM GMT
Hey Caedes, do you actually plan on standardising peoples votes? Right now, it seems that the images just get the raw value of peoples votes.

ALSO (edit) why does the ability to vote on an image (non-random image) remain, even after i have placed a vote.... i.e., i can just keep voting and voting and voting and.....

I had this problem on Buttermilk Staircase.
0∈ [?]
It seems to me that what wears us down the most in life aren't the chances we take, but the chances we dont take, the dreams we put aside, the adventures we push away, the questions that are never answered
molefi
09/13/05 10:33 AM GMT
Just my two cents...

I totally agree with the post of meteor at 8:46 am. After testing the new voting systems for a few times a fractal came up. I too dislike fractals and am giving a possibly unfair and not meaningful vote to the image. Isn't it an idea to make a button "I don't like this category" which removes that category from the voting booth? (With the possibility to correct it in the users profile).

Furthermore, i agree that the photo's description should be posted together with the photo. I once posted a 15-second exposure photo of a watch in which the movement of the second hand can be followed. Even with the description, most people did not notice this. Let alone that, when no description is posted, users will notice this at all.
0∈ [?]
~ A sunflower a day, keeps the doctor away... ;)
pom1
09/13/05 10:37 AM GMT
i havnt had time to follow all this. looking at my control panel, all my images have zero votes now, but they still have their previous c indexes. some of them now have 1 or 2 votes, but my most recent image has had plenty of views, but 0 votes. it seems quite strange.
0∈ [?]
Please feel welcome to view my Gallery Here
heidlerr
09/13/05 10:50 AM GMT
I don't think this plan is working very well. All of my images have anywhere from 0 to 2 votes max with most at 0 votes. On one with 2 votes, I got one vote of 10 and one vote of 0 giving me a c-index of 50. At a score like that the image is headed for the trash can for sure. Why should we make the effort to post out best works if they are going to get sidelined by this voting system. Is it really worth our efforts to wade through 10 images in catagories that we may not like just to post an image that will get ignored by the general public?
What's plan "B" Mr. Caedes?
Russ
0∈ [?]
"My own eyes are no more than scouts on a preliminary search, for the camera's eye may entirely change my idea." Edward Weston
::kjh000
09/13/05 10:59 AM GMT
It would seem a bit rash to trash pieces on basis of this new "c-index". If you still have terrible ratings by the new standards in a few months, then we have reason, perhaps, to discuss such matters. The old figures can't in any way be compared to the new. Who's to say, a 50 could be reasonably good for all I know.
0∈ [?]
pom1
09/13/05 1:14 PM GMT
i agree with Russ, quite a few of my best images with previously highest ratings in my gallery, have now got between 1 and 6 votes, and they have c indexes of between 45 and 60....
0∈ [?]
Please feel welcome to view my Gallery Here
meteor
09/13/05 1:21 PM GMT
OK! NOW I'M REALLY ANNOYED!!!!! Caedes must have a sense of humour because after mentioning my dislike of Fractals before, I just went to vote on some images to give it a bit more of a try. SIX (6) OUT OF EIGHT (8) WERE FRACTALS OR HAD A FRACTAL ELEMENT! Hahahahaha! I doubt any of them got what they would consider a fair score!
0∈ [?]
"Better a fantastic image of something plain, than a bad image of something great!"
KEIFER
09/13/05 3:00 PM GMT
And yet this is a perfect voting system !!! .. You wipe all previous vote counts, and then somebody, like meteor, comes along and gives a 3 to something that was, for example, high 80's .. and now the image is a 30. .. How the mighty have fallen

Your view is, of course, that the previous rating was "just a bunch of friends" and that 30 is the rightful score.

We shall see, I guess
0∈ [?]
Stop trying to figure out who's talented and who's not, and just take a shot at it, okay? Do some art. Tell anybody who asks that I said it was all right. ---Emma Bull
::lgmac
09/13/05 3:09 PM GMT
There are many wonderful photographers here and I have commented and voted on many photos even though I am no photographer myself. Do these individuals have any idea of the time and effort that go into creating a flame, fractal, or abstract image that so many have stated they don't care for and are not going to vote high on? In doing that does that mean that if we are more into the fractal, flame, abstract art scene and not photos that we hurry and give them a low mark to get through our quota of votes for the day? Is it fair for me to decide that it must be the photographers giving me all the low votes because they are not into what I do, so I will give all their photos low marks as well. How can we be expected to judge fairly and be judged fairly if so many people don't like what we do? This makes no sense to me whatsoever and I see a lot of the people that create what I like getting the raw end of the deal here. Since I started voting randomly the ratio of photos to fractals is much greater, telling me that we are in the minority and are basically screwed. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.
0∈ [?]
"Little dreams cost the same as big dreams, so why not dream big"?
trisbert
09/13/05 3:40 PM GMT
I decided to write this because other people seem to have a problem with images outside their normal range of interest.

It didnít take me long in the random voting page to encounter an image I would normally politely ignore. But there is no ignore button, Oh heck how do I deal with this one fairly? So I came up with a list of values that I can apply to all images I encounter while in this page.

There are 11 values in my list so far, which is ok because some values canít be applied to all images eg level horizons donít apply to fractals. Now each of those values can be a positive or a negative value depending on the image in question. So I get the image on screen full size and apply values, when Iím done I have the score.

The values I came up with are:
interest, colour, sharpness, tone range, depth of focus, composition, difficulty, lighting, grain or noise, technical expertise, squareness or lack of.

I expect to modify the list as improvements become apparent to me.

After my session in the random voting page I conclude that my list might not be perfect but it is a way of getting the job done in fairness. The average score is lower than it used to be, some actually get zeros (I never did that before because they were politely ignored) and none got a ten.

Iím not suggesting everyone adopt a system like this, but if you are having difficulty you might like to use it as a basis for your own system. On that note if you have any comments or suggestions about this Iíd be happy to hear them.
0∈ [?]
There are three colours, Ten digits and seven notes, its what we do with them thatís important. Ruth Ross
Drakala
09/13/05 3:52 PM GMT
I'm really getting fed-up with random voting as there are so many photogaphy images on here (no offence to photographers) I keep getting them when I vote so I leave the booth then try again but I just get so many photos that it's annoying can we please have a pass button so we don't wrongly criticise these people's art because we don't know about it. Please Please Please
0∈ [?]
::WENPEDER
09/13/05 3:59 PM GMT
Well, I know I was asked above not comment anymore in this thread by Caedes, but I think I have as much right to speak up in this discussion as others who have chosen to be active in it (sorry, Caedes, I mean no disrespect.)

I read what Torque said about the "meaning" of the new C-Index, but I don't think that this is the way a lot of people think when they rate images. I've spoken to a number of people here who seem to view the 0-10 scale as somewhat analogous to an academic grading system in which a 70 is considered average, an 80 above average and 90 or higher in the superior range. Scores from 0 to 60 (%) would be considered poor to below average.

If you check out the grade distribution at a University like Harvard, you'll NOT find it evenly distributed from 0 to 100%. You'll find MOST students CLUSTERED above 70 because Harvard students tend to be very good academically. I see this context as analogous in a sense. MOST of the posters here are "artistically inclined" - - so votes have tended to be clustered above 70 and that makes perfect sense to me. What Caedes.net seems to be attempting to do at this point, however, is to FORCE votes to be perfectly evenly distributed from 0 to 10, and that kind of a distribution just doesn't fit the generally high quality of images here. I don't know how or if votes are being WEIGHTED now, but, if they are, I would like to know. I think WEIGHTING images in any way could be very misleading...votes should STAND as they are made by the voter...they should not be manipulated to force a distribution of scores that does not reflect reality, IMHO.

I can see how RANDOM voting would bring down averages somewhat, but not to the extent that I'm witnessing now...the drop in c-index scores is EXTREME and I'm not understanding what accounts for it. Again, are individual votes being WEIGHTED in some way and, if so, how?

A special thanks to Caedes for TRYING to devise a FAIR system...I do not mean to suggest otherwise. Wen
0∈ [?]
=Piner
09/13/05 4:21 PM GMT
Trisbert has the right idea. But if you are going to go around and try to sabotage the voting system because of whatever reasons, then caedes will take action. If you don't like the image and don't want to vote on it, hit the refresh button on your browser.
0∈ [?]
The work of art may have a moral effect, but to demand moral purpose from an artist is to make him ruin his work. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - 1832)
Drakala
09/13/05 4:48 PM GMT
Yeah but I can't be botherd to analyse how well something I don't like is artistically. It's just I like high mark I don't like low marks. Maybe it would be possible to split the voting booth ino the galleries so we can choose what genre our random images are.
0∈ [?]
::Torque
09/13/05 5:19 PM GMT
It seems there is an overwhelming population of people who either like photography and have absolutely no interest in computer generated images, or vice versa.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have three radio buttons on the voting page:

*Photography
*Computer Images
*Both

The split is probably even enough that the people who only want to vote on photography will cancel out the people who only want to vote on fractals and such, and all images will still get the desired voting volume. The people (such as me) who like everything can simply opt to vote on both types, and of course it should remember your default setting for convenience.

I think selecting individual galleries to vote on will begin to create problems with some images not getting enough votes, but this 50/50 split shouldn't cause that problem. Any images in special galleries (such as contest images, etc.) or mixed galleries (like Rework and Space) would just be included in all voting booths regardless of the category selected to make sure they get enough votes.

It would also be a good idea to include the name of the gallery on the voting page if nothing else, so that a contest image is viewed in that context, and a rework image (which is one that REALLY needs a description because of the link to the original) will be evaluated based on the reworking and not just the original image. All that aside though, I think the radio buttons would go a long way to making people happier with random voting.
0∈ [?]
~My select image - Wading Patiently
::lgmac
09/13/05 5:29 PM GMT
I agree that it would be nice to have that choice. There are a lot of photos that I just love and I look at the ones that peek my interest and give them a very fair vote. I am not totally about computer images. I just want a fair shake with what I spend a lot of time and thought creating. I don't feel that I am speaking just for myself here either.
0∈ [?]
"Little dreams cost the same as big dreams, so why not dream big"?
::verenabloo
09/13/05 5:48 PM GMT
I havent said anymore because I felt it was important to give all this a "fair chance"..give it some time...look and listen..that sort of thing. But I have noticed a couple things..that kind of disturb me. I am seeing many many less comments now. I am noticing the huge amount of difference in the c index..I have had photos be in the lower end(below 50) and suddenly I had one that was 100 !! I have never had that before, and to be totally honest normally it would shock me to receive such a generous"grade.".I know of many who would truly deserve that grade...(me not being one of them).but I also have seen some of my images in the 70s and 80s and now they are now anywhere from zero to twenty......Talk about confusing. Personally I dont care much about the ratings..they do give a sense of knowing on scale of 1-10 how people "enjoy" our creations..but I personally love the comments. Its more personal and intresting and we can all learn things from them. I am finding more and more that people evidently just "check one"..as far as voting..and then click! and poof they move on. I am seeing even in myself that I have that tendency to feel the same way. And I DO NOT LIKE this in myself. But you see, we are kind of being steered around like cattle. We are losing something. Oh sure we all have opinions, and whether they are positive or negative, its probably pretty much fifty fifty...but in the long run..we are all a bit "hurt" by this whole thing. It is causing confusion when it does not need to do that. I truly enjoy caedes and I have found many good friends here, but everyone is a bit upset right now and they shouldnt have to be. I think the basic idea of the voting might work out, but I think it needs to get the rough edges polished up. Since I do freelance artwork at my home studio//office ..I get up in the mornings and check my email and caedes. I look forward to that little time..but now it isnt so much fun anymore. I am not even sure why I post the photos..and talkign about fractals?? Fractals I LOVE..and nine out of ten things I save to put on my screen are the fractals..they are colourful and full of life..so why dont I see fractals in the images we are sent to vote on? These folks are are artists just like photographers are...anyway...I had thought about some of this, and hope in some small way it might bring some thoughts up, I am not upset but it makes me a bit sad to see people enjoying a site and then here comes a big wrench thrown in...could someone please take the wrench out and adjust this whole thing? thank you for reading this....
0∈ [?]
We like someone because. We love someone although.
::vicvog
09/13/05 6:10 PM GMT
After reading the above comments for the past couple of days, I decided to throw in my two cents for whatever they are worth. As I said before, I am new to Caedes and I certainly mean no disrespect, but in my opinion Caedes is really an on-line art gallery of sorts. If I go into an art gallery, I am going to gravitate to the art that appeals to me. There could be a whole room full of still lives and I may walk through, but spend very little time there because they just don't appeal to me. I could go into the same gallery with my daughter, sister, mother and a close friend and we would all like different works of art. Does that mean what I don't like is poorly done? Absolutely not! It just doesn't appeal to me. Look at some of the FAMOUS ARTISTS for instance like Picasso, Monet, Divinci, Michelangelo etc. - They all have completely different styles and different followings. They are all magnificant, but it is all in the eye of the beholder! I understand that you want people to vote on more images Caedes, but I honestly believe it should be up to the discretion of the person who is voting, on what they like and what they feel they want to vote on. I feel this would be much more fair to each artist, because they are getting an honest critique and vote on their images.
0∈ [?]
pom1
09/13/05 6:18 PM GMT
i agree with Verena, having the voting system seperate from the image page seems to make people less inclined to comment on the image as well.
0∈ [?]
Please feel welcome to view my Gallery Here
::philcUK
09/13/05 6:18 PM GMT
Having the choice of genre to vote on would defeat the entire object of the exercise and just revert to more or less exactly how it was before with both unrealistic inflated voting as well as malicious voting on styles you donít like. I would have thought it perfectly feasible to form a considered opinion on an image and vote on that accordingly irrespective as to whether it panders to your personal taste or not. Itís not rocket science - itís just being honest and objective.
0∈ [?]
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps"
DixieNormus
09/13/05 7:12 PM GMT
All of my images are being ripped apart. My scores are equal to that of a 3 year old. There are viewers admitting to dishing out 0s and 1s......while I'm here giving out fair votes. I think my lowest was a 4, and thats because that image looked like it was created by a chimpanze. I thought this system had a chance at working. Now I just think it blows badly.
0∈ [?]
::verenabloo
09/13/05 7:50 PM GMT
I wanted to mention too, that I had NEVER given a zero to anyone before this, and suddenly I did. Well, there is NO purpose in that..and I wont do it again...its a sad thing..all this turmoil..could easily be resolved in a bit of pondering and rethinking and re-evaluating...by mrCaedes...and the Mods...and in time I am sure they will do just that. Patience is the key I imagine..and its a tough one..but in the final end of it all, it will pay off.
0∈ [?]
We like someone because. We love someone although.
::verenabloo
09/13/05 7:54 PM GMT
I have commented on many creations since my last posting..yet just now when I tried to upload there was that message AGAIN:::::the one about me having to vote on 20 images before I can upload..well obviously something isnt working just right...need few tune-up type of adjustments?
0∈ [?]
We like someone because. We love someone although.
DixieNormus
09/13/05 7:58 PM GMT
...in the mean time, our work is being shredded by the masses. I hope Caedes realises this system is more prone to abuse than the last. Corrupt to say the least. I give this voting system a 0, and I've never voted 0 on anything. A picture of a pubic hair might get a 0 from me. That's how bad it would have to be, and thats how bad this new voting system is.
0∈ [?]
DixieNormus
09/13/05 8:03 PM GMT
Hell...I may as well join in on the carnage, and start voting 1-4 on everything I look at....with no respect, or consideration to it's artistry. That seems to be what everyone else is doing....so WTF!
0∈ [?]
::philcUK
09/13/05 8:03 PM GMT
well it would be fare to assume that Caedes will deal with anyone abusing the system again so please give it the benefit of the doubt for the moment at least.
0∈ [?]
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps"
DixieNormus
09/13/05 8:07 PM GMT
I assume nothing. We have several posters in this thread that admit to voting low because they don't care for a particular type of image. I'm going to use the same philosophy. Fair is fair, eh?
0∈ [?]
trisweb
09/13/05 8:12 PM GMT
I would just like to reiterate how good I think the new system is.

Randy, consider that people are being honest about some of your images.

For Verena, a zero vote should be considered a statistical outlier in the presence of anything higher (especially when there is some sort of consistency in the other votes), and can safely be ignored.

For everyone, for the love of God, just be honest and stop all the bickering! If you're a photographer, and don't like fractals, who cares? You have eyes, you can tell good from bad, you can come up with a rating system if you want, you can wing it! Personally, I believe most of the images on this site are way below par. My range of votes is from 3-8 most of the time with a rare 9, and even rarer 10. If I'm giving you a 10, it had better be a darn good image. And yes, I have given a fractal a 10.

But don't go retaliating on whole styles just because you think they're ignorant of your own! Have we forgotten the golden rule already? Is that what mob mentality does to us? Have we even forgot our own logic, that maybe, just maybe if we ourselves are honest and grateful and good then others will give us the same respect??

I keep coming back to this in every situation in my life: just be honest. Please, all of this hatred and blame and argument is starting to diminish my faith in the human race...
0∈ [?]
::verenabloo
09/13/05 8:12 PM GMT
Phil..there are so many ways to "abuse" something. We put our hearts into our creations..so its only fair that we give things a chance, as well as "this system" givind US a chance. Assuming anything gets no one anywhere..ASSUME: to take upon oneself; to pretend to have; to take as granted but not proved. Thats the Websters speaking....time will tell...........
0∈ [?]
We like someone because. We love someone although.

This comment by DixieNormus has been moved to the Hall of Shame.

[view comment]

pom1
09/13/05 8:21 PM GMT
if i vote randomly on an image and then follow the link to the images own page, i can then vote on the image a second time.....
0∈ [?]
Please feel welcome to view my Gallery Here
DixieNormus
09/13/05 8:27 PM GMT
Hey....I'm not ashamed.
0∈ [?]
MorpheusZero
09/13/05 8:34 PM GMT
You are angry at the fact that people have admitted to voting lower than they thought an image deserved? That is reasonable, but to do the same thing you complained about them doing is completely irrational and hypocritical. As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. The new voting system is...well...new. Please give it some time, votes will become more accurate as time goes on.
0∈ [?]
DixieNormus
09/13/05 8:36 PM GMT
What goes around comes around.
0∈ [?]
MorpheusZero
09/13/05 8:40 PM GMT
I don't think that is a very good way to look at things...
0∈ [?]
trisweb
09/13/05 8:42 PM GMT
Works both ways Randy. You'll get what you give as well.
0∈ [?]
DixieNormus
09/13/05 8:46 PM GMT
Okay then....Here is MY new voting system. This image, my latest....has a rating of 46. Now that is a below average score....so using this an an example of a below average image....anything that is worse than this image will be given a below average vote. Or perhaps I could use my image "Psychosis" as a referrence? It has a score of 10.
0∈ [?]
DixieNormus
09/13/05 8:51 PM GMT
Trisweb...you are absolutely correct! You get what you give as well. Couldn't have said it better. Thank you.
0∈ [?]
rforres
09/13/05 9:02 PM GMT
What's wrong with just having a benchmark of 5 for images that you personally find to be average/neutral (based on use of color, composition, subject matter, creativity, etc - things we can judge across genres, I would think) and working from there in both directions? If we all did this and rated images with our honest reactions, I'm betting that the scores will turn out to be pretty reasonable as more votes are averaged into the c-index. Until images have a sizable number of votes, outliers exert too much of an effect, and we really can't count on the c-index much. But with 10 or 15 votes or more, it will probably even out and be a more accurate reflection of image quality. (Of course, this could be overly optimistic. In any case, we won't really know how good a job the new system is doing until more votes have come in.)
0∈ [?]
trisweb
09/13/05 9:07 PM GMT
Rebecca, you're absolutely right. One vote does not constitute a rating, it's just a single point, which anyone who's taken statistics in high school knows doesn't mean anything at all. I'm glad that caedes said that new images will eventually get 10 votes in the first 24 hours or so, which is awesome, because it gives you actual information.

The numbers as they are now should be considered useless and invalid for all intensive purposes. Just remember that and continue to rate honestly on others' images, and ignore all the low votes that you think aren't valid. It will all even out statistically in time.
0∈ [?]
DixieNormus
09/13/05 9:10 PM GMT
Okay..if the numbers should be considered useless...same goes with the current system.
0∈ [?]
::Morwyn
09/13/05 9:11 PM GMT
I can see that this isn't going to work.. People are so angry, they are voting lower than they ever would, because they are forced to vote on images they don't ike.. Until this is settled I will not be uploading any new images.. I refuse to get involved the any of this.. I love this site and all this bickering is just plain silly.. I will not be a part of it..
0∈ [?]
One bead at a time..
trisweb
09/13/05 9:13 PM GMT
That's not what I meant... man, just think about it for a moment and it might click -- one vote could be an a**hole, but many votes means filtering out the a**holes. Just wait till that happens and then you can complain about the system.
0∈ [?]
Tarvos
09/13/05 9:14 PM GMT
I personally had mixed feelings about this thing but I've begun to like this thing, but it has started fights and Ann won't upload anymore *sad face*. I guess everything will always have pros and cons and never always be looked at positive by everyone.
0∈ [?]
DixieNormus
09/13/05 9:16 PM GMT
The a**holes vote will still be averaged into the score. Sad but true. Anyways....MY system works. =0)
0∈ [?]
DixieNormus
09/13/05 9:19 PM GMT
Here's a suggestion. Everyone here find one of their images that is rated as close to 50 as you got. By using that image as an "Average" image.....deal out votes accordingly.
0∈ [?]
MorpheusZero
09/13/05 9:22 PM GMT
Is that how you did your voting before? I highly doubt it. Seriously, calm down and give the system some time. Not everything is perfect on the first try.
0∈ [?]
trisweb
09/13/05 9:24 PM GMT
Good suggestion. However you do it, let's just be honest about how we rate images so we don't mess with the system any more than we already have.

And the a**hole votes are actually significantly diminished by the real votes, just fyi. I'm sure caedes has even taken these outliers into account in the calculation. I'd be surprised if it's just a straight average.
0∈ [?]
DixieNormus
09/13/05 9:26 PM GMT
That is exactly how my votes will be figured from now on.
0∈ [?]
Tarvos
09/13/05 9:27 PM GMT
I've read that people want a pass button, just refresh the page.
0∈ [?]
rforres
09/13/05 9:30 PM GMT
I fail to see why taking an image that others found to be a 5 and using it as your benchmark makes sense. Why not just use an image that you find to be neutral for your taste instead?
0∈ [?]
DixieNormus
09/13/05 9:35 PM GMT
I think using one of MY "Average" rated images as a reference will better reflect this sites definition of "Average".
0∈ [?]
rforres
09/13/05 9:43 PM GMT
I see your point in a way, but I plan to stick with voting according to my taste and values. I would feel better about having my honest reactions thrown into the mix rather than trying to conform to standards that I don't believe in.
0∈ [?]
scionlord
09/13/05 9:46 PM GMT
*ponders insanity*
0∈ [?]
'Study the past, if you would divine the future.' - Confucius ............................... Please look at these: Painful, Aircraft version 3
DixieNormus
09/13/05 9:46 PM GMT
Yep.....and that's why a voting system of any kind will never work with art. Hell we all tried to define art, and fell well short. So then....how can we judge what cannot be defined?
0∈ [?]
DixieNormus
09/13/05 9:48 PM GMT
That's why my system almost works. It defines an "Average" view. It's as close as I could ever get. LOL....this is all so pointless.
0∈ [?]
::philcUK
09/13/05 9:52 PM GMT
and yet it rattles on unabated.....
0∈ [?]
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps"
DixieNormus
09/13/05 9:57 PM GMT
LMAO...indeed. =0)
0∈ [?]
*caedes
09/13/05 10:15 PM GMT
Consider this discussion over for now. I was thinking about programming a "locked discussion" feature just so I can use it on this thread, but instead I'm going to use my mystical powers. Anyone who posts in this thread or starts a new one along these same lines will be banned for 48 hours. If you have any suggestions or thoughts about the voting system you can send mature messages to me via PM as usual.
0∈ [?]
-caedes
ouimon
09/29/05 5:43 PM GMT
I wonder what we are really thinking about when voting. Many have stated that they like to vote for items that catch their eye, and then the C-index goes up for the entries that are appreciated by the viewer. When I had to start voting on random images before I went to upload a new one, this caused me to hurry and vote, and I gave the images votes by my own scale, and just entered votes from 7 to 10, based on the fact that I normally don't vote on all types of images and may not be able to appreciate the work that goes into the other types of images. I don't think it is fair for me to vote on image types I am not familiar with, so I don't like to vote low on any of them. So, I was voting on content, artistic style, focus, clarity, lighting, uniqueness, etc. I guess those are fair ratings. This voting is really neat, but the best things about this site are that we can all share our photos and creations, and give suggestions, comments, and basically show appreciation for each others' works. Whenever people mention voting low on others' work, it sounds like negative competition instead of mutual support. Like we hear it told.. If you have nothing good to say, do not say it at all. How can we have a voting experience in which we focus on the positives and merely acknowledge the negatives? Paul W ~Ouimon~
0∈ [?]
Alvarez and Epiphone are two of my best friends.. besides my 6 cats :-)
ouimon
09/29/05 5:44 PM GMT
I did not see the thread about the mystical wizard banning for 48 hours.. So I am sory. Sue me :-)
0∈ [?]
Alvarez and Epiphone are two of my best friends.. besides my 6 cats :-)
thejaedenbeast
10/07/05 6:58 AM GMT
I must say, this new system is pretty spiffy. I haven't gotten a comment on my pictures in ages and finally I have a few new ones. This kind of brings me back to Caedes. Good work!
0∈ [?]
*~()__JaedenBeast__)
yellow_peril
10/08/05 10:44 AM GMT
May I comment as a brand new member to Caedes who hasn't a clue what 'bickering' has gone on before and someone who is a complete amateur when it comes to photography.

I love this site. Many of the opictures are breathtaking.

However, as a landscape and 'scenery' person, those are the ones that catch my eye.

I find it 'unfair' in the voting booth as, not being 'into' abstracts, I have no idea how good or exceptional an abstract is with a view to voting.

If I find one that I think wow...that's pretty...I give it a higher vote.
I'm sure there are those that are exceptional but not pretty...but I'm afraid these lose out due to my lack of knowledge on the subject.

Whilst I would never vote below 5 I think abstract pictures lose out on a higher vote because a lot of people will not appreciate them.

I hope my comments do not offend....

YP



0∈ [?]

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: