Caedes

By popular request

Submitted by caedes 12/05/10 10:37 PM GMT

As requested on the suggestions poll, I have enabled individual authors to view details of the c-index voting for each individual image. You may view this information by going to your Caedes Control Panel and clicking on the "vts" (votes) field for a specific image. I will now remove the suggestion from the poll, and those who voted for this suggestion can now vote for another item. Good job to everyone who has participated in the suggestions poll so far!

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
.rforres
12/05/10 11:04 PM GMT
Wow! Thanks so much! I like seeing the distribution of votes on each image. Very helpful feedback. :)
0∈ [?]
.Akeraios
12/05/10 11:06 PM GMT
Well, I guess I'm glad to know that one of my favorites, that got a C-Index of 27, actually had an average vote of 5.7 ...
0∈ [?]
There are few situations in life that cannot be honourably settled, and without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a precipice on a dark night. -- Kai Lung
::third_eye
12/06/10 12:54 AM GMT
Well, this only goes to show that one (like myself) should be careful in what one wishes for. Still, I'd prefer to see the good, bad, and ugly votes as they are, instead of guessing. So, thanks for that. And for listening.
0∈ [?]
::cynlee
12/06/10 3:05 AM GMT
Now I understand why the algorithm for balancing the vote totals exists. When you have posts with zero and tens voted on the same image, you know something is not right. This makes me put even less confidence in the results of the voting booth than before. Some of those votes have to be just in spite. Do people really expect the same kind of honesty on their own images when they are so disingenous with regard to others? Does putting others down, raise oneself up? Are they deceiving themselves into thinking that no one knows what they have done?

Just check Most Active Members list ( now listed under Site Information) to see exactly Who is voting.


Addendum:
In reference to an above comment, how does an image that got an average or 5.7 in the voting, generate a 27 index anyway?
0∈ [?]
CAUGHT UP IN LIES~~~~~~Support freedom of speech and Julian Assange!
*caedes
12/06/10 4:19 AM GMT
cynlee: to answer your question "how does an image that got an average or 5.7 in the voting, generate a 27 index?":

In general, the average given to all images is around 70 while the c-index is defined to have an average of 50. So when we re-balance the votes (to make the average 50), it causes the cindex to be lower than that average.
0∈ [?]
-caedes
::cynlee
12/06/10 4:57 AM GMT
Okay, I think I understand. Thank you.
0∈ [?]
CAUGHT UP IN LIES~~~~~~Support freedom of speech and Julian Assange!
::allisontaylor
12/06/10 1:42 PM GMT
As someone who didn't think I cared what the individual votes are, I do find it very illuminating yet confusing at the same time. Interesting!
0∈ [?]
.Akeraios
12/06/10 2:54 PM GMT
Most of mine aren't that far below the average, and apparently at least three people gave it a 10, and the lowest vote was 2, which I would never have guessed from the C-Index.
0∈ [?]
There are few situations in life that cannot be honourably settled, and without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a precipice on a dark night. -- Kai Lung
.mesmerized
12/06/10 4:38 PM GMT
As one who has learned to live with the c-index and not let it bother me anymore I must admit it's fascinating to see the breakdown and in some cases quite curious how one image can have quite a wide range of votes...thanks Mr. C for another great addition to the site.
1∈ [?]
.Akeraios
12/07/10 2:18 AM GMT
How come the numbers of votes don't match? One that had 16 in the votes column said in the pop-up that it was out of 24 votes, and several other that I checked were off as well.
0∈ [?]
There are few situations in life that cannot be honourably settled, and without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a precipice on a dark night. -- Kai Lung
.SatCom
12/07/10 2:51 AM GMT
I love the feature.....but call me stupid (not literally please), but what does it mean to have an average of 7.5 out of 16 votes?
0∈ [?]
Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click the shutter. - Ansel Adams....... My Gallery
::cynlee
12/07/10 3:22 AM GMT
Paul, If you add the designated score (0-10) of each of those 16 votes and divide by 16 (number of total votes), you get an average of 5.7 or a c:index of 57. That is my interpretation, but anyone correct me if I misunderstood.
0∈ [?]
CAUGHT UP IN LIES~~~~~~Support freedom of speech and Julian Assange!
::LynEve
12/07/10 3:42 AM GMT
Thanks caedes for implementing this feature, and for listening to our wishes :)

I have had a look at mine and can only comment that there are some sad spiteful or just plain stupid people about - and to those who voted zero on several of my images which I can say without any self-praise are worth a darned sight more than nothing, the very least they should have done is to have made a comment on the images' pages giving their 'expert' opinions, and explaining why the images are worthless. This would be enlightening for us all. The fact that the same images have been selected to the main galleries despite the efforts of whoever they are bears this out. They are probably the same person(s) who have voted plenty of 1's alongside 7s, 8s & 9s.

Perhaps it it were mandatory for zeros ones and twos to be accompanied with an explantion or better still - your identity - you may not be so slap happy with your nasty little games.

I do apologise to other members for this rant - perhaps others (if any) who find they have been targeted the same way may consider voting for my suggestion of Zero Tolerance of VB abuse.

To those who take pleasure in giving undeserved zero votes - get a life and exercise some integrity and honesty.
3∈ [?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
.rforres
12/07/10 3:48 AM GMT
In my case, I have about as many undeserved 10s as undeserved 0s, so I figure it probably evens out in the end.

What I've found surprising is how widely dispersed the votes are. Very rarely does an image have votes clustered around one number. It can make a low c-index easier to take (because at least someone liked it! ;) ).
0∈ [?]
::trixxie17
12/07/10 3:56 AM GMT
I'm with you on this issue Lyn whether I've been targeted or not. I changed my vote to support your suggestion.
2∈ [?]
. . . "What a desolate place would be a world without a flower! It would be a face without a smile, a feast without a welcome." A.J. Balfour
::cynlee
12/07/10 5:16 AM GMT
We appear to all be in the same boat with regard to the zeros, Lyn. Someone will always abuse the privileges they have been given, but mores the pity for them. They know who they are and I suspect Caedes does too.
2∈ [?]
CAUGHT UP IN LIES~~~~~~Support freedom of speech and Julian Assange!
::LynEve
12/07/10 11:37 AM GMT
Rebecca - I also have a sprinkling of undeserved 10's.
Going back further in my gallery the voting pattern appears to be far less polarized and zero's less prevalent.
1∈ [?]
My thanks to all who leave comments for my work and to those of you who like one enough to make it a favourite. To touch just one person that way makes each image worthwhile. . . . . . . . . .. . . . "The question is not what you look at, but what you see" ~ Marcel Proust
::cynlee
12/07/10 4:05 PM GMT
I think that Geri must have mulled over so many suggestions through the years on how to optimize that darned old VB and tried new options to get it to work well. The problem is there will always be contingencies and as in life, outliers, in this kind of sampling. Your suggestion, LynEve, sounds like a good one, i.e. having folks explain themselves when voting a 0,1, or 2, but being that they are already seemingly lazy individuals, they would simply start with the 3s and the 4s and the 0-2 would be moot choices.

Looking at my own gallery, I see that most of my high c:indexed images are from some time ago. That indicates to me that either I have gotten progressively worse in my photo taking through the years, or the pool of voters has changed and they see things differently, or we have picked up some members of low integrity as you refer to above. Any or all could be the case. lol
I see the resolution (my suggestion) as two choices. Abandon the system or require more votes from all who post, even as little as five each from everyone, the purpose there being a larger sampling.

I don't think the VB is going away anytime soon, if at all, so we are left with the status quo with the added ability now to see how our images are perceived by voters individually. When I saw that modification and tried it out, my initial response was, "so what". It really doesn't tell me anything more, only that there are some skunks here and that made me feel uneasy. Perhaps this new change has merely opened a Pandora's Box.
1∈ [?]
CAUGHT UP IN LIES~~~~~~Support freedom of speech and Julian Assange!
::danika
12/07/10 8:43 PM GMT
I do vote when I get a chance ... to me the voting booth is more of a learning experience for me. I may have overlooked some newly posted images & the voting booth gives me a chance to view them taking into account composition, color, & other variables of an image. I don't pay much attention to the C-index (on my own images as well as other member's images). I view the image & I know what I like or may dislike. I believe it has been mentioned before the C-index is used primarily as a gauge for sorting images. I like the new feature of being able to view the breakdown of the voting scores. Yes, I've received zero's, but like most things I don't let it upset me a whole lot. I tend to shrug things off ... perhaps too easily. If one and I mean 'one' person likes an image of mine ... then I'm happy.

Truthfully, I wouldn't like to see the voting booth disappear. I'd like to see some breakdown in the voting / scoring on images in regards to the technical side (composition, lighting, etc.) ... as mentioned in the suggestions thread.

I like LynEve's suggestion ... to place a comment on an image if the vote was 3 or 4 and less. I've seen this done on a photography site (can't recall what the site is called), but at least people will be more honest on why they gave the image a zero or a three ... I hope. I know I'd like to know why one of my images received such a low score & then I can improve on it. Not sure how this feature would or could be enforced.

Thank you *caedes for the new feature ... gives some insight on how the voting / scoring works.
0∈ [?]
"I Love Lab's!"
.mesmerized
12/07/10 9:09 PM GMT
I too would love to see an obligatory comment on very low scores...might help to discourage those that purposely abuse the voting system.
0∈ [?]
::cynlee
12/07/10 9:38 PM GMT
Obligatory commenting when you give a low score would just force the voter to give a higher number to the image to avoid having to explain his low vote and that would skew the outcome upward. It stands to reason that therefore, all votes, 0 to 10, should be accompanied by comment to be fair and that wouldn't be popular. The c:index has no absolute value and the voting is subjective. We have to not take it too seriously.
1∈ [?]
CAUGHT UP IN LIES~~~~~~Support freedom of speech and Julian Assange!
.Akeraios
12/07/10 9:48 PM GMT
It's also possible that some of the 10s are just as lazy. If I were going to just vote to get through and post my piece (which I wouldn't), I would probably vote 5 every time. So maybe the 0s and 10s are just very opinionated people ...
0∈ [?]
There are few situations in life that cannot be honourably settled, and without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a precipice on a dark night. -- Kai Lung
*caedes
12/08/10 12:21 AM GMT
I realize that the vote count doesn't match that printed on the Control Panel. I'll look into that.
0∈ [?]
-caedes
.angelicem
12/13/10 2:59 PM GMT
I was very excited to see how the new feature worked, upon finding it i was quite dissapointed to find that a lot of people had voted "0" on quite a few of my images yet on the same image i had also recieved numerous "10's". I thought i might have been targeted for perhaps the reason that i have only been a member of caedes for approx 4 months?? But upon reading this thread it appears many people have experienced the same thing, and i dont understand why as there are in my opinion some beautiful pieces of work created from some of the members above who have experienced the same as myself. i think the people doing this need to be more open minded.

As an example I myself, do not really have a fondness of abstract work, however when facing one in the voting booth, i vote not only on the effect the image has on me but how much effort the artist has clearly put into the picture as i understand that peoples taste differs tremendously.

I have recieved quite a few 0's, some of the 0's have been given on pieces that i have put hours of time and dedication into and where as i probably dont quite deserve the 10's i recieved either, i definatley dont think i deserved 0's!
I dont think i have ever given a 0...its like the ultimate insult!
I also agree with ::cynlee that people should leave a comment with there vote as i would really really like to know what makes my images so terrible to some people???
Emily
1∈ [?]
We are each others angels...we meet when it is time.
.angelicem
12/13/10 3:04 PM GMT
I will also be changing my vote to support ::LynEve
1∈ [?]
We are each others angels...we meet when it is time.
::jeenie11
12/16/10 4:06 AM GMT
taking a look at this new offering was frankly quite a mind blower. needless to say, we each see these photographs with our own eye, but there is often a reasonably even consensus. there are some real jerks out there. voting a 2 on an image that was almost all 7-8-9-10 is a total joke! it seems that these people and no doubt someone knows who they are ought to be given the boot! who cares about people who are out to hurt others. for those of you who are guilty, please give us a break......just don't vote!
3∈ [?]
AVATAR BY PJ............... i've been so bad about commenting on your photos. believe me when i say i look at them all. feel free to NOT comment on mine. Please Visit My Gallery
::cynlee
12/16/10 4:11 PM GMT
At THIS THREAD, you can vote for ZERO TOLERANCE OF VOTING BOOTH ABUSE.
0∈ [?]
CAUGHT UP IN LIES~~~~~~Support freedom of speech and Julian Assange!
=Samatar
12/17/10 8:33 AM GMT
"If voting zero in the voting booth you must list reasons why"

All I see happening there is that almost anyone who would have voted zero would just give a 1 instead.
0∈ [?]
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
::cynlee
12/17/10 3:43 PM GMT
Sam is right. Where does that end?
0∈ [?]
CAUGHT UP IN LIES~~~~~~Support freedom of speech and Julian Assange!
::Akeraios
12/20/10 3:40 PM GMT
My last three submissions:
6.1 = 45
6.3 = 40
5.8 = 53

Must be some pretty complicated math going on there!

0∈ [?]
There are few situations in life that cannot be honourably settled, and without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a precipice on a dark night. -- Kai Lung
::cynlee
12/20/10 4:07 PM GMT
Hannah, It might be interesting to see the spread of individual votes in each instance. I wish they would just explain the darned method and be done with it. If it's an algorithim, maybe we'll understand it and maybe we won't, but I don't know how anyone could abuse such a thing. If zeros are thrown out anyway, why do we have a zero?
0∈ [?]
CAUGHT UP IN LIES~~~~~~Support freedom of speech and Julian Assange!
::cynlee
12/20/10 4:42 PM GMT
I am beginning to think that people don't really look at the images they vote on anyway, so what does the VB or the AC matter? I see images in the main galleries that are overly sharpened, poorly composed, blurry and over saturated as examples. Granted many of the images are of fine quality, but discrimination has been lacking in the choice of subjects and quality. The main galleries are becoming very bland.
1∈ [?]
CAUGHT UP IN LIES~~~~~~Support freedom of speech and Julian Assange!
::Ramad
12/25/10 11:16 AM GMT
Why make the C-Index so complicated? Why not just put the average down as it is and multiply it by 10 - Average 4.9 means 49 - what is wrong with that? Won't that give (us) a better idea of how the voting has been?
1∈ [?]
If practice makes perfect and nobody is perfect, then why practice?
::0930_23
01/06/11 7:49 PM GMT
I like your idea Raj.
0∈ [?]
Cameras are like people--sometimes they lose focus.

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: