not like I care but yesterday on my latest image I had 5 votes averaging 3.4… later that day 6 votes to average 3.0…
whatever, let them have their fun. I think they do that to keep images from getting a plug or a cg choice award or maybe they are just jealous… lol:shrug:
Ive noticed the voting trend difference between the 2 and 3d choice galleries. The 2d gallery has more rating consistency across a wider range of vote totals, though the over all number of votes, on average, is a fraction (under 100) of the 3d group. This is due, Id say, to the significantly larger number of 3d artists than 2d artists here. The other thing, IMO, is the wider latitude of potential confusion that may occur with 3d stills, as to how an image was made and to what actual extent the image was Photoshopped up in post (retouched), which may cause some issues with voting. The latitude of confusion is not as wide for 2d work (other than the paint-over issue). A 2d piece thats 40% 3d (80% for that matter) and 60% PS or Painter is no big deal in the 2d gallery. A claimed 3d still thats 40% 3d and the remainder Photohsopped can cause some serious voting rifts.
There are a couple of anomalies that Ive noticed, from a brief scan of the 2d choice gallery. One is the consistent 4 star average ratings makes a drastic reversal (downward) somewhere in the last 1/3 to a 1/4, going back. Starting around 2003, tracking back, there are a few 2d choice pieces with zero votes and lots of images that frankly baffle me as to how they got into the 2d choice gallery in the first place. The low quality of these pieces has nothing to do with graphics software limitations from those somewhat earlier years, since high quality illustration has been done for hundreds of years regardless of media state. It may have been growing pains in the early days of the development of the galleries.
Yes Rod (referring to your previous post), a chain is as strong as its weakest link, everything is subject to metaphorical rust, entropy, etc., but I still dont buy the notion that there is some large scale vindictive group of voting vandals trying to bring you down in the poles. This aint Florida. 
Id say to you, that there are more real rational sympathetic/empathetic people here and voting than imagined demons of the paranoid ego trying to sabotage your star status.
Ultimately, an artists work is not as good as they say it is. It is as good as others say it is.
The voting system is what it is. Some artists need to get over themselves and work harder for that holy-grail 5 Star piece -o-pie. Quit cryin and buck up. Deal with the obstacles, real or imagined, you know you have to or just dont play. A little personal PR marketing wouldnt hurt either. :shrug:
I’m not talking specifically about my images in the award gallery, nor did I start this thread about it, it’s a general trend that a lot of good and mediocre images all seem to end up with the same average score, regardless of quality.
I’m putting it down to lack of knowledge on the part of the majority of voters, and some purely vindictive voting by a minority.
Most of the experienced artists rarely vote at all I think, and it’s mainly the above two groups who decide the outcome, which is why it doesn’t matter, and why we shouldn’t be discussing it (see my previous points about Cg people having too much free time)
Ultimately, an artists work is not as good as they say it is. It is as good as others say it is.
That’s entirely relative however. It depends on exactly who ‘they’ are, and what ‘their’ credentials and motivations are.
People have this idea that art is entirely subjective, and that may be true - but technique is not, and success in CG is a largely technical discipline with a small amount of artistry thrown into the mix, and therefore can be almost entirely judged in an objective manner, if you have the right people to do it.
I also witnessed many times that some people even vote great pictures (many of us would say that these images are good) down with one star. But I’m afraid that is accepted here. Sadly the star voting system is so prominently visible in the forum, that people think that it really matters. But I don’t want to disguss this here anymore and I decided to ignore the stars. But that does not change the problem that is there and seems to be ignored by some people here. No offense!
cheers
Marc
Ultimately, an artists work is not as good as they say it is. It is as good as others say it is.
Thank goodness for that. I’m always my worst critic as I suspect everyone is.
I’m a vindictive voter.
And speaking on behalf of the vindictive I would say that it’s more a market correction than anything else.
My 5s are for amazing work. Most of what ends up on the front page is 4 worthy. I also don’t look at the galleries unless it hits front page and is ‘vetted’. Once a piece hits front page I’ll look at it. Somtimes I think it’s 2* sometimes I think it’s 4* very rarely I think it’s 5*.
I’m consistant in my voting–but I don’t rate unless someone linked it or frontpaged it as something I should look at. Sometimes I don’t think it’s front page worthy and I rate it just like I rate all images but in this case the delay is it being seen by lots of voters not some secret agenda.
A few of my observations:
People who actively browse the galleries tend to rate pictures higher.
“OMG AMAZING!! !PEREFCT!# 5 Stars!”
People who post early on frontpage work almost always rate pictures higher.
“WOW!!! SUPER! WHAT AN INSPIRASHIN!”
I think it’s a personality thing. Those who actively browse galleries do so because they want to. Those who aren’t very active in the galleries are more critical.
You see the exact same thing with just about anything. The enthusiasts go first. They’re easily pleased and then they’re followed by the less forgiving. Take gadget people. Those who stand in line for an iPhone love it… before they’ve even bought it. Those who still haven’t bought an iphone or just bought an iPhone might think it’s cool but not amazing.
Finally there is the dissapointment factor. I don’t think people are bitter or vindictive but if you go into a thread with 5* your expectations are higher than an image with 3* it had better deliver.
I think a 5* should be truely special and it is–because it’s difficult to obtain. If you have a 3* then the most someone can do to try and inflate the rating is over rate by 2… and conversely you can get underrated by 2. If you have 5* there is no way to inflate–you simply have to deliver the goods. Underrating if anything maintains that through a natural market. It should be progressively more difficult to sustain a higher rating and conversely really low ratings should be difficult to maintain.
Personally I think the rating system almost always ends up naturally distributing pieces where it belongs regardless of how it gets there. It’s an inverse log curve.
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.