 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Hi!
> I was just wondering, does your site still works? I searched for it but I
> couldn't find it.
>
> Louis
If you're replying to Jaime, he's at:
http://ciberia.ya.com/jaimevives/
It's hard to tell when you don't quote the message to whihc you're
replying.
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreque | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
videotron.ca | - Calvin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Adrien Beau wrote in message <3AF### [at] free fr>...
>Even more strange. What program has 331x248 as a standard format ?
>The three smallest images are this size. And they all look built
>by the same person (or same program). All the addresses are at
>Hotmail or Excite, and all the text files are filled the same
>(ie: nothing besides strict minimum to validate the entry).
In past rounds, the small resolution and lack of details is usually a sign
that the image is a scanned photograph. Since I haven't seen the images in
question yet, I can't say for certain.
--
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, that's the new, temporary location. I don't work anymore for ctav, so I
had to remove my pages. There is a redirection page in the old location, but
you know, free servers sometimes doesn't respond for hours... luckly, I've now
a 24h conection to the net and I will setup my own server and domain soon.
Francois Labreque wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> > I was just wondering, does your site still works? I searched for it but I
> > couldn't find it.
> >
> > Louis
>
> If you're replying to Jaime, he's at:
>
> http://ciberia.ya.com/jaimevives/
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Josh English wrote:
>
> I wonder if it has to do with their screen size and how they organize their
> windows, or possibly they didn't have a good compression utility to get the
> scene below 250K (Or whatever the limit is) so they resized them.
The images are around 20 KB - 30 KB each.
--
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau@free.fr
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> In past rounds, the small resolution and lack of details is usually a sign
> that the image is a scanned photograph. Since I haven't seen the images in
> question yet, I can't say for certain.
This time, clearly not. This is raytraced. Not the best
quality, not the worst either.
--
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau@free.fr
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Franke wrote:
>
> Tom Melly wrote:
>
> > "Adrien Beau" <adr### [at] freefr> wrote in message
> > news:3AF### [at] freefr...
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > Hmm, well someone could submit one good image under one email, four poor
> > images under four other emails, and then use his four votes to boost the
> > score for his main image.
> >
> > IIRC the irtc admins do watch for this kind of thing....
I didn't write this second part you quote.
While flooding for weird malicious purpose is a possibility
that immediately struck me, there are countless explanations
that could be given. Never come to a conclusion to quickly.
> This is a very real possibility and if the main image is competitive it will
> work. I am going to check it out also, and maybe alert Chip and Bill.
I think they can hand-check to see if the "three" authors of
the small images all gave their best votes to same image(s).
But if the person that does this is clever, it will be hard to
tell.
Anyway, there will be enough voters to easily determine the
real best images. This kind of technique can't be used to
enter the top six, I think. You have to submit a rather
good image for that. :-)
--
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau@free.fr
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Adrien Beau wrote:
> Even more strange. What program has 331x248 as a standard format ?
> The three smallest images are this size. And they all look built
> by the same person (or same program). All the addresses are at
> Hotmail or Excite, and all the text files are filled the same
> (ie: nothing besides strict minimum to validate the entry).
>
> What's that ? Someone who flooded ? What for ?
Hmmm... after loking closer, I think there are not from the same person.
Perhaps are friends, sharing he same renderer (seems Bryce) and computer,
and they limited their images to the same size for competing between them.
The last one (alphabetically), has a little difference in the txt: he
replaced the topic with his own, a tipical newbie mistake. Who knows... just
give them the rates you feel they require.
In any case, if this is cheating, I can't believe that the "main" image is
good enough to win even with 3 extra votes.
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] mixmailcom> wrote in message
news:3AF28290.E088C0BD@mixmail.com...
> Hmmm... after loking closer, I think there are not from the same person.
> Perhaps are friends, sharing he same renderer (seems Bryce) and computer,
> and they limited their images to the same size for competing between
them.
A nice idea - consequently I'm ascribing to it...
> In any case, if this is cheating, I can't believe that the "main" image is
> good enough to win even with 3 extra votes.
>
Maybe, maybe not - however, 3 votes is quite significant, given the average
number of completed votes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Adrien Beau wrote:
> I think they can hand-check to see if the "three" authors of
> the small images all gave their best votes to same image(s).
> But if the person that does this is clever, it will be hard to
> tell.
Actually, there are four 331x248 images.
> Anyway, there will be enough voters to easily determine the
> real best images. This kind of technique can't be used to
> enter the top six, I think. You have to submit a rather
> good image for that. :-)
>
One malicious vote can have a pretty big effect. In the "Night" round a very good
image was lowered seven places in the standings by one disgruntled voter who felt
it wasn't right to enter more than one image.
-Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
thanx!
very nice site and beautiful images!
great work!
Louis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
