Warp wrote:
> 
>   Looking at the votes, it seems that they get very scattered among many of
> the logos. There's doesn't seem to be any clear winner.
>   I propose that if the winner of the voting wins only by a few points
> compared to the second and third, a second voting is performed for the
> most voted ones.
> 
>   Only a suggestion...

A complementary suggestion : let's not decide for a logo just
after the vote, but start a discussion about the ones that were
clearly deemed "best".  None of the logos seems mature enough,
and they need some more improvement (individual or collective
improvement).

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote...
> The purpose of a logo is *not* to demonstrate the software's abilities.
> There are demos scenes for that.
> IMO, a logo must *express* what the software *is*, not what it
> produces.  In our case, I think the logo must meet 2 requirements :
>  - express the nature of Pov (a raytracing engine)
>  - specifically referring to Pov (but how ?), so the logo is'nt
>    suitable to ANY raytracer.

Actually, many logos don't even express what the software is.  Sure, it
would be great if a logo succeeded at that, but I don't think it is
necessary.

Also, many of these logos (such as #15) are just black & white outlines.
Such a logo could easily be extended into 3D with detailed textures and
complex lighting.  But in that case the logo doesn't depend on the fancy
lighting.

Hey... I just noticed that #15 is a modified yin-yang symbol.  That is very
interesting.  :-)

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

>A complementary suggestion : let's not decide for a logo just
>after the vote, but start a discussion about the ones that were
>clearly deemed "best".  None of the logos seems mature enough,
>and they need some more improvement (individual or collective
>improvement).


I concur. I think that if there are several good ones, say for example, the
top 3 or 5, they be discussed and go "back to the drawingboard" for another
round. As of this post, the winner is #6, with 6 votes; close behind is #11,
with 5 votes; then #4 and #5, with 3 votes; #3, with 2 votes; and #12, with
1 vote.

Post a reply to this message

"Fabien Mosen" wrote:
> A complementary suggestion : let's not decide
> for a logo just after the vote, but start a
> discussion about the ones that were clearly
> deemed "best".

As I explained in the reply to Warp, nothing is left to chance, and
therefore the result of the voting really should show which logo most people
are satisfied with. Unless there's a very close run I think such a
discussion is unnecessary. If the discussion is made we risk that the ones
who are best arguing in a discussion are the ones who decide which logo
wins.

> None of the logos seems mature enough, and they
> need some more improvement (individual or
> collective improvement).

What do you mean by individual and collective improvement?
If we change the logos *after* the voting, then it is not anymore the logos
that people voted for. Therefore I think it is too late to improve the logos
now. I may be forced to change my opinion on this though.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
>   Looking at the votes, it seems that they get
> very scattered among many of the logos.
> There's doesn't seem to be any clear winner.

That's my impression too, though it seems like the winner will be logo 6 or
logo 11.

>   I propose that if the winner of the voting
> wins only by a few points compared to the
> second and third, a second voting is performed
> for the most voted ones.

A second voting is performed (and a third, and a fourth...), but people
doesn't have to vote again.
That's the whole point with this priority system.

Let me try to explain how the winner is chosen:

There are several "rounds".

In the first round we only look at people's first priorities when we count
the votes.
The logo(s) with the fewest votes are excluded from the next round.

In round two the first priorities are counted again, but for those people
who have their first priority set to one of the logos that have been
excluded, the next priority is the one that counts.
Again, the logos with the fewest votes are excluded from the next round.

Keep doing rounds until all logos but one is excluded. That's it.

What happens is that the votes goes from being distributed between many
different logos to being distributed between fewer and fewer logos until all
the votes are for the same logo. Of course some votes are "lost" in the
process because not all people specify all priorities.

It works the same way as if several votings had been made, except that
people need only to vote once, because they specify all their priorities at
once.

I hope this explanation is good enough.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

> I have listed my top three choices:
>
>  1 st priority: logo __Number 11
>  2 nd priority: logo __Number 04

> 3 rd priority: logo __Number 06

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:01:33 -0400, "Nathan Kopp" <Nat### [at] Koppcom>
wrote:

>Hey... I just noticed that #15 is a modified yin-yang symbol.  That is very
>interesting.  :-)

Yes, I guess it is becouse the peace of mind and low bloodpressure you
can get from trying to get a scene right... ;)

Sven-Erik Andersen
----
sea### [at] mailcitycom
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Program/2549/

Post a reply to this message

Fabien Mosen <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote...
> The purpose of a logo is *not* to demonstrate the software's abilities.
> There are demos scenes for that.
> IMO, a logo must *express* what the software *is*, not what it
> produces.  In our case, I think the logo must meet 2 requirements :
>  - express the nature of Pov (a raytracing engine)
>  - specifically referring to Pov (but how ?), so the logo is'nt
>    suitable to ANY raytracer.

Actually, many logos don't even express what the software is.  Sure, it
would be great if a logo succeeded at that, but I don't think it is
necessary.

Also, many of these logos (such as #15) are just black & white outlines.
Such a logo could easily be extended into 3D with detailed textures and
complex lighting.  But in that case the logo doesn't depend on the fancy
lighting.

Hey... I just noticed that #15 is a modified yin-yang symbol.  That is very
interesting.  :-)

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

"TonyB" wrote:
> >A complementary suggestion : let's not decide
> >for a logo just after the vote, but start a
> >discussion about the ones that were clearly
> >deemed "best".  None of the logos seems mature
> >enough, and they need some more improvement
> >(individual or collective improvement).
>
> I concur. I think that if there are several
> good ones, say for example, the top 3 or 5,
> they be discussed and go "back to the
> drawingboard" for another round.

For my opinion on this, please see my reply to Fabien.

> As of this post, the winner is #6, with 6 votes;
> close behind is #11, with 5 votes; then #4 and #5,
> with 3 votes; #3, with 2 votes; and #12, with
> 1 vote.

If you follow the rules you will get different results.
The rules I refer to are those I explained in my reply to Warp.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

1st 12
2st 11
3rd 03
4th 04
5th 13
6th 14
7th 05
9th 10 (The "POV" isn't readable enough)
9th 15
10th 09

Rune wrote:

> POV-Ray Logo Competition - Voting
>
> Anybody using POV-Ray may vote.
>
> I hope as many as possible will!
>
> o The Logos
>
> You can view the logos from here:
>
> http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povlogos/
>
> o The Rules
>
> You make a reply to this message in which
> you specify your priorities.
>
> At the 1st priority you write the number
> of your favorite logo. At the 2nd priority
> you write the number of your second
> favorite, and so on...
>
> You may specify all 15 priorities, or you
> may specify some of them only, but at
> least one.
>
> If you specify some of the priorities
> only, the fields that you specify must be
> the uppermost ones, and the fields that
> you leave blank must be the lowermost ones.
>
> You may specify one logo per priority only.
>
> Note that although some of the logos are
> quite similar, you should vote for both
> versions if you like both versions. Nothing
> is taken for granted.
>
> If something is unclear, please tell me.
>
> The voting period ends May 17
>
> o Vote Here
>
> Use the following in your reply:
>
>  1 st priority: logo __
>  2 nd priority: logo __
>  3 rd priority: logo __
>  4 th priority: logo __
>  5 th priority: logo __
>  6 th priority: logo __
>  7 th priority: logo __
>  8 th priority: logo __
>  9 th priority: logo __
> 10 th priority: logo __
> 11 th priority: logo __
> 12 th priority: logo __
> 13 th priority: logo __
> 14 th priority: logo __
> 15 th priority: logo __

--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."

Post a reply to this message

1 st priority: logo 06
 2 nd priority: logo 09
 3 rd priority: logo 11
 4 th priority: logo 08
 5 th priority: logo 02
 6 th priority: logo 03
 7 th priority: logo 04
 8 th priority: logo 05


-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| |   | hjp### [at] wsracat      |    -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |       zum Thema Portale in at.linux

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

my preferences:

>  1 st priority: logo 04
>  2 nd priority: logo 06
>  3 rd priority: logo 11
>  4 th priority: logo 05
>  5 th priority: logo 13
>  6 th priority: logo 14
>  7 th priority: logo 12
>  8 th priority: logo 08
>  9 th priority: logo 09
> 10 th priority: logo 07
> 11 th priority: logo 03
> 12 th priority: logo 10
> 13 th priority: logo 02
> 14 th priority: logo 15
> 15 th priority: logo 01

- --
                              |
                           _-/^\-_
       ________________-_~__( o )__~_-_______________
     (   ---------------    ,/^\,    --------------   )
    (                       () ()                      )
   (                                                    )
  (   El arte de fumigar, no se aprende en una escuela   )
 (  como no se llega a abuela, sin antes pasar por madre. )
(  Fumigar no tiene encuadre, y escapa a todas las reglas  )
(                                  - Vicente Bomvissuto -  )
 \----  Ricardo Miguel Pereyra <rip### [at] toddcomar>  ----/




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgpinternational.com>

iQA/AwUBOPxvVxHKqYbo8t5ZEQIjGACfUytDC8SXifAzNjz4C9kjdW/IgXoAoMYl
O+H3Nl88R/ffW93fvyXGN9bv
=LXCK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

> 1 st priority: logo __4
> 2 nd priority: logo __11
> 3 rd priority: logo __8
> 4 th priority: logo __3
> 5 th priority: logo __6


regard
Rodolphe

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
: Hey... I just noticed that #15 is a modified yin-yang symbol.  That is very
: interesting.  :-)

  That's why I didn't like it...

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Rune <run### [at] inamecom> wrote:
: Keep doing rounds until all logos but one is excluded. That's it.

  I still don't like this. It's very possible that the second and perhaps
the third miss winning by just a bit. It's unfair to discard them.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

>  1 st priority: logo __11
>  2 nd priority: logo __3
>  3 rd priority: logo __12
>  4 th priority: logo __4
>  5 th priority: logo __13
>  6 th priority: logo __14
>  7 th priority: logo __9
>  8 th priority: logo __6
>  9 th priority: logo __5
> 10 th priority: logo __15
> 11 th priority: logo __1
> 12 th priority: logo __7
> 13 th priority: logo __2
> 14 th priority: logo __9
> 15 th priority: logo __8
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:

> POV-Ray Logo Competition - Voting
>
> Anybody using POV-Ray may vote.
>
> I hope as many as possible will!
>
> o The Logos
>
> You can view the logos from here:
>
> http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povlogos/
>
> o The Rules
>
> You make a reply to this message in which
> you specify your priorities.
>
> At the 1st priority you write the number
> of your favorite logo. At the 2nd priority
> you write the number of your second
> favorite, and so on...
>
> You may specify all 15 priorities, or you
> may specify some of them only, but at
> least one.
>
> If you specify some of the priorities
> only, the fields that you specify must be
> the uppermost ones, and the fields that
> you leave blank must be the lowermost ones.
>
> You may specify one logo per priority only.
>
> Note that although some of the logos are
> quite similar, you should vote for both
> versions if you like both versions. Nothing
> is taken for granted.
>
> If something is unclear, please tell me.
>
> The voting period ends May 17
>
> o Vote Here
>
> Use the following in your reply:
>
>  1 st priority: logo __I like logo #4
>  2 nd priority: logo __#6
>  3 rd priority: logo __
>  4 th priority: logo __
>  5 th priority: logo __
>  6 th priority: logo __
>  7 th priority: logo __
>  8 th priority: logo __
>  9 th priority: logo __
> 10 th priority: logo __
> 11 th priority: logo __
> 12 th priority: logo __
> 13 th priority: logo __
> 14 th priority: logo __
> 15 th priority: logo __

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:

1 st priority: logo 2
2 nd priority: logo 8


-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> o Vote Here
> 
> Use the following in your reply:
> 
>  1 st priority: logo 13
>  2 nd priority: logo 11
>  3 rd priority: logo 2
>  4 th priority: logo 5
>  5 th priority: logo 3
>  6 th priority: logo 12
>  7 th priority: logo 15
>  8 th priority: logo 8
>  9 th priority: logo 10
> 10 th priority: logo 6
> 11 th priority: logo 4

Post a reply to this message

"Nathan Kopp" wrote:
> Actually, many logos don't even express what the
> software is.  Sure, it would be great if a logo
> succeeded at that, but I don't think it is
> necessary.

I agree.

> Also, many of these logos (such as #15) are just
> black & white outlines. Such a logo could easily
> be extended into 3D with detailed textures and
> complex lighting.  But in that case the logo
> doesn't depend on the fancy lighting.

Exactly. One thing is the logo, another thing is how it is presented.
That's why I made those low-res black and white versions required. So one
could see what the logos would look like in their simplest forms.

> Hey... I just noticed that #15 is a modified
> yin-yang symbol.  That is very interesting.  :-)

Indeed!

Who made that logo anyway?

<looking up into the sky, whistling innocently>

;-)

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
> It's very possible that the second and perhaps
> the third miss winning by just a bit.
> It's unfair to discard them.

If voting isn't fair, then what *is* fair?

Isn't voting the only way in which all people have evenly great influence on
the results?
Won't discarding the results of the voting be to doubt the judgment of
people?

What other options than voting are there?

Discussion? Many people have voted/will vote in this competition, but only a
fraction of those will join a discussion if one were to be made. I am sure
of that.

And what will the result of such a discussion be? Will the people who have
the best arguments decide which logo wins? Or will there simply be arranged
another voting?

Why make a voting more than once?
The only case it would give different results was if people had changed
their mind for some reason. Why would people suddenly change their minds?

Besides, I don't think a second voting could attract near as many votes as
this first voting. I think people take this competition serious because it
has been planned for a long time, because they think it is a one-time-event,
and because they think the result will decide which logo will be the logo of
POV-Ray (though not necessarily officially). If people find out that we
don't follow up on the result, then I think they will take this whole thing
less seriously, and therefore I don't think we could get nearly as many
people to vote a second time. Sometime one just ought to be a little
consistent.

I would like to hear many opinions on this subject so I know what other
people think. I hope those who agree will also reply, so I get to know it.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Andry Gunawan" wrote:
>
> >  1 st priority: logo __11
> >  2 nd priority: logo __3
> >  3 rd priority: logo __12
> >  4 th priority: logo __4
> >  5 th priority: logo __13
> >  6 th priority: logo __14
> >  7 th priority: logo __9  <---
> >  8 th priority: logo __6
> >  9 th priority: logo __5
> > 10 th priority: logo __15
> > 11 th priority: logo __1
> > 12 th priority: logo __7
> > 13 th priority: logo __2
> > 14 th priority: logo __9 <---
> > 15 th priority: logo __8

Sorry, this vote doesn't work.

You have logo 9 two places and logo 10 no place.

You can make a reply to your vote, where you correct this.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

I have received by e-mail this vote from Francois Labreque:

>  1 st priority: logo 8
>  2 nd priority: logo 11
>  3 rd priority: logo 15
>  4 th priority: logo 2
>  5 th priority: logo 5

I post it here so it is not only me who can keep track on what has been
voted.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

I have received by e-mail this vote from Chris Spencer:

> 1 st priority: logo 13
> 2 nd priority: logo 11
> 3 rd priority: logo 09
> 4 th priority: logo 15
> 5 th priority: logo 04
> 6 th priority: logo 03

I post it here so it is not only me who can keep track on what has been
voted.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

I agree, if voting is fair at all, then it is fair with the present vote.

I still don't think we have gotten a -GREAT- Povray logo, but since I
couldn't come up with a better one and neither has anyone else...

...maybe there should have been a "None of the Above" entry.

Post a reply to this message

1 st priority: logo 03
  2 nd priority: logo 04
  3 rd priority: logo 06
  4 th priority: logo 09
  5 th priority: logo 11
  6 th priority: logo 13
  7 th priority: logo 15
  8 th priority: logo 07
  9 th priority: logo 05
 10 th priority: logo 08
 11 th priority: logo 08
 12 th priority: logo 10
 13 th priority: logo 14
 14 th priority: logo 02
 15 th priority: logo 12

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> I agree, if voting is fair at all, then it is fair with the present vote.

This just came to my mind: We could just discuss the votes now. If it makes
people change their minds, there's still plenty of time for them to change
their votes before the deadline.
I don't see any problem with people being permitted to change their votes,
as long as it is still in the voting period.

> I still don't think we have gotten a -GREAT- Povray logo, but since I
> couldn't come up with a better one and neither has anyone else...
>
> ...maybe there should have been a "None of the Above" entry.

Well, I though about it, but it would have made the rules more complicated.

Would you rather have that POV-Ray doesn't have a logo at all?

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:

> Would you rather have that POV-Ray doesn't have a logo at all?

It could be that if the "none of the above" were to have the most
votes it would signal peoples dissatisfaction with the current
entries as the logo of choice for POV-Ray. It would mean that
more creative entries are needed before a consensus is reached
and everyone is satisfied that POV-Ray is getting the logo it
deserves. It would mean that it's time to go back to the old
drawing board and start over. It would mean...

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

"Ken" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>
> > Would you rather have that POV-Ray doesn't have a logo at all?
>
> It could be that if the "none of the above" were to have the most
> votes it would signal peoples dissatisfaction with the current
> entries as the logo of choice for POV-Ray.

I know, but it would not be as simple as that. Many people would probably
think that some of the logos are good enough, but others not. Therefore, in
my original version of the rules I provided an option to "vote blank" which
meant that each voter could specify if his blank priorities was an
indication of laziness or rather that the blank priorities weren't good
enough.

I asked for opinions on these rules and the only feedback I got was that
they were too complicated. So I simplified them. If I had got replies from
people saying that it was good I provided the option, then I probably
wouldn't have removed it.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:

> Isn't voting the only way in which all people have evenly great influence on
> the results?
> Won't discarding the results of the voting be to doubt the judgment of
> people?

What's your intention ?  Pick up a winner, or ending up with an
excellent logo for Povray ?

> What other options than voting are there?

It could be a jury or some other system, but that's not the point.
 
> Discussion? Many people have voted/will vote in this competition, but only a
> fraction of those will join a discussion if one were to be made. I am sure
> of that.

We don't need many people to discuss that.  We need a clever discussion,
not a numerous one.

> And what will the result of such a discussion be? Will the people who have
> the best arguments decide which logo wins? Or will there simply be arranged
> another voting?

One more time, it's not about winning, it's about getting a good logo.
Once we get the vote results, we'll have a better idea of which logo's
best fulfills the requirements for a Pov-Ray logo.  The discussion
could end up to the enhancement of "enhance-able" logos, and we
could switch to a collective work, based on existing logos, or maybe a
new 
synthesis facilitated by a better understanding of the requirements.

> Why make a voting more than once?
> The only case it would give different results was if people had changed
> their mind for some reason. Why would people suddenly change their minds?

How can you think that a vote can sort the best logo ?  By experience,
voting usually gives a priority to "less disliked" stuff, and passe by
stronger choices... voting is a good indication, but is not sufficient.
 
Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Sorry, my mistake and here is the correct one.

> > >  1 st priority: logo __11
> > >  2 nd priority: logo __3
> > >  3 rd priority: logo __12
> > >  4 th priority: logo __4
> > >  5 th priority: logo __13
> > >  6 th priority: logo __14
> > >  7 th priority: logo __10  <---
> > >  8 th priority: logo __6
> > >  9 th priority: logo __5
> > > 10 th priority: logo __15
> > > 11 th priority: logo __1
> > > 12 th priority: logo __7
> > > 13 th priority: logo __2
> > > 14 th priority: logo __9 <---
> > > 15 th priority: logo __8
>

Post a reply to this message

"Martial" wrote:
>   1 st priority: logo 03
>   2 nd priority: logo 04
>   3 rd priority: logo 06
>   4 th priority: logo 09
>   5 th priority: logo 11
>   6 th priority: logo 13
>   7 th priority: logo 15
>   8 th priority: logo 07
>   9 th priority: logo 05
>  10 th priority: logo 08 <---
>  11 th priority: logo 08 <---
>  12 th priority: logo 10
>  13 th priority: logo 14
>  14 th priority: logo 02
>  15 th priority: logo 12

Sorry, this vote doesn't work.

You have logo 8 two places and logo 1 no place.

You can make a reply to your vote, where you correct this.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Fabien Mosen" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>
> > Isn't voting the only way in which all people have
> > evenly great influence on the results?
> > Won't discarding the results of the voting be to
> > doubt the judgment of people?
>
> What's your intention ?  Pick up a winner, or ending
> up with an excellent logo for Povray ?

The winner logo will be the logo that the most people think is an excellent
logo for POV-Ray.
It seems like you think that some people's judgment is better than others.
It might be true, but how can we say which people have the "right" opinion?

A question about which logo is the better one is definitely a subjective
question. The answer will always depend on people's opinions.

I don't want to judge which people have the better opinions, so I give all
people equal influence on the result.

By suggesting that a voting will not necessarily pick the best logo you are
saying that some people's opinions are not as good as others'. You may be of
that opinion, but I am not.

> > Discussion? Many people have voted/will vote in this
> > competition, but only a fraction of those will join
> > a discussion if one were to be made. I am sure of that.
>
> We don't need many people to discuss that.  We need a
> clever discussion, not a numerous one.

I think what I wrote above indicates my opinion on this.

> One more time, it's not about winning, it's about
> getting a good logo.

I think what I wrote above indicates my opinion on this.

> How can you think that a vote can sort the best logo ?  By experience,
> voting usually gives a priority to "less disliked" stuff, and passe by
> stronger choices... voting is a good indication, but is not sufficient.

I think what I wrote above indicates my opinion on this.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Andry Gunawan" wrote:
> Sorry, my mistake and here is the correct one.

No problem!

Thanks for your vote, I have registered it now.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

Hold your horses! This should not be a flamewar :)

  Here in Finland when voting for a president, the winner has to get more
than 50% of the votes in order to win. If he/she doesn't get it in the first
round, then a second voting is made with the two candidates who received most
votes in the first round. Now in the second round one of the candidates
surely receives more than 50% of the votes.
  I don't know how much sense does this system make, but I think it's a quite
common system in many countries.
  At least it sounds fair that more than a half of the voters agree about who
is the president.
  The idea is that those who didn't vote for either one of the two final
candidates in the first round will decide who of them is their choice in
the second round (of course there are people who don't vote at all in the
second round, but they are a surprisingly small amount).

  I was just thinking about something like this system. Those who didn't
give highest score to the two/three logos which get highest overall score
can then decide which one of them they like the most. This gives them a
second opportunity to decide, to give their vote. This way we get the
maximum amount of people agreeing about the winner.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> The winner logo will be the logo that the most people think is an
excellent
> logo for POV-Ray.
>

    Then I should withdraw my vote, because although I saw a few adequate
logos and a couple of nice ones I have yet to see an excellent one. I would
hate for my vote to indicate anything other than my favorites among the ones
presented.

    I think it is clear that people have an interest in this and that voting
is the best way to decide the favorite, but without some method of counting
those people who think that none of the logos are good enough we don't
really have an Idea of "what most people think is an excellent logo". Which
is what I agree we should be looking for, but really, none of them,
including the several that I made and did not submit, stood out as a -Great-
Logo for PovRay.

    You say that you had included it (a 'none of the above' selection) in
your first set of rules, but that many people found those rules confusing. I
admit that I lost track of what you were trying to do after a few sentences
and didn't even read the rest. No wonder I didn't comment on it then...

    I appreciate the work you have put into this and will abide by the final
result of this process unless you or someone else decides to take it upon
themselves to do something further, but please remove my vote from the
record.

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> The winner logo will be the logo that the most people think is an excellent
> logo for POV-Ray.
> It seems like you think that some people's judgment is better than others.

YES !  Would you prefer to let your neighbour decorate your house (or
whatever),
or would you better trust someone with some talent in that area ?

> It might be true, but how can we say which people have the "right" opinion?
> A question about which logo is the better one is definitely a subjective
> question. The answer will always depend on people's opinions.

Few things are really that subjective.  In this case (logo), we could
easily sort out (by discussing it) a set of _criterias_, and evaluate
the logos according to these criterias; pretty objective way of doing
things, caus' it's easy to discern if a logo match or do not match
a well defined criteria.  It would have been better if these criterias
were set _before_ people started designing logos, but it's not too late.

If, finally, more than one logo fulfills all the criterias, we
could always vote to sort the "best liked", but we then will be sure
that much objectivity was put in the process.

We have the chance to be a wide communauty, and it helps getting
as many good ideas as possible.  Reducing the product of such a
potential creativity to a single-vote-choice is regrettable.

> I think what I wrote above indicates my opinion on this.
... 
> I think what I wrote above indicates my opinion on this.

Me too :-))

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

1 st priority: logo 10
2 nd priority: logo 12
3 rd priority: logo 13
4 th priority: logo 14
5 th priority: logo 11
6 th priority: logo 03
7 th priority: logo __
8 th priority: logo __
9 th priority: logo __
10 th priority: logo __
11 th priority: logo __
12 th priority: logo __
13 th priority: logo __
14 th priority: logo __
15 th priority: logo __

Post a reply to this message

>i think they all suck.  i agree with bob's comment that these logos
>don't show what pov can do.  i think a logo should.  were any of them
>even done with pov?  they could've been done in paint shop pro so far as
>i can tell.

does softimages logo show what softimage can do?
how about lightwaves logo?
or 3dstudio?

logo is plain symbol, it doesn't have to present the quality of software
itself.
pictures created with that software do it.
and professionals who use software know if it is crap or excellent anyway..

and why logos(!) should have been created with povray?
i recommend that you march in any professional art studio and say that their
artists have to use a ray-tracing software for creating black and white
sketches.
i bet you will be laughed out.

Post a reply to this message

> or 3dstudio?

At least the MAX R2.x did... :)

--
Lance

The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
>   Here in Finland when voting for a president,
> the winner has to get more than 50% of the votes
> in order to win. If he/she doesn't get it in the
> first round, then a second voting is made with
> the two candidates who received most votes in
> the first round. Now in the second round one of
> the candidates surely receives more than 50% of
> the votes.

This is exactly the rules that I use in this competition! :-)

Except, people can do it all beforehand.
By specifying their different priorities at once, they say:
"My favorite president/logo is X, but in case he/it can't win, then I vote
for Y"

The rules you describe is really exactly the ones I use, but I guess I just
haven't been good at explaining them.

>   At least it sounds fair that more than a half
> of the voters agree about who is the president.

The same applies here. With the votes given so far, almost 100% agree with
the winner logo. Of course that may be because there's no option of voting
for none of the logos.

>   The idea is that those who didn't vote for
> either one of the two final candidates in the
> first round will decide who of them is their
> choice in the second round

Exactly!!! :-)
That's the whole idea of specifying several priorities!

>   I was just thinking about something like
> this system. Those who didn't give highest
> score to the two/three logos which get
> highest overall score can then decide which
> one of them they like the most. This gives
> them a second opportunity to decide, to give
> their vote. This way we get the maximum
> amount of people agreeing about the winner.

I already use that system :-)

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
> >
> > The winner logo will be the logo that the most
> > people think is an excellent logo for POV-Ray.
>
>     Then I should withdraw my vote, because
> although I saw a few adequate logos and a couple
> of nice ones I have yet to see an excellent one.
> I would hate for my vote to indicate anything
> other than my favorites among the ones presented.

Sorry, the sentence should say:
"The winner logo will be the logo that the most people think is the best
logo for POV-Ray (among the submitted ones)."

Do you still want to withdraw your vote? I hope not.

>     You say that you had included it (a 'none of
> the above' selection) in your first set of rules,
> but that many people found those rules confusing.

One. One person said that the rules were confusing. But that was the only
feedback I got!
(except one suggesting a webpage listing all the logos, which I did made.)

>I admit that I lost track of what you were trying
> to do after a few sentences and didn't even read
> the rest. No wonder I didn't comment on it then...

Well, I think you should have said that it wasn't clear enough then. Sorry,
but it is too late to complain about the rules, when the voting has already
started.

>     I appreciate the work you have put into this
> and will abide by the final result of this process
> unless you or someone else decides to take it upon
> themselves to do something further, but please
> remove my vote from the record.

Are you sure?

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Fabien Mosen" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
> > The winner logo will be the logo that the most
> > people think is an excellent logo for POV-Ray.
> > It seems like you think that some people's
> > judgment is better than others.
>
> YES !  Would you prefer to let your neighbour
> decorate your house (or whatever), or would you
> better trust someone with some talent in that area ?

My neighbor doesn't live in *my* house, but if he did, I think he had the
right to decide things too.

Another example: Why are the people of America the ones to choose the
president? Why don't you leave the choice to the politicians, who are the
professionals? After all, is it about finding a winner, or is it about
finding an excellent president?

(That was NOT my opinion, it was the opposite!)

> > It might be true, but how can we say which people
> > have the "right" opinion? A question about which
> > logo is the better one is definitely a subjective
> > question. The answer will always depend on people's
> > opinions.
>
> Few things are really that subjective.  In this case
> (logo), we could easily sort out (by discussing it)
> a set of _criterias_, and evaluate the logos according
> to these criterias;

People have different opinions of which criterias the logo should match.
I don't want to be some kind of judge, so the only criteria I have made is
that the logo should be the best logo for POV-Ray.

> If, finally, more than one logo fulfills all the
> criterias, we could always vote to sort the "best
> liked", but we then will be sure that much
> objectivity was put in the process.

I don't agree, and I don't think we can come to an agreement because our
basic points of view are so different.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:

> My neighbor doesn't live in *my* house, but if he did, I think he had the
> right to decide things too.

The way our president is elected is a bit confusing even for many of
the people that live here. In all but a very few cases the American
public does not elect their president. The American public elects
representatives in each state who they feel best represents their
political views. These people in turn are responsible for representing
those views in national presidential elections. Our government is
not a democratic government. It is a representative government.
When the final presidential election is held these representatives
whom we have elected, cast electoral votes. It is these votes that
actually determine who will be president. There are some situations
where the popular public vote can over ride the representitive
vote but I don't remember enough of the details of this process
to explain it to you.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

"Ken" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>
> > My neighbor doesn't live in *my* house, but
> > if he did, I think he had the right to
> > decide things too.
>
> The way our president is elected is a bit
> confusing even for many of the people that
> live here. In all but a very few cases the
> American public does not elect their president.

Ok, it was a bad example. I really don't know anything about American
politics. But I think you get the point anyway.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

Ditto!

Post a reply to this message

"ryan constantine" <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:39014A1B.3E5DA95B@yahoo.com...
> actually, i've only been in these newsgroups for a couple of months now,
> and everyone is always so nice to each other.  i wondered what would
> happen if someone (like me) said something negative about someone's
> work.  boy did i find out!

    All of the replies were much milder than your comment, so what did you
find out? That we were more polite than you?

Post a reply to this message

"ryan constantine" wrote:
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> >     All of the replies were much milder
> > than your comment, so what did you find
> > out? That we were more polite than you?
>
> what i found out?  well, i've had family
> members in newsgroups or bulletin boards
> before, and for a while things go fine
> and dandy.  but if someone writes
> something wrong or is even only perceived
> wrong, then a lot of people get upset and
> the person that wrote the thing is outcast
> or whatever the online equivalent is.

I didn't see anyone criticize you. It was your opinions that was criticized.

> i found out that people like bob and
> nathan are willing to give the benefit of
> the doubt and be diplomatic in their
> responces, while others can be snide.
> i also found out that in my circle of
> real friends in the real world, we use
> the word suck a little less harsh than
> it was taken here.

What was it about the replies you got that you thought was snide? I don't
think they were snide. Should we have agreed completely with you in order to
you not taking it as something snide?

> i also learned that if i have a negative
> opinion about someone's work, that i
> should probably keep it to myself.
> anything else i should've learned?

Of course you have the right to come with your negative opinions about
other's work, but then others also have the right to come with their
negative opinions about your opinion. It works both ways.

Now, if we just all try to be nice, then there shouldn't be a problem.
I hope that you will stay in these newsgroups, and that you will think of us
as people who try to be polite if just you try to be polite too :-)

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated March 15: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message news:3902d02e@news.povray.org...
| Now, if we just all try to be nice, then there shouldn't be a problem.

I liked seeing that line.  Don't know exactly why.  Just do.  My subconscious sarcasm
rears it's ugly head.
Well about the "suck" (gasp!) comment, I think the obvious thing is how there tends to
be
the desire to get constructive criticism instead of one-word utterances.  That makes a
lot
of difference in how an opinion is perceived.  Wish I had more ability to do that (no,
not
the utterances!), although I often wonder if anyone hates to hear how something could
or
should be done since it's their efforts to begin with and not my own.
Anyway, again, I liked that line as I have said.

 :-)

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"ryan constantine" <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote :
> what i found out?  well, i've had family members in newsgroups or
> bulletin boards before, and for a while things go fine and dandy.  but
> if someone writes something wrong or is even only perceived wrong, then
> a lot of people get upset and the person that wrote the thing is outcast
> or whatever the online equivalent is.

    Do you imagine that this has happened to you here?

> i found out that people like bob
> and nathan are willing to give the benefit of the doubt and be
> diplomatic in their responces, while others can be snide.

    Yet you seem to be outside of that group of "people like bob and nathan"
since you took a few words that were nothing but mild and valid statements
and have made a whole psuedo-psychological fantasy out of it. BTW, it is
considered polite to capatilize surnames. If you want people to respond
politely to you, you should treat them with respect.

> i also found
> out that in my circle of real friends in the real world, we use the word
> suck a little less harsh than it was taken here.

    I have no problem with the word itself (however, I suggest you find more
erudite companions). But your use was, as you admit you intended it to be,
harsh. It was a critizism that was undefined enough to completely remove any
constructive quality your complaint might otherwise have had and so left us
with nothing but the implied question "can you do better?" You have not
answered the question but instead have made up this little
psudeo-psycholoical test that you claim you were subjecting us to. Again, if
you want people to treat you politely, you should treat them with respect,
not like high school lab rats.

> i also learned that if
> i have a negative opinion about someone's work, that i should probably
> keep it to myself.  anything else i should've learned?

    Yes, lots. But I leave that for your further education.

Post a reply to this message