 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Let me offer my additional praises for this idea and the cool interface.
I believe that it would be helpful for all of us to see the "best" images,
and it's great that you're starting to look at a ratings system. Let me
offer my comments on ratings systems.
1) I've seen ratings wars break out at zazzle.com, where apparently people
were rating an adversaries' images "1" and friends of that person were
making three hundred "10" ratings in one evening. While the povray
community is highly egalitarian and exhibits a high level of comraderie,
we've never seen outbursts of immaturity, have we?? I've also seen
absolute rubbish with two dozen "10" votes, most likely from the creator him
or herself.
2) I've seen a newspaper set up a poll which asks readers "Do you like this
comic? yes/no" for every comic strip they were buying. I noted that the
lowest-rated one, "Doonesbury" was still there two years later. They
apparently knew their poll was bunk as far as how to run a newspaper. They
probably figured out that maybe only 30% of readers liked Doonesbury, but
maybe 30% would quit reading without it.
I think that the key is to have a concept of "cost to the voter" for saying
they like something. One way is to give voters "X" points to which they
can give to images they like, another way is to only ask for their favorite
ten, and that ten can change from week to week when new entries come in. I
suppose an immature bloke could still cheat on this system, and one way
would be to register 100 userid's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I do not like the idea of voting. In a 'real' museum you have the
curators who are responsible for the collection. They choose what
is interesting, either in itself or in combination with other work.
I would definitely prefer a small group of curators, and at least
one of them should have some arts background (I mean knowledge of,
not necessary an artist herself).
In most museums, most of the work is in the basement, for an on-line
museum this does not have to be so, but if anybody can submit and
everything must be accessable then things will explode rapidly.
This would not be too much of a problem, except that with most
providers the space and bandwith must be paid someway.
I can imagine a curator would decide that an 5MB animation is worth
including but that would be a tradeof with other works. I do not
think the whole world must be able to vote on that Especially if
that means 42 2-10MB animations must be on-line to vote for (and
when and how will they be removed if they get not enough votes?).
In short: have a group of curators that decide what will be on
display in the Museum. Have everthing else on a backup that may
or may not be on-line. Find a way to make some money to pay for
the bandwith (sell posters in the museum shop, sell a catalogue
on CD, create screensavers etc.). But above all: be professional.
Andrel
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> I do not like the idea of voting. In a 'real' museum you have the
> curators who are responsible for the collection. They choose what
> is interesting, either in itself or in combination with other work.
> I would definitely prefer a small group of curators, and at least
> one of them should have some arts background (I mean knowledge of,
> not necessary an artist herself).
>
With variations, I have to say I largely agree... That said, I don't see
why the curators shouldn't be a large and expanding group with a
suitable admission policy, neither too hard nor too easy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> I do not like the idea of voting. In a 'real' museum you have the
>> curators who are responsible for the collection. They choose what
>> is interesting, either in itself or in combination with other work.
>> I would definitely prefer a small group of curators, and at least
>> one of them should have some arts background (I mean knowledge of,
>> not necessary an artist herself).
>>
>
> With variations, I have to say I largely agree... That said, I don't see
> why the curators shouldn't be a large and expanding group with a
> suitable admission policy, neither too hard nor too easy.
Technically you can have hundreds of curators, each with her own
selection. For a visitor it would be a disaster. All these rooms with
partly the same images. About 10 curators with each a specialist
subject would be the most I could handle as a visitor, I think.
There is also the problem of having to keep all these people
up to date with the complete set of available images and animations.
I suppose there could be temporary exhibitions by invited persons.
And possibly exhibitions dedicated to one person. I guess there
could be e.g. a Giles section. Thinking about that somewhat longer,
that would be partly a copy of his own site. That will probably be
true for many artists, so perhaps it is not necessary.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How about this idea: every artist may present a given maximum of images.
Now, first of all, there's the owner of the site. Images will go past his
screening in any case, so he'd probably have to do a rough job of sorting
images out. Those that he's unsure of will be presented on a voting basis,
where a certain score has to be reached to get accepted.
A practical way to do this might be as follows: images submitted during
January will be voted on during February. "Subscribers" will get
email-notification that new images are up for voting, maybe with a password
or such to allow only subscribers. The images get voted by a regulated group
of people that way.
Then, there's a certain score level an image would have to reach to get into
the museum. If it's above that level, the older images from the museum get
kicked out, their owners get notified in case they want to submit the image
again for voting or if they want to submit new ones. Images that have been
in the museum already get marked so that subscribers can see immediately
that the image isn't new and should thus vote even more carefully if the
image is to stay/come back.
That way, there'd be a change in images, different artists show up, there's
a regulation for the voting system, etc. Of course, this would also mean
that either there has to be a very automated way of handling things (like
the password being generated on the fly and sent to the subscribers, image
upload etc) or a very committed human standing behind all this and keeping
things running. With an automated system, there still has to be one checking
on things, e.g. submitted images (e.g. to keep porn away).
My 2 cents.
Regards,
Tim
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Email: tim.nikias (@) nolights.de
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Perhaps I should not answer because I am repeating myself, and you
already know how I stand on this. IMHO you are describing a voting
system for the www.POVidols.com site. The original suggestion was to
create a POVmuseum. No offense meant, there probably is a market for
POVidols also. I am not sure I would visit the site myself though.
Andrel
Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> How about this idea: every artist may present a given maximum of images.
> Now, first of all, there's the owner of the site. Images will go past his
> screening in any case, so he'd probably have to do a rough job of sorting
> images out. Those that he's unsure of will be presented on a voting basis,
> where a certain score has to be reached to get accepted.
>
> A practical way to do this might be as follows: images submitted during
> January will be voted on during February. "Subscribers" will get
> email-notification that new images are up for voting, maybe with a password
> or such to allow only subscribers. The images get voted by a regulated group
> of people that way.
> Then, there's a certain score level an image would have to reach to get into
> the museum. If it's above that level, the older images from the museum get
> kicked out, their owners get notified in case they want to submit the image
> again for voting or if they want to submit new ones. Images that have been
> in the museum already get marked so that subscribers can see immediately
> that the image isn't new and should thus vote even more carefully if the
> image is to stay/come back.
>
> That way, there'd be a change in images, different artists show up, there's
> a regulation for the voting system, etc. Of course, this would also mean
> that either there has to be a very automated way of handling things (like
> the password being generated on the fly and sent to the subscribers, image
> upload etc) or a very committed human standing behind all this and keeping
> things running. With an automated system, there still has to be one checking
> on things, e.g. submitted images (e.g. to keep porn away).
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Perhaps I should not answer because I am repeating myself, and you
> already know how I stand on this. IMHO you are describing a voting
> system for the www.POVidols.com site. The original suggestion was to
> create a POVmuseum. No offense meant, there probably is a market for
> POVidols also. I am not sure I would visit the site myself though.
First of all: the link you gave doesn't work, it's either offline now (but
googling didn't show up anything either) or you were trying to point me to a
certain style of www-type of gallery. So if the following thoughts don't
fit, perhaps clarify for me what you meant with POV-Idols-Site and how it
deviates from POV-Museum.
Now, to the point: if there are ten people picking what images are to be
displayed, maybe their taste differs from mine so much that, in the end, I
wouldn't like the museum at all. So, maybe that's just me, but we're trying
to come up with an idea that will make the site worthwhile for old and new
Povers, right? Additionally, I believe in interaction. It's not like I want
thousands of subscribers to vote. But if there are 10 curators for a museum
with an audience that come from about 150 miles off in the real world,
what's a good relation for a museum that can be visited from everywhere on
the planet?
But, don't just let people subscribe. Have them show some qualification,
e.g. some work with POV-Ray to show that they know the basics and
fundamental differences between POV-Ray and every other Modelling/Rendering
App like 3D Studio Max or Cinema 4D. Have them point a few images of their
own to show that they do know the topic on which they'd be voting. And thus,
you get competent curators for the museum. Not 10, maybe even more than 100,
but still, they're competent.
Now, the larger the number is, the less likely is it possible to say: Let
each curator decide for one image, since there's limited bandwidth and
webspace. And that's where my idea of the voting system comes into play.
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Email: tim.nikias (@) nolights.de
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How about every contributor also a curator?
http://www.zazzle.com/contributors/favorites/favorites.asp?cid=238024427131949824
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
At this point I'm pleased because this thread has became very productive and
has made my rethink the entire project.
I've been reading your ideas and found them very good.
As Greg propossed I think the better system is that the same artist who
propose images for the museum rate them (not only their images also the
other's ones)
Cosidering the suggestion of Tim about the qualification of the curators,
maybe the votes of the differents curators could be weighted considering
their previous submision qualifications. For example, if "A" and "B" gives
10 points to two works but "A" has submitted works that were best rated than
"B" then their qualifications to the works would be differents (of course
"A" rate would be less than "B" rate)
These are my ideas. Comments please.
--
Pablo Viojo
pvi### [at] adinet comuy
news:40356c41$1@news.povray.org...
> How about every contributor also a curator?
>
>
http://www.zazzle.com/contributors/favorites/favorites.asp?cid=2380244271319
49824
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
First of all, Andrel mentioned animations. I'm guessing the bigger file
sizes wouldn't be workable, but if you somehow found server space, I've got
LOTS of anims to share! (See, that's a reason not to have anims!) ;-)
"Pablo Viojo" <arr### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4035786b@news.povray.org...
> Cosidering the suggestion of Tim about the qualification of the curators,
> maybe the votes of the differents curators could be weighted considering
> their previous submision qualifications. For example, if "A" and "B" gives
> 10 points to two works but "A" has submitted works that were best rated
than
> "B" then their qualifications to the works would be differents (of course
> "A" rate would be less than "B" rate)
Ohh, that's one thing I *don't* like. While yes, nearly all of us would be
dying to see what Gilles thinks is "best" (I suppose an awful term), I
don't think his ratings would necessarily always be "more important" than
others.
Possible other ideas:
1) Every contributor also a curator and that means that everyone gets a
little corner of web space to say, "These are my favorite umpteen images by
other artists." Perhaps one rating system could be the number of times
your image ends up in favorite galleries. You Pablo the curator head could
periodically pick i) random private collections and ii) a private collection
of "an important povver" to be on the front page.
2) Just 15 curators, but from a wide slice of the pov community. They'd
perhaps be responsible for rating every image under the sun.
3) [Less sound] The zazzle system where one can go to a streaming view of a
series of large thumbnails for the images. You just rate things as they
come along.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
