Improvement on CS gallery

[binbeto]

Been viewing and using the FREE Gallery for a while.

Would like to propose a few changes to it.

1. The popular images should have a timeframe (maybe 3 days), else we will be seeing the same OLD images again and again. Kind of defeat the purpose.

2. To increase the "new images" or "ramdom images"
to 3 row. More new image will be expose to the viewer. I have personally rate a few just becos I see them in the random list.

3. IMHO, the present bytes size is a bit small. Have to reduce most image to meet it, resulting in loss of image quality. Maybe increase to like 200k?

4. I think the number of rating should be listed, not just the "overall rating". Have seen some "8"/"9" pictures being drag down to "4" just becos a joker think it deserve "4" and rated "1". Or, maye the rating accumulative rather than averaging.

Anyone has anything to contribute or opinion opposing my?

 

[bgat]

I agree with binbeto to the few good points he made.

The Free Gallery should ideally be more dynamic with more new images updated every now and then. This will keep viewers refreshed and AN URGE coming back.

Imagine going to a website/homepage when you keep seeing little or no update? Very soon, you will stop or visit less of the site again.

I foresee those popular images will always rank up there because they are always there on the front page for viewers to click on to generate more viewership and hence gaining unsurpassed popularity.

I also notice most of those popular images were uploaded around early September (around the date when the Free Gallery was launched???) when there was a hype in viewership.

While we shouldn't take away the credit of these photographers themselves, but I don't see how a new image can surpass these popular images in popularity/viewership if nothing is going to be done now or later to change that. The fact that these popular images have remained there for as long as I can remember has already answered my above concern.



The number of vote/rating is equally worths exploring. If I received a rating of 9, I would be keen to know if the 9 is an isolated vote or from a panel of several votes. Likewise, if I received a rating of 2, I would not be totally convinced that my work is crap or need improvement as right in my mind, I may be thinking the rating of 2 belongs to a joker who doesn't even have a clue what composition, rule of third or exposure is about.


All said, launching the Free Gallery is a step in the right direction and I applaud the admin and mods for their effort.

 

[Darren]

1. The popular images should have a timeframe (maybe 3 days), else we will be seeing the same OLD images again and again. Kind of defeat the purpose.

I foresee those popular images will always rank up there because they are always there on the front page for viewers to click on to generate more viewership and hence gaining unsurpassed popularity.

We'll see what we can do to tweak the Popular Images ratings - its a valid point that the most popular will tend to remain there.

2. To increase the "new images" or "ramdom images"
to 3 row. More new image will be expose to the viewer. I have personally rate a few just becos I see them in the random list.

Made a change to show 3 rows each of Recent Additions, Popular and Random images selections. Hopefully this will give a broader view into the images that are being stored in the Gallery.

3. IMHO, the present bytes size is a bit small. Have to reduce most image to meet it, resulting in loss of image quality. Maybe increase to like 200k?

With proper image resizing and sharpening techniques, an image can look still good at 600x400 pixels and be less than 100K in size. We have to strike a balance between image size and speed of display, bearing in mind that there may be users who are not on broadband.

4. I think the number of rating should be listed, not just the "overall rating". Have seen some "8"/"9" pictures being drag down to "4" just becos a joker think it deserve "4" and rated "1". Or, maye the rating accumulative rather than averaging.

The number of vote/rating is equally worths exploring. If I received a rating of 9, I would be keen to know if the 9 is an isolated vote or from a panel of several votes. Likewise, if I received a rating of 2, I would not be totally convinced that my work is crap or need improvement as right in my mind, I may be thinking the rating of 2 belongs to a joker who doesn't even have a clue what composition, rule of third or exposure is about.

Made a change to show who left a rating - previously members who left a rating, but did not leave a comment would not show up in the image "thread". Now all ratings are shown whether there are comments or just a rating. This is actually a double-edged sword as some members might feel that someone intentionally post a lower or higher rating to pull down or bring up an image ranking and there could be all sorts of issues coming out of this. But in the interest of experimentation, we will give this method of "transparency" a try in order to provide a more useful feedback to members on their images.

 

[Cheesecake]

Made a change to show who left a rating - previously members who left a rating, but did not leave a comment would not show up in the image "thread". Now all ratings are shown whether there are comments or just a rating. This is actually a double-edged sword as some members might feel that someone intentionally post a lower or higher rating to pull down or bring up an image ranking and there could be all sorts of issues coming out of this. But in the interest of experimentation, we will give this method of "transparency" a try in order to provide a more useful feedback to members on their images.

yup, i agree with this new development. so we can really see who are the jokers going around with No.1s... haha

 

[phantasia]

Actually with regards to the rating system, would agree that showing who voted is a double edged thing, as it might in a way discourage users to vote as they initially intended for fear of "offending" the owner of the photo. At the same time, it does encourage user's to vote responsibly.

I would like to suggest something which maybe can replace the transparent system...perhaps we can don't show ratings of photos until at least a certain number of ratings has been accumulated. (eg. 3 or 5). In this way, at least the rating shown would be the average of a number of users, making it more accurate. This would minimize effects of pple who anyhow vote.

 

[binbeto]

That was pretty fast! :thumbsup:

Didn't expect it was so fast. Thanks for listening to our suggestions.

Ps, Agree that showing all the rating is a double edge sword. Therefore, maybe use a cummulative grading as "1" point is better than no point. And those "1-pointer" won't be frown upon.

 

[insomia]

On rating system - perhaps a hard requirement by the system to disallow awards of 1 point and 10 points with a comment - the comment is meant to spell out the reasons or feeling of the view why this score was awarded. By that if there is no merit in what is the grounds then it becomes clear to all that the poster was either dump down the score or inflating the score for a particular picture. It does help to control the Photo -Sig phenonemon from happening. Where groups of individual inflate up each other's posting and push down rivial person /groups photos.

It also helps the moderators do not do censorship of comments. Aside from personal attacks there is no grounds - if any one misbehaves everyone can see and make their own conclusion as to character ect of the poster. Quietly tidying up what you think you do not want the world at large may be an offical practice in say PRC or USSR and in most parts of Asia - we hardly want to foster it here. Or perhaps I am mistaken on this.

 

[AReality]

Ahhh...
Someone complained that all his photos got a rating of 1 from someone anonymous...
Now we know who that person is already...

 

[insomia]

Ahhh...
Someone complained that all his photos got a rating of 1 from someone anonymous...
Now we know who that person is already...

Grin was not me lor... with the changes we know who rate what.

 

[Pablo]

Hi,
How about a Highest, Lowest, Average vote rateing .... 3 figures ?