|
some thoughts about quality for a pool
 |
i read the group's rules and like the idea of aiming a pool full of quality mixed media.
first of all: i love the idea that this group will not try to gain that level by introducing an admin who decides what quality is or not. it didn't work in any of these groups i did see...
what i wanted to discuss is that i would appreciate some easy steps to keep a critical eye on our own work and what we think is worth to be posted.
first of all i think that we should limit ourselves to 1 submission per day, not 3. the limit of one single piece per day would force us to have a strict eye on our work. adding three leads to the effect of "oh, and this one, ahh, and this one, too...". i know that very well from my own behavior... ))
the other thing i would suggest is, that we limit ourselves to photos (or other media) that got finished (i.e. developed and printed, ready designed, layouted, ...) at least one week before we add it to the pool. why? at the very moment of "creation" we are enthusiatically about what we do, our "artistic hormones" could easily replace any drug available on the (black) market )) - i just want to speak for me, but i'm not really able to have a cool view on the quality of my images right at the moment when the prints are dryed and i scan them. i'm enthusiastic. that's what art and the process of creating is about, that's why we do it... a week of distance and "cooling" can do a lot... then we could review our last works and choose one for the pool. the one, that still keeps us smiling though a week has gone...
so, just two ideas that maybe could help to gain the targets of this group. use them or loose them. i'm lunatically enthusiastic about them right now. don't know how i will be thinking about them in a week. maybe i should have been waiting? oh, crap!
Originally posted at 3:52AM, 2 November 2007 PST
(
permalink
)
the artist formerly known as пикселкух edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
 |
Hello, Zep.
1 submission per day, not 3. Do you think this will push-up quality levels? Ok. Let's try it.
One of this group's ideas is to try to keep an structure as horizontal as possible and to play with the sexy appeal of awards system.
Every and each opinion is welcomed.
Posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Tuning stuff:
-would it be better to post 1, award 2 or 3 instead of 4?
-would it be better to select new members instead of accepting everybody?
Posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
hm. that will be to discuss, i think. for myself i think that for example 2 of such postings with a real try of a comment (should mean that we really try to share some thoughts about the photo/artwork - no matter if the subject of the comment is the things shown or the technique) are better than 4 with the known standard messages ("love the tones" is a common standard i guess? ;) ...)
but how do other members feel about that?
edit: and when i'm talking about thoughtful comments, i mean it. i think in such a group also well thought critics should be made. not the sloppy short ones, but suggestions how to improve some techniques or styles. that could be quite helpfully for everybody of us, i think... it shouldn't be a "must" to do so, just an idea to encourage the group's members to share all their thoughts about a piece of work...
Originally posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
the artist formerly known as пикселкух edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
 |
. . Here are the good questions !! What's the quality expected ? How to get it ? It's a very old question in art, as old as exciting ! Rhizom award group can have the chance to explore it again.
. . I don't think that the posting flow, the number of posts per day, is an efficient parameter to select or filter. Limiting the quantity flow don't produce or guaranty any quality result. Sometimes we are not the better judge of our own works pixelkuh (? zep) , when I look at your work I become more and more curious about what you don't publish !
. . The quality result depend mostly on the selection rules.
. . It's clear, to define "quality" is impossible in absolute. We are here swimming in a subjective world ! On 1917, the quality of Marcel Duchamp's propositions was less then vulgar and mediocre. Today, they are a reference in the Art history, institutionnalized !! Duchamp would laugh, or perhaps cry !? Reasonnable, I think he would keep his serenity, just smiling, these two extreme points of view, about his work, are both perfectly subjective.
. . So the "quality" of the premium range of a web2.0 collaborative pool, a flickr group for example, is simply and modestly the result of its selection rules. How many awarding per post ? How many level between the first pool and the last premium one ? Who rate the propositions in each level (everywhere all members or not) ?
. . There is neither good systems, nor bad ones, there are only different selection results depending on different system rules.
. . Let's examine the installed groups metabolisms. Without considering the other essential parameters that are the number of members, the number of admins, the role and number of moderators, the constraining rules, the clearness of the theme, the openning of the theme, etc.
If we consider only the selection system, the awarding rules for example, they are approximately distinguished by the level of democracy. To be simple:
. . 1 - The resulting "quality" of a dictatorial group, where selection is the one of a lonely king judgement, is mostly the "quality" of the king itself. Of course not absolute, as perfectly subjective than perfectly individual. Finally, the group quality is the common denominator between the king exigence itself and his people posting members.
. . 2 - The resulting "quality" of a parliament group, where selection is a collective count between the "yes" and the "no", is the quality of the common denominator of the jurors. If the jurors are a coherent group, the final "quality" inherits this coherence. If the jurors are different personnalities, the selected pool has this diversity with the common level of subjective exigence.
. . 3 - The resulting "quality" of democratic groups, where selection results of all members awardings, has the quality of the common denominator of their people posting members. As different they are, as large is the diversity of the selected pool.
More than in case 2, we have to distinguish here two situations:
* If the theme is a precise and clear one, the result has the quality of the consensual idioms around this theme. It's not an absolute "quality", never it is, but the social confirmation of the dominant idioms of the theme. The "quality" is here more guided by the mimetics than by the creativity.
* If the theme is open, the result has the quality of an open web2.0 social site. Finaly, the more active member in naturaly : the entropy. If the selection rules are well tuned, the entropy can the energy of a free and large creativity, with less mimetics than before and more catharsis, idiosyncrasy, etc., but at ounce exigent and entropic (that is often contradictory).
Fernando, you have chosen an horizontal selection awarding system. This is the system democratic 3. Now, what are the good tuning rules ? How many awards per post ? How many levels between the posting pool and the final premium one ? To answer we have to observe the results. The group is too young to change the present ratios rules. With a totally openned theme, it's probable it will be necessary to be less selective in the first level and more selective in the upper ones, for example 3 awards for the liquid thread, and 7 for the premium . . it's a bet, for the fun ! Today, let's invite, award, post and observe !
For my own, I've only one regret. I think that the rhizom theme is a so good theme that it would be better for the group to have chosen it as the central theme. It's not a restricted theme, the concept of rhizom is very large in all universes, biosphere, cognosphere, noosphere, etc. ((do you know Deleuze & Guattari theories ?) This is a fundamental concept of creativity in general and in art in particular.
So I've found a direction to give to my moderator role Fernando. First I invite images only treating of the rhizom as their theme, even when the author have not seen it. I award only images treating the rhizom as theme. And I post only pictures treating the rhizom as theme. I've several propositions to post because it's one of my favourite themes inside my pataphysical smiling general creativity not serious theory ! I'll do it, at most one per day, the posting flow cannot be as determinant as the theme.
Fernando, is this a moderator (Modos) role you agree with ?
Cordially
joël
Originally posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
jef safi ('pictosophizing) (a group admin) edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
 i guess that's the first scientific article about a flickr group.
{end of thoughtful pause}
i agree with you in most of the points. and yes, we will have to wait and see what happens before there we do any changes to the group's rules.
and think of one thing: the more members the group will have, the harder it will be to get 5 awards. by now it's not that hard (my street portrait was the 12th photo or something like that, so you guys didn't have any other chance ;-D ...). we will have to wait how things turn out when there are 50, 100 or 150 members here...
i agree that the posting flow ist just a small feature to control quality. in my eyes it should prevent the group of becoming a pool just to dump in some pics and go... for sure there will be people who are just attracted by the name and the possibility to dump in 10 pictures per day... if we limit the number of pics per day the group isn't very interesting for such people.
as in every horizonally organized system there are lots of possible ways this group may take. just a few:
1) we get corrupted.
people just give awards because the photo comes from a specific person. and this person gives an award in return. if i transform this kind of behavior in everyday's life i would call it "business/politics as usual"
2) a clear description of what should go to the pool keeps the range of idioms at a balanced level
3) we are so serious and full of responsibility to the topics and themes of the group as we've never been in any democratic system before (and as we'll never be) ;) - if so, we will not need strict rules.
and maybe the most important point is that this group is a virtual therapy for awardophobians like me. until now i even deleted all those blinking, shining logos from my comments. so another definition would for sure be being a self-help group for anonymus awardophobians. )))
nevermind, we will see what happens... and i'm sure we'll enjoy it, anyway. if it's necessary, we will change the rules...
ah, and yes: zep ;)
Originally posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
the artist formerly known as пикселкух edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
. . Thanks zep ! I adopt immediatly your "awardophobia", the new word, not the pathology, I'm already as awardophobic than wowphobic .. you surely know these deep usefull comments in the regular syntax : "One subject + one verb + one compl-i-ment !" . . arghH ! Your "awardophobia" give me an idea . . see you soon !
. . Thank you ! Have an inspired we !
joël . . (ˆ¿.ºˆ ) . .
Posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
your reply + is + so great (just WOW!)
Posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
..why do anyone, or let's say "an artist", publish his works on web 2.0 site?
..is it, just, onanism?
in that case, it doesn't matter at all if noone notices it.
..is it a desperate cry for meeting virtual people?
in that case, 'views' and any kind of comments, featuring specially "wow ones" are expected.
..is it, hunger of learning?
in that case, one "good composition" comment can throw it back to the mentioned before steps
..is it, a popularity thing?
in that case, a standard "well-solved" picture can make it to "explore".
One of the challenges here would be to get a group big enough -quantity- of interesting people/works -activeness ratio- to warranty certain kind of action.
Irony is desirable.
I don't like animated gifs and inanimated comments, pools without any sense nor coherence, but -as in other fields of art- as long as I must not make any concession and because I don't do it for any money, I want my works to be viewed, to provoke, to play with an audience as wide as possible. As competent as possible? I'd prefer "talented".
Yes, "...to answer we have to observe the results..."
El entramado de potenciales interacciones de 1000 / 2000 individuos inquietos es sustancialmente agua de beber, como diría Jobim, ideas en movimiento.
I believe a group like rhizome can become an interesting and different reference, a mixing toormix.
Posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
yes, for sure we need more people posting their work to this pool. but by now i'm heavenly delighted that there are 60 artworks in the pool and not one amongst them that isn't interesting in a very special way for me...
looks like it will indeed become a great group (wow!)
Posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
. . What is to play with a large talented audience without making any concession ? That's called a win-win game, but only as long as the audience want to play win-win rules. The game theory shows that the game can turn to a zero-sum competition game, as soon as players don't believe in the collaborative win-win issue (In a zero-sum game one wins what an other loses). This is a perverse effect of wow-wow game, a perverse effect of awardings when lived as a competition more than a collaborative selection !
. . With web2.0 plateforms, the new life cycle of art (democratized) is no more made only of podiums and/or museum, with egotized winners and frustrated losers, but made of rhizomes, creative or sterile ones, ephemeral or durable ones, where each one of us as to choose his connections and .. play !
. . In a win-win rhizome, arts make the audience as the audience makes arts - (not Art with a ridiculous uppercase A, but with a rich lowercase s) - this is there the definition of the rhizome ! This is its essential property . . its performativity ! Here quality and creativity can become synonymous !
. . I believe also in a group like rhizome if it remains a win-win game more than a wow-wow game. It's hard to tune, the two rule systems are indissociable, because talents and egos are also indissociable but not proportionnaly distributed, it's human).
. . Have you said Utopia 2.0 ? . . to answer we have to observe the results . . tomorrow will be a great day . . that's what Fernando says sometimes ! Me too !
. . ( ˆ.?ˆ) . .
Originally posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
jef safi ('pictosophizing) (a group admin) edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
 |
Can't we have a text only award, i'd like. i'm a bit afraid of the myspace touch flickr is having lately with all these blinking icons.
But generally more than awards i'd like comments that are better to allow one to enhance the quality of his pics. You know giving an award is easy and don't necessarily generate deep interest.
my 2 eurocents
By the way, you probably already know the rhizome.org/ website, very interesting.
Originally posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
_boris edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
"a perverse effect of awardings when lived as a competition more than a collaborative selection !"
that's a very important point for me...
i would love to encourage everybody not to post to the group for getting some awards... when i post a photo it's not a cry for awards, it's like creating something... like adding another synapsis, just there for other artwork to dock to mine, spreading another tribe of synapsis, connecting to other already existing one or creating some absolutely new direction, part of a vibrant nerve system, endless ways to go, billions of different ways to go on every little cubic millimeter...
maybe the idea i shared in one of my photos inspires another one for a transformation? for an interpretation? for an improvement? for a genial deprovement? and this new idea acts as an inspiration for an endless chain of creational explosions? the picture i add is dead as long as it stays without any connectivity ... it could have thousands of awards and millions of comments... it would be dead as a ??? without joining the pulsating network of the rhizome...
that's the vision i have for this group, i don't know how other people see it... but that's why i even accept having picture awards added to my photos though being so dramatically awardophobic ))
maybe text only awards would be a great idea? for my personal purpose it wouldn't work. you can't cure the fear of flying by watching the birds. you gotta get into the most terrific biggest fattest piece of plane you could ever think of ))))))
Originally posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
the artist formerly known as пикселкух edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
maybe text only awards would be a great idea? for my personal purpose it wouldn't work. you can't cure the fear of flying by watching the birds. you gotta get into the most terrific biggest fattest piece of plane you could ever think of ))))))
ahah, i like what you said.
It's not an aversion for awards in general, but in particular, flickr awards (and the xplore thing)
quickly given, quickly forgotten.
For me what you wrote up there makes far more sense, interaction, comments, emulation, inspiration, that's the way i see it. That's also why i finally decided to participate in this pool.
Posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
i hope that we can make this pool a place like that. it's about inspiration. actually i have found pictures in here that did inspire me, seeing them as a single frame of a thought, making me think: what could be the next frame? they did even bring me to the point where i went out doing some photos with that inspiration in mind...
and talking about web 2.0 ... THAT is exactly what web 2.0 could be in my eyes. picking up a literary picture by f_p i would say if web 2.0 is just about commenting on photos and clicking some contacts then it isn't anything else than single cabin onanism in a row (you see: the tree version, not the rhizome). we can do much more than that (this is in no way a plea against onanism, i'm no puritan fanatic, do what you feel to...)
and all the ressources we need are here in this group. the question is, if we are ready to do it...
Originally posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
the artist formerly known as пикселкух edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
Return from topic
. . Perhaps you'd find interesting the rhizome
. . even if all rhizomes are systems,
. . at ounce a light, even artificial,
. . at ounce a limitation, a reductionism, a jar, a bottle, . .
. . a bottle to break each day, to dis-re-territorialize itself !
. . It's the reason why I think that 'pataphysics is my bottle,
. . because the larger one, rich of arts and sciences, and philosophies,
. . even full of contradictions . . this is the deep nature of the median vacuum !
. . ( °.?°) . .
(not only-not always) lightartificiallimitationreductionism-jar-bottle to be broken, each day, to dis-re-territorialize themselves.
Signed: the media(n) vacuum
. . Absolutely yes, mass medias are the smaller bottles of nothing. They produce the success that they consume themselves. They play this loose-loose game of audience with the public. They Deliberately confuse talent and success. Success is reduced to the talent of public to love the same things than the other ones, especially when they are addicted to this laziness. Success measures a statistical common denominator that media works to enlarge. The result is mechanics, more the denominator is large, more it is low.
. . Are web 2.0 sites some new medias following the same logics ? Do they play with the same rules ? The problem of rules in flickr groups for example is precisely here ! Not always ? yes ! Not only ? yes ! I believe that ! But we all have to work for that, all members. To invite, to select, to comment, to award is not necessarily to work. Question: all members want to work or want to award to be awarded ? The common denominator can enlarges but is the quality upwarding ?
. . At the moment I think that this is a game that can be a win-win one, sometimes, never indefinitely. Just joyfully but desperately ! Desperately because Entropy will have the last word.
. . Joyfully because non-commercial art is something very different, neither a virtue nor a grace, but only a large expression of passions and joys, a transcendant joy and at ounce an illusive one.
. . A transcendant joy because desperate ! I love this game not to win or to loose anything, I love this game because it is desperately joyful !
yes, the question of the day is:
how far can a group be enlarged without sacrifying quality?
But then, as usual, we can and we must spread a wide range of new possibilities, because at last this is a passionate game, a game about passions.
These games, or better: these gamers, are not necessary desperated about anything or worried about Jarry's work.
Or can we thought Entropy won't have the last word?
The question can be: how horizontal can any structure be without losing its identity? Zero state is just One, our own production.
Also: as far as we-noone try to interchange crossed references to push-up that baseline, the horizon, never horizontal, becomes a bunch of food for pigeons.
. . No Fernando I'm not desperate, I hope nobody is, I'm only desperately joyful !
. . We still have discussed this point. The size doesn't make neither the identity, nor the quality. But the rules make them. What are the rules that can produce a consensual emergent quality or a consensual emergent identity (considering that quality and identity can't exist in absolute) ? Even if we can elaborate them, will these rules be played by all members to have a chance to work well ? The zero lower state, the one of our own production is of course not relevant, a win-win consensus can only begin with N collaborative gamers. The upper state, the one of "too much" is of course already lost.
. . in-between 1 and too much, the question is not the gamer number but the consensual efficient rules to produce a consensual quality.
. . To evaluate the rules the question is : are at that moment the 46 / 234 premium images the real consensus about the quality of the posted images ? And is there a consensus about the answer to this question between the 185 gamers ? I'm not sure that there is a large consensus in the 185 gamers thinking that the 46 premium images are the better ones. I'm not sure there is such a consensus, neither, among the 34 premium gamers. What do you think about the resulting premium selection ? Do you think premium images are better than the baseline ones ?
Posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
. . Let us debate on a dedicated thread ? Yes you're right. It was interesting to dis-re-territorialize it on your "limitation" page, but this debate have to be found where it is looked for.
. . back to question Fernando : What do you think about the present resulting premium selection ? Is premium a consensus of 185 members ? Or the common denominator of the 34 selected, almost each other co-opted ? Do you think, personaly, that premium images are better than the baseline ones ?
. . (•¿.• ) . .
Originally posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
jef safi ('pictosophizing) (a group admin) edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
: Yes, was interesting (specially on a Dalisaf's dedicated work).
If "quality" of the premium range of a web2.0 collaborative pool, a flickr group for example, is simply and modestly the result of its selection rules. How many awarding per post ? How many level between the first pool and the last premium one ? Who rate the propositions in each level (everywhere all members or not) ?
Is diversity, in a "democratic" group, a value to be desirable or to be afraid of?
Are we prepared to "integrate" points of view that are not ourselves?
Does a consistent theoretical corpus state the consistency of the pictosopher artworks?
Are philosophers able to or interested in making pictosophy? How can we determine the curve of a good idea and its bad made of? Are artists able to or interested in making philoshopy?
"...With a totally openned theme, it's probable it will be necessary to be less selective in the first level and more selective in the upper ones, for example 3 awards for the liquid thread, and 7 for the premium..."
Yes... let's try it (you can also put your hands on the administrative section). I think the main challenge is to remain with a totally open theme, to increase number of active gamers and to mantain certain cohesion-quality. Cohesion, quality and horizontal democracy can perfectly co-exist in a very small family and it's okay. But this is not what rhizomists may expect here.
360º degrees openthemegroups are non-sense, there's no way to be attracted to by anything but a quick wow-wow comment. ProAward ones are its paradox and worse dream. I also don't enjoy the invitation-only stuff even if resulting works are fine
Shall we turn into a "Rhizome Group (post 1, rhizome some)"? Probably this would become more attractive for awardophobia gamers. And "Rhizome Premium (post 1, rhizome idem)"?
Are we looking for punctualworks or peopleartists? I choose the second, although that may be a huge risk.
There's a lot of people jumping joyfully through the looking glass but that only means that. Here there's no metonymy.
I don't think there's there'll be a consensus about intrinsic accuracy of premium images. Once upon a time Real world was a good label but nowadays, anxiety and hunger of social-networking seldomly implies much more than a discrete wow-wow comment. Within a portion of a nanosecond, gamers can be asking themselves: would this work rhizome around? Virilio was right: there's no time to wait for that answer. It's a fatal game.
Is the time we spend thinking about this and trying to translate it in more or less accurated translated words worthy?
Posted 26 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
More about this here: contests, rhizlinks and new rhizomic ways of communicati-on.
Free entrance.
Posted 25 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
If I may I would also like to support to idea to award less than 4 photos per post. I offer two reasons:
First: When we award 4 to every post, every photo in the pool will get on average 4 awards. Obviously the better ones get more, but unfortunately/fortunately our pool doesn't contain many bad photos. Especially now when the pool is so small and doesn't attract people who post anything and then run just to get an award. Less awards will make them more valuable.
And second: The more mandatory awards, the more are people giving them because they have to and with stock comments such as "great shot" or with no comment at all. If we could only give for example 2, we could be more selective and concentrate on meaningful comments. Again, this may be less of an issue when the group grows larger and becomes more polluted with trash.
Thanks for your views on this, looking forward to see your photos.
Posted 25 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
. . hello Dalibor ! Thanks a lot to rhizthread here. These are good observations. When defining rules, these points are always considered and discussed in all groups making selections.
. . Considering the N number of awards to give, here N=4, we have also to consider the P number of awards to get to be promoted in premium, here P=4. With P=N the interesting point is not the average award number each image get, but the proportion of candidum promoted in premium. With P=N, premium would be 50% of candidum. (50% less than the average, and 50% more)
. . Now let's observe the result today, we have 140 images in premium for 540 in candidum : premium is only 26% !!??? The question is : why ?
. . The answer is that (with N=P=4) members don't give all their 4 awards. They give less, statistically, all together they give only 2 awards. Someones probably give sometimes 1 or none for each of their post.
. . All together we already do what you propose to do, we rhizaward less then 4.
. . In some groups, a robot detects such non-compliance with rules and delete members after they receive an invitation to be regular. Our politics here is not such a constrained coercitive system.
. . It's useless !!
When somebody don't want to work with the other members, the other members don't work with him, and he have less chance to be promoted. Rule compliance is implicitely a way to win-win together !
. . We speculate here on a variant face of the Metcalfe law, a variant face derived also from the theory of game, more the group is interesting for a member, more the member is interesting for the group. It's a speculation which can be a success or not, it depends on many factors, the quality of the invited members (it is a co-opted one but not necessarily a top one !), their need to progress and their need to work. The first question today is not to tune the selection podium ratio of the group, but to find the ways to invite members to work more and more, to progress.
On a web2.0 place like ours here, without any result constraints like in a commercial or a professionnal collaborative plateform, such an invitation is not at all won. Players must be convinced that they can win more than they lose. They are losing time, they can lose self satisfaction when they over-evaluate themselves, but they can win recognition of their peers or better, they can progress in their art.
. . The result of the group will be that members will do. If they do not want to work, the group will disperse into smaller subgroups, and then die. You say that the group is not bad ? I agree with you, it seems to be and become a win-win one, producing exigence and quality. But I observe also that they give 2 award and not 4, at the moment the group is dying ! Is it dying more and more ? Is it now stable on N=2 and P=4 ? Let's observe it !
At the moment the good question is : how to give to the others the desire to work ?
. . A first answer for each one of us is : to work with the others.
. . A second is to tune N and/or P. Have we better to down P to 3 or 2 to enhance the promotion chance ? It's what I analyze these days, I think we will probably not modify N=4, but down the P to 3 to enhance the promotion stimulation. This is a point to discuss with other admins and moderators !! Do you want to be one of us ??
...
I like what you do, I'm not sure to have given to your images as many rhizawards they need, I've probably given more to prefered images. But we are near 300 members now. It's not important, what's important is that I like your work more and more. If someday I rhizaward some of yours, I'll probably try to discuss suggestions to make them better (for me only, subjectively of course), will you be ready to accept suggestions and discussions about them, without to feel such suggestion negatively ? It will be an occasion to argument your choices, it could be a very positive moment. Don't hesitate to thoughtfully comment mines making suggestions, I need such controversies to progress ! We all need them !
Cordially Dalibor.
joël
Originally posted 25 months ago.
(
permalink
)
jef safi ('pictosophizing) (a group admin) edited this topic 25 months ago.
|
|
Thanks for the explanation, Joël. Hats off, you seem to have this quite worked out. I'm looking forward to seeing how it all turns out.
Posted 25 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
". . 140 images in premium for 540 in candidum : premium is only 26% !!??? The question is : why ?
. . The answer is that (with N=P=4) members don't give all their 4 awards. They give less, statistically, all together they give only 2 awards. Someones probably give sometimes 1 or none for each of their post.
. . All together we already do what you propose to do, we rhizaward less then 4..."
There're a lot, really a lot of candidum works with more than 4 rhizawards still on candidum, and not in premium. Why? Because gamers don't use to remember rules. They don't until someone reminds "that image has enough rhizawards to be posted to the next zone".
We want 'quality'? Or better, provocative non-transparent interesting works. Yes.
That's one of the things we want. But not with a constrained coercitive system. Let's say: in a more horizontal way.
We all want and enjoy thoughtful win-win comments and win-win works. That's why we're working.
Thanks Dalibor for your input. Quantity of rhizawards -or... rules- is something we're thinking but we always need to keep on tuning things. I'll also think about it.
fernando.
Posted 25 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
hmmm... I'm re-reading this and wondering:
Is there anything to do now or has the potato just gone wild?
Is its wildness adaptive or...?
Hmmm... I should go wonder a bit more.
Posted 9 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I guess it's its nature... and the proof we've to feed it with love, taking care of him/her/it.
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
indeed...
a bit of rhiz-love always helps.
;)
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
oooops....I cant read all this...to much for my english.....
I dont pool anymore to groups were they aloud 4 or 5 a day, the level are lower and lower
yes, this group changed a little too...more ducks and cornfield.
It used to be a very special group what I loved, pictures you just see here. But I guess if you want to let the group growing you have to except everything
Posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Yes, i observed that te quality is worse now, and i´d like too add, for me in diffeerent aspect this group has something of vanguardist but in all ways escept vanity wat. !each one is ech one" but look like as all kind of imagw has place in the pool, it could bee good a clarification about waht the group wants and are waiting for.
By other side today in the debate like a point of iceberg with my more than relative english . i ask about the presence of human figure and any problem posible.
This group is the more atractive all i know, but i Think is necesary remark a reference to work.
anymous tio all who let hours here…
Originally posted 5 months ago.
(
permalink
)
widwur edited this topic 5 months ago.
|
|
Well, I disagree. I don't think/feel images now are worse/better than before... Each player understand/watch his/her images in an unique way and, fortunately, all of us don't see the same things... In fact, there're players who send the same images to any group and players, even in this thread, who are rhizomatically active nowadays...
Human figure has never been a problem, the problem is if the image is empty... and obvious photo without title, description, tags, rhizlinks, links, etx...
Posted 5 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Well insist, i was wrong, i thougt that this group was esperimental abstract sure condicionated because the moment of my access i saw many image like "this" anyway. I like plstic art as his influences a lot.
The human being are not exactly clear even "in live"… represented estatic…
But also i can learn from the image were he is allwais something,
at least i´ll try.
thanks Fernando
Posted 5 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Rhizome Candidum (post 1, rhizaward 4) /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Rhizome Candidum (post 1, rhizaward 4) discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
