"Low" rank.....

As I've posted before.....I would like to see the "Low" usage rank changed because it has an unnecessary negetive connotation that does not apply to all low usage filters.....

I think the following usage rank scheme would work better to keep everything in a positive light while preventing users from being misleadingly turned away from good filters that just might be more use-specific and snippets that are used in other filters.....

1) Average
2) Above Average
3) High
4) 2x High.....3x High.....etc....

Suggestion for cleaning up Library:

At FF's discretion after a certain amount of time, send authors an email (under the radar) stating that their filter is "ear-marked" for deletion if improvements/enhancements are not made to it. Authors who care about their filters will address them......while other authors who do not care about them will not do anything......thus giving FF a clear picture of the filters to delete from the library......

If filters are not addressed and are deleted.....a copy of it can be sent via email to the author so they can save it and don't have to rebuild it from scratch if they choose to improve it at a later date.....and the filter gets simultaneously moved to 'My Filters' for all those who might still be using it......as is currently done with deleted filters. A notice specifying exactly what has happened to what filters would also be a help for users to know exactly what has happened.....

I think this approach would allow FF to 'raise the bar' on the level of quality in the library.....

That's exactly what I'm talking about by "FF's discretion".....they can discern between which filters are of quality construction that might have low usage due to finite purpose.....and the ones that are "suboptimal" constructs.....

I was thinking of it from a standpoint of what would I do if I owned FF and I wanted to "raise the bar" on the overall quality of filters in the library.....or the library was getting too large and diluted with "suboptimal" filters.....

Under this suggestion, alot of my "young and foolish" filters would get the "Ax".....but I'm planning on re-doing them anyway.....

LMAO.....

Britany Spears got committed this morning for locking herself in a bathroom with her son for hours while on drugs......I feel bad for her kids.....

Okay, as far as this issue is concerned....."Low" may be a correct label for it......but it carries an unnecessary negetive conotation with it. Human nature dictates that our first reaction to seeing "Low" usage on a filter means that it sucks.....when that's not true in alot of cases either because of its' specific purpose, limitted application, one-shot artistic, or being a snippet used in other filters. Myself, and I'm sure a majority of other users, will see the "Low" usage rank and just skip over the filter.....when it might be exactly what we are looking for......

It's kinda like putting a black mark on alot of good filters as a "sacrificial lamb" just to point out all the bad ones.....so I would like to see the ranking system put all filters in a positive light, then use my "clean up the library" suggestion to deal with the bad ones without dragging down the good ones.....

Just my humble opinion.....

i thought we already did this thread once?

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: go 'HU' overnight (like that fella).

that my fault I love that filter

I also have a filter go from HU to low I was more amazed it went to HU and it deserved to be low, I'd delete it except from Ahimsa experience you lose the HU point and I like my points


I agree with Steve the term low is a derogatory even though accurate, maybe - Average - High - Extreme

or instead of low

"Under Utilised" or "Saddly Ignored" or even "Free Steak Knives with Usage"

Craig, I don't think so.....I skip over them if they have "low" on them.....as I'm sure many other users do as well. As far as I'm concerned, "low" is the kiss of death for them.....

Quote
Conniekat8 wrote: I think I sprained a braincell while saying this

LOL.....

Quote
Kraellin wrote: i thought we already did this thread once?

Yup, feel strongly about this one.....

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: There are some that were once 'High' but have dropped down to 'Low' (like this fella). I'd hate to see those 'cleaned' away! Some can be 'Low' for ages and then suddenly go 'HU' overnight (like that fella). So, there is a time for every filter!

I agree that it can and does happen.....but I think very infrequently.....

I'm sure that you have noticed that alot of authors who care have started to delete their low usage filters.....because they either feel that.....(1) their LUs don't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting out of an LU ranking once there, (2) their LUs would be futile and a complete waste of time to try and improve once there, or (3) keeping LUs may mislead users to think that all of their filters are crap.....

I think it's the exact same principle of an author looking great and attracting users to all their filters with a high HU to total filter ratio ( ) as opposed to an author repelling users with a low HU to total filter ratio ( ) ..... LOL....

So, given that "sub-optimal" submissions have clearly been out-pacing quality filter submissions, I think that the growing "sub-optimal" to "quality" ratio is having the exact same negetive effect on FF as a high LU ratio has upon an author.....

I also think that if FF is going to have no standards/requirements for submissions and people can submit anything they want.....then FF should have some mechanism on the other end by which to do some house cleaning and have some quality control in the library......

Hey, just my opinion.....

Quote
Carl wrote: I agree with Steve the term low is a derogatory even though accurate

Yeah.....the majority of users (if not all) view this as a negetive against the filter.....just like we authors do.....

Quote
CFandM wrote: Maybe when logging into your account, have a section where you can veiw the status of your low-average-high filters and see what each filter is doing..

Excellent idea

I was thinking just something like this..

blah blah--high--download number here

blah blah--average--download number here

blah blah--average--download number here

blah blah--low--download number here

Then the blah blah being the name and link to the filter..Kind of like a quick status
sort of page...That way if you are Vold hehe you can see all your filters status on
one page because its only text in a spreadsheet sort of thing...

Quote
CFandM wrote: Yep I remember that But since Stevie brought this up again I thought I would bring that up again also..

Maybe Ron should proceed to nagging Vladimir about it again...

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Quote Kraellin wrote: i thought we already did this thread once? Yup, feel strongly about this one.....

i've noticed that

see, i dont look at usage ranks when going to use a filter. since i download ALL filters, i use the GUI to find what i want, not the online library. thus, the only time i look at ranks is when i'm curious as to how one of my filters is doing or what is popular at the moment for the purposes of constructing some new filter. so, the ranks mean almost nothing to me in terms of what i use to render an image or texture.

the presets, on the other hand, carry a tremendous amount of weight for me. if i go through a few presets and see nothing i really care for at the moment, i move on to another filter. so, usage ranks mean very, very little to me in terms of what i actually use.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Sometimes I will do that when I can't find exactly what I'm looking for.....but most of the time, I'm quickly flying through looking for what I need with an HU on it as the fastest, most efficient way to approach it.....HU = proven good.....LU = something's wrong.....which brings me back to my point that LU can mislead users to skip over good filters.....

hmmm, i see what you're saying, but again, that's you. you're putting in the significance that

Quote
HU = proven good.....LU = something's wrong

, which surprises me a bit, since, as a filter author, you're well aware of snippets and how they get ranked and used, and though i dont have a specific example, i'll bet it applies to a few other types of filters as well. but, i'm also guessing that a lot of others do this, too. i make no such assumption when i go looking for a filter to use. just because i use a claw hammer more than a roofing hammer, doesnt mean that the roofing hammer is 'bad'. some tools one just doesnt use as often.

now, if you want to describe that in terms of use, ok, but i dont see that in your proposed ranking system. low use is simply low use: 'i dont need this one very often.'. i assume if it's in my tool chest that i sometimes have a use for it, otherwise i'd remove it.

and that doesnt even take into consideration the subjective nature of these filters.

i'm not opposed to making a better ranking system, but i dont see where just changing the names for 'politically correct' reasons is a good enough reason to do so. the whole 'low use = bad' thing just doesnt wash with me. that's all.

what you need is a way to distinguish, in your ranking system, the difference between low usage and low worth/quality. then, it would make sense.

well, let's liken all this to a good old public library out there in the real world. someone has compiled a collection of books, magazines and whatnot. there is a card catalog to help you find things and a librarian (we'll keep this simple and not mention all the other things you can find in a library). no particular attempt is made to rank the books and other things; they are simply there for folks to check out and use as they see fit. ok, we know all that.

so, in the FF library, we've gone a couple steps further. we track how many 'books' are checked out by the download count. and, it goes even further by tracking, to some extent, how many of those 'books' (filters) actually get 'read' (usage stats). so, we're already ahead of a public library in that regard.

no attempt is made in a public library of usage. no attempt is made, particularly, of even keeping track of 'downloads' or checkouts. and no attempt is made of tracking how much a person enjoyed, or not, a given book. the stuff is just there for anyone to check out and read. and there is certainly nothing in the card catalog about any evaluations of a given book, no ranking system of likes or dislikes by the various readers.

so, we're way ahead of a public library in that regard. one can look at the FF library and get a pretty good idea of what a given filter does and how others feel about it and that's good. but, and this is a big but, there's subjectivity. you and i can look at the same image, the same filter, the same anything, and we'll probably personally rank those things differently as to value, right? so, how do you know what to cull and what to leave in the public library and the FF library? and for that matter, shld you even attempt to cull it? in a public library you are limited to a physical space how much you can actually accrue and keep there. in a virtual library like the FF library, you are only limited to how much a server can hold and i'd fair say that the FF library is in no danger of spilling out or overflowing or taking up too much space at this point. so, why even cull anything?

'rank' or popularity with users isnt ever going to really determine a filter's value to one given person. it might help sort things, might help to find things and might give some indication of a filter's worth to you, but what about the other guy whose taste go another direction and where do you draw the line? do you just cut out all low use filters at some point and if you do, then why not 'raise the bar' even further and cut out all average filters, as well? wouldnt that help sort out the 'mess' further? and then, why not raise the bar even further and start cutting out some high use ones also? hehe, ok, i'm obviously exaggerating things to make a point.

and that point is simply apples and oranges. you like x, i like y, and someone else is going to like z, even if z is a low use. so, where do you draw the line?

now, for me, i'd much prefer to leave the library alone and do all the sorting in my own FF GUI. just give me more folders so that i can sort out what i like and dont like. but, that probably has a drawback also, at least to tracking use. how would FF know what we use and thus like if there are unknown folders in one's personal GUI that FF has no way of knowing about... or do they? i dont know. but, if possible, i'd much prefer to have my copy of FF allow me to sort all the filters how i want and still let FF keep track of use. that way, the library is simply a repository of works, good, bad and ugly and my copy of FF is my own personal card catalog sorted how i want. stuff i dont ever use i could just throw into a 'not used much' folder and get it out of the way for the most part. simple. i could even just delete them if i wanted. but, i'd be very wary of cutting filters from the public library.

well, you're right in your bookstore analogy and that even applies to a public library, which i did comment on. but a server can carry a LOT more 'books', aka, filters, than a library can carry books.

but, that isnt really the point, is it? what you're wanting is a way to sort through the mess better, and i do agree with that. the only place we're differing on is the how. i'd rather do it locally, on my own machine, where you want to do it with the library itself, and my reasoning there is mostly the point i already made about low use vs. low quality and the subjectivemess of 'quality'. i dont want someone else telling me (by culling) what is 'low quality'. i'd rather stuff every oddball, goofy, 'worthless' piece of junk in the library and let ME sort through it and arrange it locally on my own machine.

see, you're not losing a thing by leaving every filter submitted, in the library. you only lose when you start removing 'worthless' filters. this is one of the reasons i download EVERYTHING; in the event that FF does decide to cull, i want my own copies preserved. even the arguement that you're losing time by having to sort through 3000 so-so filters and only 1000 'good' ones doesnt really hold up when you can already sort by popularity and usage rank. and you certainly dont have to download 'low quality' filters. so, the arguement of wading through 100 filters to find one gem doesnt really hold up very well.

i dont really see the 'quality of the library gets diminished' as a valid arguement. all the good ones are still there and we all know the library is primarily user-submitted and we know that some filters arent going to be that good. i just dont see that as a drawback. if i get one good idea from 100 'bad' filters, then i've lost nothing; i've gained.

now, there is a somewhat valid arguement about getting an HU with all that competition there. i mean, getting someone to look at your filter out of 4100 is a bit of a problem and seems to warrant a bit of culling so the end user can be exposed to 'better' filters, but again, for me, it's worth the wade.

i do like the idea of a better file system, ranking system and being able to find things easier. but i dont really want to see culling as a part of it. we need more categories and more user enabled folders. that would help a ton in both the library and the GUI. and if you came up with a way to distinguish 'low use' from 'low quality' (tough because of the subjectivity and nature of some filters), why, i'd be right on board. but the whole idea of going all politically correct on naming isnt the right way. artists shld know what is being used and what isnt. that's the nature of art. some of your works sell and some dont. an artist NEEDS to know that and getting the correctly named 'low use' rank put on one's filter is the correct way to do it. your filter is low use. it aint 'bad', it's just not used by a lot of folks. that's all it says. so, an artist can look at that and go, 'boy, i need to get the usage up on this one' and can do something about it. simple. if he's going all introverted and self-invalidation on himself because his filter isnt 'selling', why, that's not something you're going to correct no matter what you call the usage rank system names. that's just a personal problem with the artist. the library shldnt change the system over that sort of thing.

bah! i'm lecturing again. lol. i'm not against making a better system. i just think the politically correct thing is way too pink

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Maybe a submissions screener (only allows submissions of filters that meet certain criteria) might be a way to "raise the bar" a little.....

Isn't there one of those already? I've heard of people having filters turned down for rendering too long or having really bad construction. I was under the impression that there was a human component to filter submission, which is why they don't update on weekends and Russian holidays...

If I'm wrong about that, I'd love to know.

carl, yes, steve made that point somewhat also. but even with books that are pulled from the store, with todays modern system, one can usually get books on demand now

see, the only reason i dont want anything culled, except perhaps obvious rip-off clones, is that even with a person overseeing things, it's still going to be an arbitrary, subjective decision on their part as to what gets culled and what doesnt, and that just bothers me. i hate censors!

Quote
Kraellin wrote: i hate censors!

---I don't, life is short, delete the crap and lock up the criminals. That said, I'd like the censors to be a rotating board of randomly drawn members of the general public, no elected officials, no behind the scenes hoodoo, just normal everyday people (like a cultural 'jury duty' if you will). Unfortunately, in most cases of this type, those people wouldn't know the first thing about sorting filters (or anything very specific at all). Which is why we elect/hire so called 'professionals' to censor things for us, and probably why it fails, because one person, one who can afford to get known and elected, can only do so by being part of ye grande money laundering scheme etc. So yer with me then ? Abolish all 'religious organizations', 'governments', and other power hungry cults of censorship ?

jffe