Attached Link: http://www.dynagrind.com

Well this is just a thought and a oppinion rolled into one. Has anyone other than me noticed that only certain people get into the Hot 20 and their usually accompanied by their friends as well. I mean up until this Legume Epidemic there was basically a select few artists that got anything in there and it was probably because their friends voted for them. Anyways i think if your artwork is popular you should get traffic. And as such there should be a hot20 devoted to most viewed like there use to be. Just my thoughts.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?Sectionid=0&MostWanted=Yes

Here's a link to the "Most Viewed" for All Galleries. There is also still a "Most Viewed" link for each gallery individually. Hope that's what you were looking for. :)

Long ago when the Hot20 was based on "views" alone...someone had the exact same arguement for "voting" on the Hot20. They felt only certain members were getting all those views...and they weren't. shrug Why does it matter either way? The people who vote....vote on what they like...the people who used to view...viewed what they wanted to view.

Oh...nevermind...

Pardon me for being new and speaking out, but it seems to me that using most viewed as the criteria for "Hot 20" is also a waste of time. If people are having their friends vote now, they can just view and refresh their own post over and over (and thus chalk up "views" till thier heart's content...or bordom sets in). IF this community is set on having some sort of competition(s) and IF Hot 20 is one of them, then I would suggest (off the top of my head without giving it deep thought) that R'sity randomly choose 100 members and assign them some sort of Nielson (the TV stuff) status and what THEY vote on for the Hot 20 are the only votes that count. While I realize that some "friends" may be randomly chosen, the odds are in a community of 75,000 that most of the people will be just plain people not looking to vote just for thier friends. Keep the 100 anonymous (of course, they could divulge it) and leave them in that status for one month. Or 3 months, then randomly chose another whole set. Just a thought.

Hrm. Methinks you may have something there Chuck. I suggested a juried 20, with the same idea at heart, but I think that if the logistical issues of implementing your system can be overcome, it would certainly be the better plan.

Ooooh! Not a bad idea Chuck! I have always been on the side that could care less about the Hot20....but that is actually a pretty cool idea!

Ditto...... don't cruise the galleries much as I find it interferes with my own creativity. I don't want my renders to look like anyone else's, if they do it's sheerly by accident. I think that would work though!

One possible way is to allow only one picture per artist in the Hot 20. That way there would be more diversity.

I think the system we have is just fine. Everyone has the freedom to vote for whatever they want. If the same artists occupy the Hot 20 with the same kinds of pics all of the time, maybe because their friends vote for them, that only means more people need to get voting. 20, 30, even 70 votes, what's that really, when we have 40,000 or however many members? Not even a drop in the bucket. The only problem with the Hot 20 is that, outside of a very small but VERY vocal minority, no one cares about it in the slightest. If they did, they'd vote.

Aye, IMO leave Hot 20 alone. It has always been a popularity contest. Occasionally a couple good ones pop up every now and then, but mostly it's just how many friends you could get to vote for you (or to look at the pic) Seeing the traffic of the galleries, especially the Poser one, is so high )100+ pics per day) Forcing a jury to come up with a list in a short time doesn't seem possible. Anyway, people who crave and get high on attention will do anything to get it. Kind of reminded me of the Simpson episode with the giant advertise figures destroying the town. The way to kill them, don't give them any attention. If you don't like certain person's work don't look at it, don't give them the satisfaction that they succeed at pissing you off by posting comments. Exercise your freedom to choose.

Well, "tweaking" my idea a bit, since it didn't get immediately squashed, forget voting. Treat it like the Neilson families...in other words, every pic a "Neilson-designated" person views gets a tally. At the end of a designated period (30 days? Heck, I don't even know how long the current period is...grin), announce the Hot 20 and set all the counters/tallys to zero. As an afterthought, a person selected at random to be a "Neilson" person doesn't really even have to know R'Sity has chosen them to be one! Then you get kind of an "honest" viewer, not one that knows s/he is a "special" viewer.

I like Chuck's idea. It seems better than either system we have had since i have been here.

Thanks Poppi, assuming it isn't an incredible task to do with active server pages and all, it would seem to be a good way to do things...people who are "Nielsons" don't even know it! So, as they wander around and click on thumbnails, a "vote" is made that they don't even know about. They click on what seems good to them. Granted, "friends" might be more prone to click on "friends" pics, but the odds are, through a random choice, that you are getting just plain people who have a diversified interest. As 100 people (or more if it would be deemed necessary), you get a random public opinion. Well, not that I can change this site's way of doing business, but since there was so much controversy, I thought I'd give R'Sity a suggestion.

Well, I'm gonna tell ya right now, that if this "nielson" idea is implemented I will NEVER go to the gallery again for any reason. I just can't take the chance that I might be one of the "nielson" people for that week and find myself inadvertantly voting for an image I think is crap just because I clicked on the thumbnail. Nope. No thanks. I don't approve of the Hot 20 in the first place.

Well, Kate, that is a good point. So, I don;'t know what to suggest. It just seemed people wanted to keep the Hot 20, so I tried to think of a way to do it without bias. Perhaps, in an area full of artist, all with their own ideas of what is art, there should be no contest at all. Just admiration for people who are able to make images that make us want to be like them...without trying to put someone in "first place".

Well, now, there you go, Chuck. That's the entire reason I've always been against the Hot 20. I don't see art as a competition, I see it as a form of personal expression. But with the introduction of the Hot 20 the galleries became more about prestige than anything else, IMO. It was more important to get high ratings and Hot 20 placement than it was to produce good quality, well conceived art. All of a sudden, instead of everyone striving to find their own style, their own voice, the galleries became a competition to see who could exploit the latest fad the quickest and obtain the most approval. The Hot 20 has become fashionable rather than stylish, and as someone once described the distinction between the two - Fashion says "Me too! Me too!" while style says "Only me."

ChuckEvans, I don't know about that idea of a Neilson rattings. It was because of the Neilson rattings that the original Star Trex got canceled. NBC is still kicking themselfs in the Butt over that one. ;D

I completely agree with KateTheShrew about Fashion and Style... That's why I think the first thing to do is to replace the "vote for this pic " button with a"I like this pic" button. The purpose of voting should not be to make this pic go into the Hot20 but just to say you appreciate the artist's job :)

Basing it on thumbnail clicks did NOT work at all and that's why it was changed. I often was conned into clicking on a DECEPTIVE thumbnail and then saw a pic that absolutely sucked or was mediocre, but the click had counted toward a hot20 status for the underserving pic - and there was NO way to take it back, however much you might want to. Back then, it was a "top 20 THUMBNAILS" score and nothing more. In fact, I got so incredibly burned out on deceptive thumbnails that now if I see ANY thumbnail that looks like it's just a tiny portion of a larger pic, I will NOT click on it, PERIOD. I also will not EVER click on any item without a thumbnail at all. Personally, I think thumbnails should be required for all gallery entries, and they should be required to be mini's of the FULL pic. Anything else leads to deception and fraud, not always, but far too frequently.

Hmm. I prefer to avoid showing nudity in thumbnails, which is why I don't thumbnail a full picture in those cases.

In answer to Allen9 : that's not a bad idea. :)