Since this came out in last vote thread, I sort of "officially" bring the theme out: in the last months, it was really difficult to choose only 3 entries in the challenges... could we consider to make the voting 5-4-3-2-1? What do you think about it? AgentS, is it possible? S.

I don't know. If we make him work harder, we'll have to start paying AS more. :^) Seriously, if AS is up for it, sounds good. We could call the 2 new winners 1st and 2nd runners-up.

or we could make AS work harder =) cool with me

Choosing 5 people will be even harder then choosing 3 people. I'd rather have a 3 vote system.

It ain't broke......don't fix it!

Or, as an idea (but I'm happy with it the way it is), maybe we have 6 votes total to allocate. If you like one pic and really think it should win, you put all 6 votes to it and none to any other pic. Or if there's three that you equally like, give them 2 votes each or you could vote in a 3-2-1 style or..... pretty sure you get what I mean.

Or maybe.... We each rank ALL the entries from 1 to whatever. That way if there are 40 entries your first selection gets 40 points and the rest go on a decending scale. That way AS isn't the only one having to do more work... AND you also get the ability to alot 10 additional "bonus points" to the ones you REALLY like. Then each entry's total score is divided by the number of total votes placed and multiplied by the total render time for the final image. YEahhhh....I like it....

What about adding a coefficient ratio for use of volumetrics? Ok, guyz, got the message, LOL. Apart the tough choice (my only reason to extend to 5), I think that the 3-2-1 is workin fine ;-) S.

But I was serious ......

Claymor, only 6 scoops of coffee in the maker, not 12.LOL

DOH!!

I agree with Doublecrash--we SHOULD have a coefficient ratio of Voulemtrics BUT i think the probability in the proportion would just as much reverse the schematics IF they were to inverse the tangent. okay im sorry i said that---5-4-3-2-1 would be AWESOME but my only complaint is that it would be incredibly hard to choose!

LOL! You guys make me laugh so bad! I like the 5-4-3-2-1 idea. It would make more people feel good when they're given a point, thus encouraging them. I just wish it could be automated so AS doesn't have to work harder.

3 is sooo hard. I would love the 5 system. Sorry AS. Diane

Let's see what AS thinks about it. @Flak: Ooops, sorry, I really thought you were joking as Claymor was, LOL :)

We could use L-alpha-T ...the coeffeicient of linear expansion...The longer the pic is the less points it gets....

This forum is the best place for a laugh.

Missed this official post, lol. Just now seeing it, I believe I was packing for Vegas on the 7th...;o) 54321...would make my brain explode. With 321, the number of individual votes I hand count...(by the way)...averages about 255 individual votes. With 54321, that would go to 425. It takes a 2-3 hours to do all that right now as it is. I basically count them, check them again in reverse and then take the top 10 and end up counting them all again in various ways another 3 times each. Just to make sure I'm not messing up with the count. All the while visually dodging members who voted, deleted their post and voted again (as a Mod I see deleted posts still), and those who voted incorrectly and I have to discount. The problem with having a number of votes available to a voter, and then letting said voter give all the votes to just one pic, and no one else, is there could/would be landslide victories. With having to share the 321 votes, this spreads out the votes. (more members feel like a winner even if they don't win) True, the same top winner would probably win whether or not voters would have to spread their votes out or not. But, sharing the votes comes off looking as more of a group effort (for lack of better words), and not sharing the votes would look more like a popularity contest. (imho) Besides, back when we only voted 1 person a winner, after a while everyone wanted to have 3 winners. A voter being able to give all their votes to just one person would sorta be like going in reverse. AgentSmith

AS: You could always take your socks off and use your toes....?????

Lol, the calculator in my quick-start bar usually does the trick!

AS wrote -> "The problem with having a number of votes available to a voter, and then letting said voter give all the votes to just one pic, and no one else, is there could/would be landslide victories. With having to share the 321 votes, this spreads out the votes. (more members feel like a winner even if they don't win)" Fair enough :) I hadn't thought of that.

AS: The calculator in your q/start usually takes your socks off....???????

Of course, doesn't yours....? ;oD AS

Ok, AgentS, you convinced me :) And I thought that our tough choice every month was the real hardwork... :-D

Maybe you should make a spreadsheet for counting the votes Tres

How do you make a spreadsheet in Bryce?

I tried it, just got in the way. I still have to look at the actual vote thread, see each individual vote, and write or type it down. It was just easier to look & write rather than; look, write and then input into a spreadsheet, or even look, switch screens, and input. And, I would still be checking either the spread sheet or a piece of paper visually against the vote thread later to verify I didn't screw up any of the counts. So the spread sheet just become a middle-man I didn't need. AS

The grille of the spreadsheet could be a symlat, the numbers could be Elefont DXFs, but I still have to find a way to make them update automatically... ... no way. I'm still trying to make a Tetris Bryce pic, so I guess I'm a bit behind :) S.

Lol...