GFX Score Interpretations

Below is a list of my personal interpretations associated with each rating 0-10. These are of course not official in any way and are not intended to replace critiques. The interpretations below are intended as a very general reference for those interested in how I use the current GFX scoring system.

0: Total waste of your time, my time, and server space.
1: Maybe artwork just isn’t your thing.
2: Sorry, but you’ve got a long, long way to go.
3: Distant signs of potential, but you’ve got a lot of work to do.
4: Very amateur; you’ve got talent, though, so keep at it.
5: Substantial talent, but still very raw. Study up on the fundamentals.
6: Very skillful, but in need of refinement. You’ve made a basic error or two. Practice, practice!
7: Solid work. You’ve definitely been doing this for awhile. Still a few obvious technical errors.
8: Excellent work! You’ve demonstrated an advanced level of proficiency of an interesting subject.
9: Professional quality work. Nearly flawless technical execution; very creative subject.
10: BANG! You’ve knocked my socks off! Technically perfect (that is, all things considered, I can not see a meaningful way to improve upon the image), and captivating execution.

Opinion

Publish date:

05/03/06 @892

Editor:

sdavis75

Comments:

Comments (17)

In Defense of the Current GFX System

As anyone who’s been a GFX member for any length of time knows, there is an ongoing (and often raging) debate regarding the merit of the current system of voting, commenting, etc. The majority opinion (or at least the majority of the vocalized opinions) seems to be that there is some sort of problem with the existing system that needs to be corrected somehow. All sorts of solutions have been put forward, up to and including the elimination of the voting system all together. I will, therefore, take the minority position: the system is fine just the way it is.

This is where a chorus of shrill, angry voices chimes in and repeats the same tired complaints, which I will enumerate below for the reader’s convenience:

1.Votes have more to do with the popularity of the member than with the quality of his or her work.

2.Votes are based on totally subject evaluations and are therefore without value.

3.Because of (1) and (2) above, the Top 10 and Elite features are without value.

4.The current system promotes brief, worthless comments (“Great,” “Love it,” “Oooh Ahhh.”).

There are certainly additional complaints, but most of them are derivatives of the ones noted above.

So let’s dive right in and examine these complaints one by one:

THE POPULARITY FACTOR
Does a member’s popularity affect his or her vote totals? Without a doubt, yes. Let’s consider then how a member can become popular in the first place. One way is consistently comment and vote on the work of other members. In other words, be an active member. Some like to argue, however, that these people are “ass kissers” that, in return for their constant gushing, are shamelessly rewarded with undeserved attention. While this phenomenon may exist to some degree, I hardly think it is rampant. In my experience, the members who comment and vote the most are typically also the ones who “call it like they see it”—that is, leave the most honest critiques (of course, some are more gentle than others).

Some members have achieved a higher profile by regularly participating in the various forums, contests, SayWhat, etc. Or, in other words, by being an active member.

Others have even managed to become popular (or perhaps, more accurately, notorious) by being total pricks, constantly stirring the pot, and getting under our skin. While perhaps not in the most ideal way, one may nonetheless classify these folks as active members.

One final, and rarely mentioned, method of becoming popular is by consistently posting GOOD WORK. I have yet to come across a highly skilled artist here who has not eventually achieved a certain level of recognition, fame.

In reality, most of the popular folks became such through some combination of the above methods. One might even be tempted to call these folks active members.

Dozens and dozens of artworks are posted each and every day, and there are who-knows-how-many members in any given period of time posting work. No one can reasonably expect that each member will view, let alone comment/vote on, every artwork posted on this site. Some sort of personal selection criteria will inevitably influence which artworks a particular member chooses to view. Of these criteria, the most common is surely name recognition. When scanning the huge collection of thumbnails before us, we are drawn to those artworks posted by members with whom we have some sort of connection, even if that connection is as simple as “Hey, that guy comments on my work all the time, I guess I’ll see what he’s up to” or “SuzyQ123 always shows us good stuff, so I just gotta see this!”

Of course, other things do influence how we select artwork to view (interesting thumbnails, intriguing titles, etc.) and on which of these we choose to comment or vote (brilliant execution, crappy execution, boredom, etc.) but name recognition is, quite naturally, a central factor. What’s more, name recognition or “popularity” is a driving force behind virtually every on-line community I’ve ever visited.

So, again, popularity does of course influence our voting habits, but instead of considering this fact as some sort of disease in need of a cure, we should come to terms with its natural inevitability.

Before moving on to The Subjectivity of Votes, I’d like to briefly discuss a little equation that’s been tossed around recently:

1 Vote of 10 = 10 Votes of 1

The point of this equation is to demonstrate once and for all the total meaninglessness of votes with relation to the quality of work, and particularly how this fact comes into play with respect to this site’s various stack-ranking features (Top 10s, Elite Nominations, G-Spot).

While the mathematics of this equation is certainly water tight, and its rhetorical impact is powerful, it ultimately has very little connection to the reality of observable voting behaviors.

How often do we come across a piece of artwork that has received a large number of very low scores? Answer: approximately never. This is because poor artwork receives very little attention; if we happen across it, the vast majority of us just move on to the next. We don’t typically take the time to leave a very low score; we just don’t vote at all.

But, of course, I’m probably missing the point, so let’s examine what this equation is really about: mediocre artists who flood the galleries versus excellent artists who post much less frequently but receive far more points on individual pieces (i.e., have higher average scores). Thus, the mediocre artist secures a higher overall vote total than the excellent artist—tragically, quantity trumps quality. The mediocre artist eventually goes on to achieve the fame and fortune of Elite status while the poor excellent artist is left to waste away in the Member galleries. How often does this happen? Darn close to never, and even when it does, it’s not as if the excellent artist is doomed; he or she will probably be nominated again and will eventually win (and it’s not as if his or her livelihood depends on it). Justice will prevail sooner or later.

Check out the Top 10s on any given day; this is some good stuff! Out of 60 Top 10 posts, I can count on one hand the number of artworks that are arguably not up to par (but perhaps, they’re just not my taste). Now go check out the Elite Galleries; also, by and large, extraordinary work. Finally, take a look at the G-Spot; mind-blowing quality (DNA aside).

As a rule, I think it is clear that there is a direct relationship between vote totals and quality of work. The reason that exceptions to this rule draw so much attention and elicit so much frustration is precisely because they are so rare.

Collectively, this community knows the difference between great work and average work, and overall voting behavior demonstrates this fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. And the more broadly we examine this voting behavior, the less relevant 1 x 10 = 10 x 1 becomes.

THE SUBJECTIVITY OF VOTES
There is of course no precise method available for evaluating a piece of art, and this shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone. We can break apart the evaluation process into multiple categories based on various and ever-narrowing criteria, but we cannot escape the simple fact that we, for whatever reason, either like a particular artwork or we don’t.

The voting system is meant to quantify, make more concrete, this aesthetic judgment—to answer the question “HOW MUCH do you like it?” Is this system “perfect?” Well, I guess not if the standard is some sort of magical formula that can translate our emotional response to a piece of artwork into a numeric value and an additional mechanism that ensures that this response is properly calibrated with everyone else’s. By any reasonable standard, however, the current system is as good as it gets and as good as it needs to be.

Certainly, different members have different ideas about what the numbers mean. Some people throw perfect 10s around like its going out of style; while others hold onto them as if they’re some sort of rare and precious gift. To some a 5 or 6 means “average”; to others a 5 or 6 equals “awful.” I could go on and on, but in the long run, as discussed above, overall vote totals more often than not correspond pretty well with the quality of the work.

THE VALUE OF STACK-RANKING
If one agrees with the arguments made so far, then the value and meaning of the stack ranking features of GFX (Top 10s, Elite Nominations, and G-Spot) should be pretty well understood, especially considering the fact that GFX is intended to be a showcase for “the web’s finest” artwork. Despite popular arguments to the contrary, vote totals do in fact generally reflect the quality of the work. Even considering the “popularity factor,” this holds true.

More importantly perhaps, striving to achieve a Top 10 spot or becoming an Elite member is FUN. I’ve been a part of several on-line art communities that feature no such rankings; all one can do is post and comment (some sites do have voting in one form or another, but no Top 10 are anything of the kind). I for one got pretty bored, pretty quickly.

Certainly, there are members out there who aren’t interested in votes, ranks, or anything related, but I think in reality these members are a very tiny minority. Most of us care about votes and ranks to some degree or another, and this a good thing, as these are central features of GFX. Without votes and ranks, this site would die a slow death; there would no longer be a hook to keep us coming back day after day.

REGARDING COMMENTS
Whenever this topic comes up, someone inevitably ends up complaining about the types of comments members leave on posted artworks, namely the short complimentary ones like “Love it” or “Great.” Presumably these types of comments are of very little value because they’re not “constructive” enough. Unless we write a proper critique, citing the pluses and minuses of the artwork, we are somehow derelict in our duties.

This position is really quite silly and more than a little bizarre.

Assuming that most members who are not already making a living selling their artworks would like to, I find it difficult to comprehend the aversion to simple compliments. If someone walked up to me and said “Hey, I like that photo and want to buy it,” I wouldn’t demand that he be a bit more constructive. Rather, I’d be thrilled that someone liked my work and wanted to give me money for it. Of course, no money is changing hands in the GFX galleries, but the principle is the same. It someone takes the time to view one of my artworks and leave a nice word or two, what more can I really ask for? I mean, look, we’re all trying to create artwork that others can appreciate—that’s the goal, so when someone says “Hey, nice work,” then chances are pretty good that he or she gets what we as artists were trying to give, at least to some degree. In short, when someone says “I like your work,” we typically do not ask “Well, what do you mean?”

As a side note, I will argue that short nasty comments are indeed without value. If someone actually takes the time to post a piece of artwork on GFX, then he or she probably thinks it’s pretty good. While a compliment reinforces the artist’s existing view of his or her work, a negative comment can leave the artist scratching his or her head. “Well what do you mean? What exactly is wrong with it?” Out of plain courtesy, a negative comment should answer these questions.

In depth critiques have their place, but members should not be made to feel inadequate if they choose to instead leave brief compliments. And, more broadly, this practice should not be seen as a problem in need of a remedy.

FINAL THOUGHTS: IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT.
The current system of votes, ranks, and comments is in no need of repair or revamping. Most of the “problems” cited by those in favor of overhauling GFX are not problems at all; they are either straw men built around a tiny sample of exceptions to the norm, or they are phenomenon that are part and parcel of any on-line community.

So before the GFX administrators give in to the tiny, but very vocal, minority who are ranting and raving for change, I ask that they think long and hard about what drastic changes could mean for the long term future of this site. If GFX turns into just another on-line artwork depository, if all the features that make it unique and exciting are done away with, it’ll be damn shame. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.