Forum:Featured Pictures

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Featured Pictures

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6275 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Uncyc's overall quality has been increasing. But we still have some very crappy pictures on the main page. I think is time to arise VFP and PFP too. Proposal:

1. Don't feature any picture bleow a +12 score.
2. Take down those alredy featured which are below a +12 score.
3. Feature a new picture every four days instead of every three days. So to give time for the really good ones to show up at VFP.

---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Berate this photo...

For -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 21:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ehh... 12 is pretty damn high, I'd go for ten. And any of the old ones not over 8. Some of the old ones suck, but they bring memories of simplar times, when I wasn't here...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, some of the good pictures have low votes and will be culled, while some rubbish ones have high votes. We should just remind everyone that the archive is there and can still be voted on. FreeMorpheme 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Once something has already been featured, it tends not to attract many votes, either for or against. Such is the nature of the process, it gets nominated, it gets votes, it either gets featured or gets forgotten. The process then effectively ends, with PFP being just another of a brazillion minor discussion pages that no one often uses.

Whether this would be any different if the process were automated and every original image was always open to voting? Dunno. There is plenty of software out there for "rate this" or "vote on this image"-like functions (the "(be)rate this photo" at right is a screenshot from the Joomla-comHotorNot2 app, which is under a free license.) What would it take to adapt this sort of system to our uses? --Carlb 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been using +8 as the lower limit for featured images. Raising that to, say, +10 wouldn't bother me at all. As for older images, setting the limit at +6 would currently cut out 13 images and +8 would cut out 27. I don't know if we'd want to go much higher than that (but I fully endorse a somewhat stricter PFP cutoff). —rc (t) 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

POLL: FOR or AGAINST and/or COMMENT

Score: 0

• For, but not +12, +10. And +10 even for the old ones. Or something like that. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 06:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Against Meh. Just let PFP do its job guys. --The Zombiebaron 12:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I say leave it be. The system works fine as it is. Note that this is not an against because I can't be bothered voting on these VD topics any more. -- Hindleyite | PL | GUN | WOTM | Image Review - Use it | Converse 12:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• For. +10 is fine too.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 14:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Against it works, so lets leave it alone. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• For new standards. I say +11 for a feature, new one every four days, discontinue the old ones with +7 or less. --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 15:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• HeadOn Apply directly to the forehead. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 16:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Against. We have PFP. Modusoperandi 17:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• For -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 02:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Against. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 09:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agarnts. Go away, go shoo, off with your silly ideas.--Wit (tawk) 18:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)