easy skinhit, brother...remember those of us still setting our goal at receiving 2 stars at some point in the future

and i never received mail from you either Starkers?

Sorry Skinhit, got meself in such a kerfuffle over the email thing, I forgot to address my last post to you as well....couldn't get one off to you either.

Anyhow, the wife has uploaded some of her stuff to deviant art... WWW Link if you'd like to take a look. It's not all of what she has done...there's other stuff she's not quite happy with and still working on, but that's where she'll upload it when she's happier with her efforts....until we get her sorted with a sub and a personal page here.

[minor hijack]

Glad you came back Ken ...you already know how much I like your work. I've always rated it positively.

[/minor hijack]

are wallpapers the only category that this rating method is applied too?

it's my understanding that it's with logons as well, Skinhit....which is what I was referring to in my previous little rant....(went to clarify that but edit had already closed off)....seems to be the same system except it's 2 or more stars needed to be visible & I think it's 4 for walls. So if you go into the logon gallery at 2 and a couple of people click in the negative....you're dead in the water.....members rating is fine.....but just keep them all visible....

though I'm sure the situation is somewhat different for the walls section as there are perhaps many more submitted so a standard/cut off is thought necessary....

maybe there should be a 'premier gallery' for walls rated 4 and above......and a 'standard gallery' for the rest that can still be viewed by all so the public have a choice if they just want to view the top walls.....  

It is 4 stars for the wall section only. I believe this is the only section that requires a 4 star rating to be visible to the general public. I imagine this is because the wall files are large and because they do not relate to a product that Stardock sells, in other words, they are not considered really "skins".

starkers: hit me at aaron DOT klenke AT gmail DOT com

maybe there should be a 'premier gallery' for walls rated 4 and above......and a 'standard gallery' for the rest that can still be viewed by all so the public have a choice if they just want to view the top walls.

That would be a really good idea if it were feasible plan for Stardock. For the frequent visitor that checks out the wall section often, there might be only a few 4 star walls since the previous day. A separate gallery for walls under 4 stars would be a great idea. They would have a choice to look at that Gallery or not.

But , if this happened then everyone would need to understand that once your in the
'standard' gallery - there you stay. So either you would get an initial rating and thats it - or if you get up to 4 stars, you still stay in that gallery as it would be impossible to keep track of moving walls from gallery to gallery.

The standard versus premium gallery would depend entirely on the moderator (me) placing it there.  Which places us in the exact situation we're in now where if I place something on the personal page, it stays there.

Ideas are being bounced around to try and fix this problem, but no matter what we pick, those who don't get into the "good" gallery will throw a fit over moderation, elitism of the community just like happens now over the ratings system.  We tried softening the moderation guidelines for walls these past few months and I think we may be seeing MORE complaints now than we were when a majority of submissions were rejected out-right.

I'd personally be interested in ideas from wallpaper artists as to what they think would be more equitable to the artists, yet still give us a wallpaper gallery that is actually browsable to someone who wants a GOOD wallpaper.  Requirement for suggestions is that you don't consider your own walls when making a suggestion, since everyone has a skewed view of the quality of their own work.  The premise is that we MUST have a system for determining better content from worse content, this isn't a free-for-all post whatever gallery like other sites.

ok...back to the subject-are wallpapers the only category that this rating method is applied too? if so IMO this is ridiculous! If it goes thru moderation, it should be viewable by the Public...I feel strongly about this b/c i'm getting two stars lately which is just under the cutoff and sent to my personal page! Whats the freaking point?

Yes, due to the sheer volume of wallpapers we receive versus other submissions, and the subjective nature of them versus items like WindowBlinds skins, icon packs etc, we have to take a different approach to moderating walls.  A skin can be evaluated on technical merit (i.e. does it run and skin the major parts of the OS?)  There is also a guaranteed minimum amount of work required to other skinning items, so seeing a flood of IconPacks from a person that are just scribbles is very unlikely.  We receive MANY wallpapers that are nothing more than photographs with a lense flare effect and maybe some weird texture applied over it.  It's not enough to enforce copyright, pornography , file type and required resolution rules to wallpaper submissions, we have to apply subjective evaluation to them.

If we did not do this, our wallpaper gallery would turn into the gallery over at DA, which others here have described.

The point is that it's an alternative to rejecting the submission out-right, as had been done to a majority of submitted wallpapers as recently as this summer.  It's allowing more content to the site while still attempting to keep the main gallery browsable.  Would you prefer your work to be exiled instead of placed to the personal page only?  Most disliked rejection far more than being placed on their personal page only.

Reply #83 The standard versus premium gallery would depend entirely on the moderator (me) placing it there. Which places us in the exact situation we're in now where if I place something on the personal page, it stays there. Ideas are being bounced around to try and fix this problem, but no matter what we pick, those who don't get into the "good" gallery will throw a fit over moderation, elitism of the community just like happens now over the ratings system. We tried softening the moderation guidelines for walls these past few months and I think we may be seeing MORE complaints now than we were when a majority of submissions were rejected out-right. I'd personally be interested in ideas from wallpaper artists as to what they think would be more equitable to the artists, yet still give us a wallpaper gallery that is actually browsable to someone who wants a GOOD wallpaper. Requirement for suggestions is that you don't consider your own walls when making a suggestion, since everyone has a skewed view of the quality of their own work. The premise is that we MUST have a system for determining better content from worse content, this isn't a free-for-all post whatever gallery like other sites.

I know your working on this...
I think the biggest problem about the WC personal page is the fact no one looks at them..So when a wall is delegated to that page its in limbo....I think thats what most are complaining about.
If there were a separate gallery for walls under 4 stars I think it might make a lot of people happier that the WC personal page...but with the understanding that it stays there. Either it gets only a moderators rating and no further ratings..thats where it stays. At least it would be available to the public. No one can blame you or the site or the rules if visitors do not choose to click on that gallery...but they just might .....

Perhaps you could do a WC Poll and ask opinions on this and see where it goes.

I make very few walls and the one that went to my personal page didn't really upset me, I knew it was mediocre ...so I just deleted it after 10 days when it had only 8 d/loads. I knew I could upload it to my Photo Album page if I wanted to at that point - but no one looks there either...the average visitor doesn't know we even have those pages unless they know enough to click on our used id's.

I know your trying to give everyone a chance to be ' seen' and I appreciate the fact that I have a few walls in the Gallery...I know my limitations..

Hopefully one day there will be a happy medium.

I just want to make a side note about personal galleries.  Remember that subscribers who have their own personal site here have their own url for their site. 

For instance mine is http://islanddog.wincustomize.com.

Now mine is being directed to the new site, but the basics are there.  People can view my gallery, view my articles, and even view my personal photo album.  If you travel to as many "outside" communities as I do, you notice that people always refer people over to their page at DA.  You can do the same with your personal site here at Wincustomize. 

Look at my signatures on Neowin for example, I point it to my page here at Wincustomize.  I get a lot of referrals, and a lot of views just from putting my site url in my signature.  If you have something on your personal site you want someone to see, then spread the word about your site and that will bring more people to your personal site, and Wincustomize as a whole.

  

Look at my signatures on Neowin for example, I point it to my page here at Wincustomize. I get a lot of referrals, and a lot of views just from putting my site url in my signature. If you have something on your personal site you want someone to see, then spread the word about your site and that will bring more people to your personal site, and Wincustomize as a whole.

I use my WC personal site the same way..whenever I post at other sites it automatically appears as my ' signature'

WC doesn't have an area for a 'signature'

I know I could add a link every time I posted - but to me that appears self-serving..if it were an option that everyone had a signature then it would be fine but to add it each time just seems like it would be ' pushy'

I would vote for 2 seperate wallpaper libraries, but make it 3 1/2 stars (7 under the old system). But now what happens to those wall that get rated up or down? Do we move them from 1 library to the other? That could turn into a nightmare. If there is 2 libraries, the walls would have to stay in the library it was put into regardless of how the popular rating went.

I think the biggest problem about the WC personal page is the fact no one looks at them.

When I see something I like, I go to that person's page to peruse a while.

.the average visitor doesn't know we even have those pages unless they know enough to click on our used id's.

Maybe this: could added to the description/details box automatically?

But now what happens to those wall that get rated up or down? Do we move them from 1 library to the other? That could turn into a nightmare. If there is 2 libraries, the walls would have to stay in the library it was put into regardless of how the popular rating went.

Is it really true that it would be a nightmare? Walls are already selectable for viewing by rating, etc. Could not the placement in which ever library be a programmed function of rating rather than a manual relocation situation?

Secondly, I think the conversation of the difference between a good wall and good art and that the two are not necessarily the same is only tangential to the issue. Certainly we can all agree that wallpaper is an important part of any desktop customization. IMHO, skinning is itself an art form and requires a great deal of artistic talent to be successful. I think it was Fuzzy that pointed out that wallpaper is often the first thing that an individual will try to "customize" as they begin to discover the world of GUI customization. I remember proudly sharing my first screenshot with this community (too long ago to discuus ). A cool wall was a key part of that.

But back to the issue. I agree that moderation is required and that moderators should vote to start the ball rolling after the TOS requirements are met. But after that initial weeding out, it would seem best that all walls remain visible to the public and move in and or out of the galleries as discussed above. I also agree with WOM's suggestion of the 3 1/2 star requirement but with the caveat that it was a programmable function to have a wall move within the library group as the ratings fluctuate.

We need to continually strive to provide a home for the "next" generation of customizers by getting them involved, learning and growing with their skills. Let the downloads numbers tell them how are are doing.

If there is 2 libraries, the walls would have to stay in the library it was put into regardless of how the popular rating went.

Exactly.......they stay put....

I think it could work out...the 4 star gallery isnt that big really- if you visit more than once a week it can be not a lot of change in that section...and the people looking for the 4 star walls can go to that gallery and not have to view a lot of pages - but some like to browse through and see what others have to offer..I view all walls..good and in between.....I like to try to see everyones work .

Can't use download counts to tell you anything. One can use a bot to download as many as you want. We get a 100+ walls a week.

Can't use download counts to tell you anything. One can use a bot to download as many as you want. We get a 100+ walls a week.

Good point.

The rating has dropped back down to a 4...but the downloads are at 119 and counting, which surprised the hell out of me, since it's in my personal gallery.

At Da it's at 115 dl's and at SA it's at 5.