Forum:VFP woes

Forums: Index > Village Dump > VFP woes

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6775 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

It's open

VFP is open again. Two self-noms are allowed at the moment, we can see how things go like that. We're also using Isra's new nomination template. GET YOUR VFP ON --—rc (t) 03:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• But every image that could have featured has been featured, which is why the patent office VFP should be closed. [1] --Mosquitopsu 15:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Alas, sometimes I think that is true. --—rc (t) 04:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • News images will come up that are good. Why should we block those out? --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 05:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

VFP is really bad right now and it's been going downhill for at least a few weeks. I am loath to feature an image that has something like four votes, so at the present moment there is no featured image - none of them have the featured image weight boost^TM, just their regular vote count weights.

One of the main problems in my eyes and those of other people I've talked with is that of the insane number of self-nominations (sometimes several in one night). Self-nominated images have in the past been a major portion of our featured images, but having one person crank out four or five images on the spot just to try to get one featured is hardly effective. How can we solve this? People on IRC and my talk page have mentioned a couple possibilities:

1. Institute a VFH-like self-nomination policy for VFP - i.e. your images must a week old (or whatever length) before you can nominate them yourself.
2. Limit self-nomination to a set number of images per week - 2 is the number being thrown around.
3. Ban self-nomination altogether.

I would oppose #3 just because there have been so many successful self-noms in the past. I'm leaning toward #2 at the moment, since it would prevent floods of self-noms without an arbitrary time limit for nominations. Opinions? Other suggestions? (Remember, self-nomination is hardly the only area in which the quality of VFP could be improved, so other ideas are welcome.) --—rc (t) 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How about a step further? We have enough past winners, it might be appropriate to limit nominations to only past VFP (or VFH) winners for a while and see how that goes. Or, how about a pre-nomination page Uncyclopedia:VFP Nominations, where people can submit their image with no votes or comments, and just a link to the article, and past VFPers can select from that list to nominate for VFP voting? Yes, sounds horrible ^_^. Also on a side note, might it be possibly worthwhile and aesthetic to split the front page table cell horizontally and put in both today's Featured Picture 100% of the time on the right, and the rotator on the left weighted for the voted acquired (and PFP adjusted) for all the past pictures (possibly of a smaller thumbnail size)? Since it kinda seems like an empty box at the moment. --Splaka 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Rating system Alternative

1. Should not have been entered...huff immediately. or Should be deleted.
2. Low quality, not very funny. NRV of photos.
3. An entry that is below average. Definitely needs extra work or thought (or possibly someone to redo it). Not funny at all.
4. An entry that could have been good, but is missing some obvious funny or could use a little touch up photoshop work.
5. It's average. Not great, not bad. "Eh, I wouldn't care if it's featured or if I never see it again."
6. This entry has good funny but the photoshopping sucks or the photoshopping is good but the funny sucks. It's better than average.
7. This entry is kinda funny and the photoshopping is great or the photoshopping is fine and the funny is great. Great idea and execution. It's much better than average.
8. This entry is great. The photoshopping and funny are above average and although I don't find it that funny I see how most people could.
9. This entry is almost perfect. Above average funny and photoshopping.
10. The Ultimate in Funny and Photoshopping. This entry is the best thing I have seen on this site in a while.

Formatting

Since all ways to improve VFP seem to be up on the table, I think that the formatting of VFP should change to reflect how the images will be displayed on the front page. This will encourage people to write captions which are comparable in length to the captions at en.wp. A mock up can be found here. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I like the mockup. --—rc (t) 03:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Much nicer. It wouold make things a lot easier. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 05:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

For--Rataube 20:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

For--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 11:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No Comments

Proposal to have all comments in the actual images talk page. Just a simple choice like on the PFP in the vfp

For

• --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 11:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

<whywhywhy> all that happens with comments is the first moron 2 put up a moron reason(including me) leads all the other morons
<whywhywhy> and people dont judge the image on its merits
<whywhywhy> and with the new design i dont want 2 think about how big its going 2 get with comments
<whywhywhy> pluss with the comments in the talk pages people will eleborate on reasons and what not

• He has a way with words. --KATIE!! 22:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Against

• I like seeing a few comments where I'm voting, it gives me a cursory chance to see if I'm missing anything. --Sir gwax (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comments and centralization are good. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• They are helpful to voters and the photoshoppers.  – Mahroww a.k.a. Horatio Meyer Stein  21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• The morons don't need comments, they glance at how the voting is going so far and vote that way.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Votes

Please clarify your votes using one of the above numbers (1-3) or a made-up number with a new suggestion.

Ban self-nomination as well as sockpuppet nomination. --Splaka 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• NUMBER 3 Ban self-noms. If people think thier photo is that good they could always put it in a Pee Review type area. Also, I think it should be up to a few quality minded individuals to make sure CRAP doesn't make it on the front page.  – Mahroww a.k.a. Horatio Meyer Stein  05:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Minute Ban self-noms good idear. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 22:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Limit (to make it more clear), there can be some really good self-noms. Limiting the amount a user can post or limit the amount of active self-noms seems much fairer. --OsirisX 06:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Limit Self noms and total noms. 4 of the last 10 featured images have been self-nommed, without self-noms VFP miaght just sit there and rot. There are currently not enough nominations of other user's works to have this work correctly. All you would be doing is cutting down on the total nomination count, it would have no effect on the quality of the images.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 06:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ban: The VAST majority of self-nommed VFPs are crap. Yes, some self-noms are ok but I'm inclined to believe that banning self-noms will create a delay in when certain images make VFP, not prevent them from ever making it there. Besides, if we keep the practice on the down-low, there'd be no reason that someone couldn't ask a VFP regular to nominate it for them, which would create a protective buffer of, "No I won't nominate that crap". --Sir gwax (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ban self-nomination I agree with Splaka --Nytrospawn 17:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• More ubar 1337 admin powarz. Admins can self-nominate but ordinary noobs can't. --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 18:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That makes no sense to me at all, especially considering that admins have duties other than vomiting out creating content... --—rc (t) 03:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• (2) Institute Limit: I agree with Rc. If we do ban self noms then we absolutely have to have an area where self-noms can be put to be seen. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Instead of a limit, why don't we have a screening gallery where people are allowed to put things they themselves have made and think are VFP worthy, then people can use that as a possible source for finding new nominations to VFP. There wouldn't be any actual voting in the gallery, images in the gallery would have to be relatively new and things would be auto-cleared after being in the gallery for a few days. --Sir gwax (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that was my initial suggestion, but it was shot down in IRC, so I suggested the limit instead. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, it's a good idea, people can put their own images there and if people think they're good, they cna nominate them to VFP at that point :) --LinkTGF 07:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Second--Rataube 21:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Three and three thirds -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
  • Okay, it was pointed out to me that this may mean "I third Isra's vote." So now I'm all confuzzled. --—rc (t) 08:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• 2 (limit self-noms) I'm surprised there are so many people voting to ban all self-nominations. I urge you to browse PFP and see just how many images were self-nominations. It is a highly significant number, and a lot of those are popular images (as opposed to, say, that Rosie O'Donnell Marshmallow Man one that I think like one person enjoyed). --—rc (t) 03:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (cough)Algo(cough) --KATIE!! 22:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's why I'm pushing for a ban on direct nominations with a buffer to allow for quasi-self nomination. --Sir gwax (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Limit One nomination per person per week. --Chronarion 01:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently above this line I count:

• Seven votes to ban self-nomination (Splaka, Mahroww, Savethemooses, Gwax, Nytrospawn, Lugiatm, Mhaille). Lugia's vote isn't to ban it altogether, but it's pretty close.
• Six votes to limit self-nomination (Tompkins, Isra, Rataube, Rcmurphy, Chronarion, OsirisX). I'm assuming Rataube's "Second" means the second of the three choices.
• No votes to keep self-nomination .

Seven versus five is fairly close, so I think we should keep the voting open another day. After that whatever the consensus is, I'll reopen VFP. --—rc (t) 07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Limit (2). No preference as to number. --Algorithm (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• '#1 - #2 combination --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 07:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ban self nominations (3) However, we might want some place were applicants can submit their own images for comments. Not that we need another list. I personally would also be open to a system where the power to self-nominate is given to people based on their past history of successful vfp.--(~Sir)Nuke || Talk v MUN v Not An Admin v Completely Unimportant 07:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Limit (option 2). Don't care how it's limited, but that's the main problem that I see here.--<<>> 07:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ban self-noms (with some exceptions) - I agree with Rataube below in Bitching. --Mosquitopsu 15:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Now above this line:

• Nine votes to ban self-nomination (Splaka, Mahroww, Savethemooses, Gwax, Nytrospawn, Lugiatm, Mhaille, SirNuke, Mosquiopsu)
• Nine votes to limit self-nomination (Tompkins, Isra, Rataube, Rcmurphy, Chronarion, OsirisX, Algorithm, Whywhywhy, Bradaphraser)

OMG it is teh close! --—rc (t) 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• (2)two with further stipulation Severely limit self-noms (1 or 2 per week), plus have someone who's had a few great featured images regularly patrol and guillotine the crappy noms.

--SimulacrumCaputosisTheGreat*moan* F@H MUN CM NS 03:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bitching

Since option #3 seems to be the people's I propose to soften it. Auto ban all selfnominations except noms from people who alredy got at least one featured image by a non self nom? What you say autoban lovers?--Rataube 00:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'd probably be okay with that. Also:
  • If the rating system is a no go...we should have comment Template:AGAINST and a Template:COMMENT (with ~~~~ included at the end of the template) templates to keep things tidy and to keep unsigned votes (I am horrible at that) or even fake votes from happening.  – Mahroww a.k.a. Horatio Meyer Stein  21:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, putting ~~~~ in a template doesn't create signatures when it's included. Good thought, though. --Algorithm (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Heh, nothing works in a template!!! You're always shooting me down. :) Any possible way we could get past that?  – Mahroww a.k.a. Horatio Meyer Stein  03:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

the same way we get past it for ~~~~~ on the NRV timestamps? Carlb 20:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoring

Could ye not have summat similar to that imposed upon Kakun (but with a different purpose-to allow growth of good images, and not confine bad ones), where people can try out their image, debate it and give it a chance to develop and be edited by many-therefore giving the many fools who think their image is so great to get a wakeup call and recieve a generalised opinion. Once people have this testing ground established, surely we should solve our problems. Though, in practice, a binding mechanism ma have to be in place to ensure that all use this bit first. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... like a pee review for images?--<<>> 21:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Filthy skanks...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)