UPrinting 'Summer Summary' Design Contest

Hi eighteyed! very constructive input.

Re the argument that if there were rules people wouldn't stick to them anyway (posting screenshots etc.) Yes, this is a familiar attribute of human nature. Of course it will happen. But why do we therefore have to refrain from making rules condemning it, if doing so is in the interest of a more equitable contest that promotes the design over the person? It would at least discourage the behaviour and give a position from which to condemn it. To repeat my argument about fairness: it is not that perfect fairness will be achieved but that things will become fairer than they are now. That is the goal. So from my way of looking at it, pointing out that a change won't result in perfection isn't an acceptable argument. The question to me is, will it make things fairer than they are now?

Re copyrighting palettes. I'm not sure that one can't. But even if not, we're talking about rules on CL itself. CL could forbid that behaviour and lock the palette. For example if you mark your template "All rights reserved" no one can colour it in. But if you mark your palettes "All rights reserved" the software still allows one to use it to colour in a template even though right above it says "Please contact user xxx to use this palette". But no one does. It should be locked. Either that or they shouldn't say that your rights are reserved if they aren't.

Re an illusion of getting votes from the internet ... Well, if it's all an illusion what's the big problem of forbidding it then? You admit that it does happen. Others have written in comments that they solicit votes from their families etc. How many votes that is or isn't will differ on a case by case basis. But regardless of how many votes people do or don't get by engaging in the behaviour, it still doesn't change the principle involved, which is that votes strategically solicited in this manner provide an advantage of person over design. So if efforts aren't made by the contest rules to discourage the strategic solicitation of votes via the various methods I mentioned then I can only deduce that this behaviour is desired. Fine. But don't then claim that the contest isn't in part a "popularity" contest.

eighteyed wrote:

!. Okay. I'm agreeing that we should have badges that say My work is entered in the such and such contest, without being able to link directly back to your own entry. I'd be happy to paste those hither thither and yon. Nothing is going to prevent people from taking a screenshot of their entries, making a promo, and pasting it everywhere (like in a sig), except a disqualifying rule. Would we really need one? I think peer pressure alone would work until demonstrated otherwise.

2. [ .......]
3. [ .......]
3. [ .......] I do agree with Daisy that if you use someone else's palette, you benefit from their work, but if in fact you cannot legally copyright a 5 color set, I'm legally okay with it. I may still look down at you snootily, though, because it's a bad show.

4. I think the idea that one is going to get a lot of votes from the internet is largely an illusion. I really tried, during the Gelaskins contest. [ .......] At best I could have whipped up 20 more votes, but that would not have been enough to win the contest, [ .......] So good luck with your lock on the vote.

Thanks for your considered response, prax.

Re "the problem is that nobody does all these things." I don't really care if somebody does all or part of them. To some extent it is done. My point is that by the contests allowing and nurturing this behaviour there is an advantage of person over design, either because those that engage in it have more friends or more time. It is claimed that the contest is supposed to be about the best design winning, so if that is true, let's stop allowing strategies that don't further that. (And beyond that waste people's time going after them.)

Re "But these lists can sometimes feel like a pretty directed or personalized attack, as though all statements are meant to apply to the same individuals,"
How you could come up with this when I have named no one, and am just talking about improving parametres for running a contest that maximes recognition of good design and minimises strategies that favour votes based on person over design, I don't know.

And I am talking about principles. I think there is a confusion going on here that when one talks of accruing votes via "popularity" it is thought that one therefore has to be a "popular" person in the sense of being the school beauty queen. No. It means that votes are accumulated by some manner that favours person first and design second. I'm not whining about it or criticising winners for it or even saying it is the reason they win, I'm just asking for recognition that the phenomenon as I described it initially exists.

Re "I'm not saying that things are fair as they currently stand. I'm also not saying that we can't work towards making them more fair" Well good. Then we're in agreement. I would therefore then ask you to step back from looking at it from a personal perspective and start considering what I (and others) are saying from the principles involved: Does allowing xyz further consideration of all entered designs equally or not? If not, let's change it. Do strategies that favour those with more time on their hands for posting thank you badges and so on give an advantage over those that don't have the time? If you answer yes, why not do away with them? and so on ...

"I just think that the most concrete thing each of us can do is work harder, instead of being upset that other people are taking advantage of the grey areas. [...] but how much can you really do about it? " Of course we can all work harder - that will always benefit us. How much can we do about it? That's what we're talking about and I have made suggestions, which I wish would be addressed straight on rather than be deflected via responses of personal anecdotes of feelings and offense.

praxicalidocious wrote:

Hey, Daisy. :)

I think that a part of why tensions (and denial) can run so high is that we each tend to have a fairly comprehensive list of what we think is unfair (CL popularity, Facebook popularity, too much time, $, thankvertising, unsolicited profile badging, lovenote vote requests, etc, etc.)

The problem is that nobody does all these things. (I don't know, maybe somebody out there does?) But these lists can sometimes feel like a pretty directed or personalized attack, as though all statements are meant to apply to the same individuals, and it's not wrong to dismiss or deny the ones that don't apply to you personally.

(...I'm autistic. I don't really *do* social. I can pass for 'normal' so well that only those who know me really well have any idea what a struggle it is for me to make eye contact or talk in front of a group of people. But I couldn't be a social butterfly any more than I could breathe underwater. And so the label 'popular' has an ironic sort of sting for me, and maybe I resist it more than I should, misinterpreting the way that other people mean it.)

I'm not saying that things are fair as they currently stand. I'm also not saying that we can't work towards making them more fair, through a variety of excellent suggestions that have been made throughout this thread.

I just think that the most concrete thing each of us can do is work harder, instead of being upset that other people are taking advantage of the grey areas. It's not to say that some people aren't - but how much can you really do about it? Just like elsewhere in life, you decide your own ethical boundaries and then you do your best to live by them, by and large hoping that others out there are doing the same.

daisychain wrote:

thank you. I think it's an excellent idea to make a badge for the contest holders to place on other sites that send them right back here to the voting page(s). I also appreciate hearing from someone who finally acknowledges the potential influence on voting via facebook exposure etc that is possible - voting that has nothing to do with the design and everything to do with the person. That those creations might also be good designs doesn't to my mind justify the undue advantage. We don't tolerate vote rigging in elections - even if the candidate voted for might be a good guy. I don't understand the lack of self-introspection that brings others to adamantly deny (to the point of attack) what to my mind is self-evident.

STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!

I enjoy thank you badges because they give you the chance to see art and get introduced to new lovers that you otherwise might not see, as well as see additional art of lovers you already follow :)

Hi Tenshiko!

Re "If this rules would be applied it would only make more palettes of the same color. Fine. Implement the rules and let them make similar palettes of their own. But respect and enforce the right's settings that we supposedly have.

Because who's to stop anyone to make another palette just like any other existing one? An exact copy is plagiarism. On this site it would be for the management to remove the entry if proof were provided. On this, site if it's too similar to the point of a nearly a direct copy they would stand a good chance of being spotted in a contest and certainly subject to some form of censure or disapproval. Because that shouldn't happen in a community based on mutual respect.

Re: anonymous entries How would you stop anyone from advertising his/her work? On this site at a minimum they could be made anonymous. Stopping them outside the site? Well, first it could be disallowed in the rules. That would discourage it. There's a chance that it would be discovered if the advertising took place on the internet. Of course anything that happens in private cannot be prevented. But at least it would be understood that it was not condoned behaviour to promote one's own designs in a massive way.

Re A mechanism which undercuts/makes impossible strategies whereby an advantage is secured that has nothing to do with the quality of the design
There's no such thing in the world of "voting on the internet"
This voting isn't open to anyone on the internet. I believe you have to be registered at CL to have your vote registered. These strategies also involve posting of love badges, for example that benefit those with the time to do so. Again, I refer to my point to eighteyed: For me it is not about obtaining complete perfection but making things fairer than they are now.

Re the question "skilled in what?" Problem with that is... it's design. A form of art. It is subjective. You cannot quantify design.
This was exactly my point. People were talking about winning designs as synonymous with technically advanced software capabilities. I was pointing out that the one wasn't reflected in the placements, implying one shouldn't use the word "skilled" without specifying what skill they mean.

Re: randomization process
How many of you have ever actually tried to program a mechanism like that [...] I guess CL developers are doing their best.
I don't care how hard it is. We're letting them know that we don't feel their randomisation process is doing what they say it should be. Some say its faulty and others say it's completely broken. So either fix it or think of something else, because it's not fulfilling its purpose. And forcing people to go through 100s of pages isn't going to allow the voters to see all the designs. The intentions in randomising were good but the current system isn't working to benefit finding the best design, and it takes up way too much time on the part of the voter.

Tenshiko wrote:

Okay, one more note regarding daisychain's post.

I mostly agree. But there are still some things that needed to be worked out. Please let the web developer inside me speak out... I'll try to be clear on the tech talk.

...contestants should have to use their own palettes
I wouldn't consider having a custom painting on you wall and such as "commercial use", but I get your point. Although I would support a shared prize idea, where both template maker & palette designer would be awarded. If this rules would be applied it would only make more palettes of the same color. Because who's to stop anyone to make another palette just like any other existing one? And votes have to start from zero anyway, so there's no "punishment" for copying someone else's palette. And there's no way that you could prove that one person actually copied another's work.
(Well, actually suspicion could be raised, but that would take tremendous time to check, and also a privacy violation of all the contestants browsers).

anonymous entries
How would you stop anyone from advertising his/her work? :/

A mechanism which undercuts/makes impossible strategies whereby an advantage is secured that has nothing to do with the quality of the design
There's no such thing in the world of "voting on the internet". Trust me, I'm an engineer. Really. :)

the question "skilled in what?"
Problem with that is... it's design. A form of art. It is subjective. You cannot quantify design. The are numbers used in the subject like golden mean and rule of thirds etc. But you can't measure a design quality solely by assigning it numbers.

randomization process
How many of you have ever actually tried to program a mechanism like that? :D
No offense, seriously. I know how hard it is, and considering how many people use this site, I guess CL developers are doing their best.

Just so you could understand... if you wanted to make sure, that one user could go through ALL the entries randomly, BUT not seeing the same entry again... You'd need to keep track of what the user have already seen. With every hit of the "next" button this list would grow. And eventually you'd have to send more and more data to the server (your list you've already seen) and the server would send you even more data back...

OMG...

There's a group game for learning each others'names. Kids sit in a circle. The first kid says his name, then the next have to repeat the first kid's name, and add his own. And every next kid would repeat all the names told before (in order) and then add his own to the row and it goes all the way around... It's a hard game if the circle is big :)

Ok, now think of that but with 1000s of circles and 2million kids each... That's how much it would take to manage a REAL GOOD random.

If this site was powered by - let say - Google, I'd expect this. But I think it's good enough here.


still with peace,
Tenshiko

I enjoy them too. Here we are talking about thank you badges for contest entries. Precisely because they give you the opportunity to see something you otherwise wouldn't have seen, that behaviour gives an advantage to someone who has time to post badges over someone who doesn't.
amyanneerickson wrote:

I enjoy thank you badges because they give you the chance to see art and get introduced to new lovers that you otherwise might not see, as well as see additional art of lovers you already follow :)

As someone else pointed out, most people don't have a problem with the thanking system until contest time rolls around, which doesn't make sense. If we stop and think about it for a moment, one of the aspects that this website was build on is competition. "Loves" are votes with a different name. So, in fact, this is one big contest we're taking part in, all the time.

If we follow the logic you've set forth here (that thank-yous for loves should not be allowed for competitive entries) then we'd have to eliminate thank-yous and badges completely both for "contest entries" and regular palettes/patterns. A lot of really good palettes and patterns would go undiscovered for the sake of a few people who think that a crucial feature of the community is unfair because they don't have enough time to use that feature.

daisychain wrote:

I enjoy them too. Here we are talking about thank you badges for contest entries. Precisely because they give you the opportunity to see something you otherwise wouldn't have seen, that behaviour gives an advantage to someone who has time to post badges over someone who doesn't.
amyanneerickson wrote:

I enjoy thank you badges because they give you the chance to see art and get introduced to new lovers that you otherwise might not see, as well as see additional art of lovers you already follow :)

daisychain wrote:

Re A mechanism which undercuts/makes impossible strategies whereby an advantage is secured that has nothing to do with the quality of the design
There's no such thing in the world of "voting on the internet"
This voting isn't open to anyone on the internet. I believe you have to be registered at CL to have your vote registered. These strategies also involve posting of love badges, for example that benefit those with the time to do so.

I could easily register hundreds of accounts and vote for myself if I wanted to...
And it wouldn't even take me much time...

Re: randomization process
I don't care how hard it is.

This is not a PE lesson. It's math. 2+2 will always be 4. Even if you yell at it very hard...

I'm not saying that this random is fair. I'm saying a really cool random requires resources that colorlovers may not have. And generally it may not have been a good idea. Good intentions, but should have tested the randomising more.

And what if there were "highlighted entries" placed in the 1st rows of the entry pages (that would be random-ish) and a regular list of entries under it? (Have anyone suggested this solution yet?) Would that make everybody happy?


PS: Curiosity is landing on Mars just now :) Yeeeey.

My Contest Entries
Please vote :D

Pink Panther Sky by sherrydee846
www.COLOURlovers.com

Going Retro by sherrydee846
www.COLOURlovers.com

My Abstract Life by sherrydee846
www.COLOURlovers.com

@OrigamiMei: +1 to that :)

Anyway, when a contest is sponsored by a company, I think the "fairest" method is when the company (or selected judges) chooses a winner from anonymous entries. It's still subjective, but it has nothing to do with popularity, and since the company will give something to the winner, it seems fair that they choose the one they like.

There can be a "popularity contest" (=winning by votes) running alongside that. It has a kind of thrill that I like :)

I guess we have a completely different world view, OrigamiMei. I can't make the jump in logic that you do, that if we suppress thank you badges for contests we therefore "have to eliminate thank-yous and badges [completely] "for the sake of a few people who think ...[it] is unfair". (Who and where are these "few people"?)

I also can't logically follow your contention that "this website was build on [ ] competition. "Loves" are votes with a different name".. I have a lot of thoughts on the conflicts and interactions of the commercial purpose of the site and the underlying community of volunteer contributors with a true passion for colour and design and love of each others' creation. But that's a theme for another day. The fact is, there are no competitions being run on the site unless they are in the user's own mind. I see the loves in the context of the plurality of appreciation that the users have for art and because it is art, there are - as I said initially - no "bests".

So I am not competing but learning to expand my levels of appreciation for others' artistic visions at the same time I challenge my own ability to widen my own artistic expression. That's what my love is about: appreciation. I am sharing. I am not threatened if someone has 1245 loves on a pattern (though sometimes the reasoning eludes me why it's 1245 times more loved than something else, but that's my problem...I just take note that it speaks to them.). I can also have 0 loves on a pattern for weeks on end but I don't think any less of it, if I thought it was worth something in the first place. And for as many patterns as I have loved I know there are also an equal number I didn't get around to loving because I didn't have the time.

I do lament that beautiful creations remain undiscovered because people don't have time to post badges or they might even have a fantastic pattern that has no love and therefore they can't even circulate a thank you badge! So for that very reason I would also like - in an ideal world - to see a computer generated circulation system of works in addition to the social-networking aspect of the the 'loves' to "aerate" the system and toss these up for consideration occasionally.

OrigamiMei wrote:

As someone else pointed out, most people don't have a problem with the thanking system until contest time rolls around, which doesn't make sense. If we stop and think about it for a moment, one of the aspects that this website was build on is competition. "Loves" are votes with a different name. So, in fact, this is one big contest we're taking part in, all the time.

If we follow the logic you've set forth here (that thank-yous for loves should not be allowed for competitive entries) then we'd have to eliminate thank-yous and badges completely both for "contest entries" and regular palettes/patterns. A lot of really good palettes and patterns would go undiscovered for the sake of a few people who think that a crucial feature of the community is unfair because they don't have enough time to use that feature.

daisychain wrote:

I enjoy them too. Here we are talking about thank you badges for contest entries. Precisely because they give you the opportunity to see something you otherwise wouldn't have seen, that behaviour gives an advantage to someone who has time to post badges over someone who doesn't.
amyanneerickson wrote:

I enjoy thank you badges because they give you the chance to see art and get introduced to new lovers that you otherwise might not see, as well as see additional art of lovers you already follow :)

Tenshiko, If the math doesn't support the possibility of creating a good randomisation process, it begs the question why they did it in the first place. But if the math doesn't support it, then don't do it. Scrap it. If it does, make it better. Or if you don't, just be honest and say 'this isn't a very good system and it's not really random like we want you to believe it is but it's the best you're going to get because (fill in the blank)." Ultimately you are confirming our objections that the randomisation system doesn't work, and saying it can't work without google-amounts of money behind it and therefore isn't fair and can never be so. Thanks.

True - I'm sure there are endless ways of manipulation. So add "we frown upon your opening multiple accounts to vote for yourself in contests" to my list of things that shouldn't be allowed. And beyond that, there are known human behavioural patterns, whereby if you offer people the same 3 things in a different order and combination they'll change their choice. But again: just because there are potential routes for circumventing efforts to make the contests fairer than they are now (note!: not perfectly fair) doesn't mean that they should be officially allowed. Care enough to do the best you can..

Just as creating beautiful design isn't easy neither is running a fair contest. So to reverse the advice of the contest holders to us on our designs: work on it! The challenge should be no hindrance to your making every effort to attain it if that is your stated goal.

Tenshiko wrote:

daisychain wrote:

Re A mechanism which undercuts/makes impossible strategies whereby an advantage is secured that has nothing to do with the quality of the design
There's no such thing in the world of "voting on the internet"
This voting isn't open to anyone on the internet. I believe you have to be registered at CL to have your vote registered. These strategies also involve posting of love badges, for example that benefit those with the time to do so.

I could easily register hundreds of accounts and vote for myself if I wanted to...
And it wouldn't even take me much time...

Re: randomization process
I don't care how hard it is.

This is not a PE lesson. It's math. 2+2 will always be 4. Even if you yell at it very hard...

I'm not saying that this random is fair. I'm saying a really cool random requires resources that colorlovers may not have. And generally it may not have been a good idea. Good intentions, but should have tested the randomising more.

And what if there were "highlighted entries" placed in the 1st rows of the entry pages (that would be random-ish) and a regular list of entries under it? (Have anyone suggested this solution yet?) Would that make everybody happy?


PS: Curiosity is landing on Mars just now :) Yeeeey.

For the record I would have absolutely no problem with the company choosing the winner from anonymous entries. I would tend to favour it.

I wouldn't necessarily need to have votes in the CL community. I don't see the winner as "the best" (it's a form of art - there is no best) but just the most appealing entry to the populace of the given voters at any given time. I'm not sure how tongue-in-cheek your comment with the smiley was about deriving "a kind of thrill" from the "popularity contest", like it's a remnant of the Roman gladiator games, but I don't get much of a "thrill" out of it at all.

Tenshiko wrote:

@OrigamiMei: +1 to that :)

Anyway, when a contest is sponsored by a company, I think the "fairest" method is when the company (or selected judges) chooses a winner from anonymous entries. It's still subjective, but it has nothing to do with popularity, and since the company will give something to the winner, it seems fair that they choose the one they like.

There can be a "popularity contest" (=winning by votes) running alongside that. It has a kind of thrill that I like :)

@Daisy

About the random: yes, that's kind of what I'm saying. You CAN optimize it, but it can not be fully fair... or the loading time will be veeeeeeery long. And yes, I think the random display was not the best choice here, all in all.

Gladiator games? Really? I don't think anyone's lives are depending on winning a contest on CL... Winning a contest on votes and winning a contest decided by judges are two different kinds of competition, two different kinds of experience. The thrill I was talking about is when I send a piece of work for some delegated people to judge, I wait until they announce the winner. And that's that. No objections, nothing to do, it's all settled. But when something is decided by voting, you can follow the current state of the competition, and if you're behind the others you can do something about it. I admit, sometimes that means posting more badges. But I still think that this is a valid way of competition.

Not saying though, that it should be the only form of it!

@Tenshiko

ok, all that's clarified.

Re: But I still think that this is a valid way of competition.
Of course it's a valid way if that's what the rules allow. But does it advantage the design of a person with more time on their hands to post badges over the design of someone who doesn't? Yes! You agree, right? Because you're saying right here that by sending the badge round you increase your votes. So: I'm saying on this thread and asking recognition for the fact that the voting results are not based solely on design and the merits of that design but also on other advantages that aren't open to all the contestants equally - what I'm calling here the advantage of person first, design second (for shorthand). The point that always gets me is lack of honesty and introspection. Just admit it and let's get on with it. Then, after people learn to see reality, we can have a discussion about whether as a community we want this system of lop-sided advantage to exist or not. I don't want it, you think it's okay. Good. Clear honest positions. But if people deny the phenomenon exists, we can't even have that discussion.

Thanks for the constructive exchange, Tenshiko. (and anyone who built that Dalek is clearly in a position to have one! :) )

Tenshiko wrote:

@Daisy

About the random: yes, that's kind of what I'm saying. You CAN optimize it, but it can not be fully fair... or the loading time will be veeeeeeery long. And yes, I think the random display was not the best choice here, all in all.

Gladiator games? Really? I don't think anyone's lives are depending on winning a contest on CL... Winning a contest on votes and winning a contest decided by judges are two different kinds of competition, two different kinds of experience. The thrill I was talking about is when I send a piece of work for some delegated people to judge, I wait until they announce the winner. And that's that. No objections, nothing to do, it's all settled. But when something is decided by voting, you can follow the current state of the competition, and if you're behind the others you can do something about it. I admit, sometimes that means posting more badges. But I still think that this is a valid way of competition.

Not saying though, that it should be the only form of it!

Daisy, thank you for taking the time to acknowledge my response. I've been in and out of this conversation and I think I've caught up. I agree while people may or may not use facebook or may not have any 'friends' on there, it's still potential. I even considered opening a public group on there, one anyone could see and be redirected to here and see my entry. I discouraged that from my mind, however. Perhaps I'm playing devil's advocate, but it could happen very easily.

Mei, thanking with badges or images is NOT just a problem with contests. I've seen many profiles that discourage posting thank you images at all. Daisy is not suggesting removing ALL thank you's, however, just the ones relating to contests, and I think that's reasonable.


OrigamiMei wrote:

As someone else pointed out, most people don't have a problem with the thanking system until contest time rolls around, which doesn't make sense. If we stop and think about it for a moment, one of the aspects that this website was build on is competition. "Loves" are votes with a different name. So, in fact, this is one big contest we're taking part in, all the time.

If we follow the logic you've set forth here (that thank-yous for loves should not be allowed for competitive entries) then we'd have to eliminate thank-yous and badges completely both for "contest entries" and regular palettes/patterns. A lot of really good palettes and patterns would go undiscovered for the sake of a few people who think that a crucial feature of the community is unfair because they don't have enough time to use that feature.

daisychain wrote:

I enjoy them too. Here we are talking about thank you badges for contest entries. Precisely because they give you the opportunity to see something you otherwise wouldn't have seen, that behaviour gives an advantage to someone who has time to post badges over someone who doesn't.
amyanneerickson wrote:

I enjoy thank you badges because they give you the chance to see art and get introduced to new lovers that you otherwise might not see, as well as see additional art of lovers you already follow :)

About voting from the internet: We all know that random votes from the internet don't happen, because votes will not process in the database until 1) the voters join CL and 2) the voters verify their email addresses with the CL server, as did every one of us.

At that point, the voters are legitimate members of CL and can vote on whatever they want, however they got here, in my opinion, whether they were recruited by bobbisueXXX1974 to vote for her entries, whether they wandered in from Twitter, as I did, or by some other means. How would we be able to tell where they came from? I doubt very much whether someone without considerable sales power and pressure could recruit enough people to make more than a 1%, 2% difference in their overall vote total, by the end of the contest. Unless they are doing something unusual, like pushing them in a very popular blog, or their willing raiding guild, or something. Therefore I think banning people's fond aunts and classmates from voting for them is pointless, of negligible value to the numbers, and possibly mean.
If some other conditions I haven't thought of apply, well, we haven't detected them yet, or i haven't heard, therefore boding no good for future efforts.

Popularity

I have never claimed that the contest isn't affected by popularity. I do, in fact think it is. A big factor, with many variables. I don't think it's a cabal, but I think longer term members are more likely to have many more longer term core CL voters who care about voting more than newer members, especially if the voters have been supportive fans of the CL artist for years and years. I think this is human nature and inevitable. I also think that newer members work is not seen (and therefore they do not become more popular) because of the site numbers inherent in how many lovers they have, whose pages they regularly post thank you badges to, even outside of contests, etc. Newer members seem not to join groups immediately either, although how would I know. They are more invisible to us as a whole, except for the current pattern boxes on the sides of some pages. Personally, I make a practice of friending any newcomer who seems any good, and has less than 10 friends. I do that out of a welcoming spirit, not out of greed for followers, and they often follow me back. Or they follow me first. But they are not core voters. I assert you can have tons of followers and yet not be popular among core voters. It's happened to me.

I also think longer term CL core voters and artists are less susceptible to anti-popularity measures. What do I mean by those?
One, mentioned by a poster above, is to unvote for an entry they feel is being unfairly promoted to a larger group than they can themselves promote to, or have time for.
Two, not voting for an entry that you fear is better than yours because helping it might kill your chances, or because you think they're more popular than you and don't need/deserve your vote.
Three, unvoting for someone who didn't vote back for you.
I see those behaviours as belonging to newer and less mature voters, who maybe haven't got the attention span of a longer term CL member. No loyalty/attatchment. But I have no math on any of these specualtions, and I wouldn't know what to do with it. In general, I think we aren't really objective here, since we are the voters, and I'm pro judges from client side, generally. That doesn't quiet inevitable dissent. "What were they thinking?!" It works for dog shows, though.

About Colour palettes.

Colour palettes are mostly an issue for the current system. If CL wants to regulate palettes, I'm all for it. But if they don't, having made that decision already, I'm not going to push it. In other words, I'll accept group decisions. I generally use my own palettes anyway. I think everybody should. Using someone else's palettes without their consent seems like taking advantage of someone else's work. Then again, so does using clip art, which we also see all the time. But I'm not opposed to people teaming up to split a prize, say if one is colorblind, or they're twins, or just for fun. How do you classify palettes that you made after a pattern, where someone didn't make a palette themselves? Fair game? or not? What about palettes that mimic someone's logo colors? like, say, eBay.

However, if we move to anonymous entries, by which I mean anonymous to viewers, and not to CL admin, we won't know really where the palette came from until after the contest. Unless we can somehow recognize it, which is possible, I guess, if unlikely. Therefore the palette shouldn't affect voting. Outside of being beautiful. Unless your opinion is that the unknown use of another's palette has tainted all its contest votes. I'm more concerned about the random factor of notifications that happen when you use a palette. Suppose you have a new original palette that isn't popular, but uses a color loved a bajillion times during the absolute densest period of the ongoing IFRC group? Say that one color was love/faved 167 times. Do notices go out because of that? Does that make an unfair promotion for that entrant? What if you take a famous palette and change one color? How much change before a palette becomes new? Is it just the love/fave numbers that you want to change? Where does plagiarism begin/end with the 5 colors? I think we should explore that in some other forum, if there aren't discussions about that already, if there are, please link. So many variables, it makes the head spin.
An anonymous entry should not have its own badge, so you could not post a thank you. Only badges that promote the contest in general. What do you think about what should happen if people make a promo themselves, but just post it on their own home page?

In general, except for changing the structure of the contest code, (Pro-anonymity, anti- additional notification messages, anti-linking directly to an entry, more thumbnails per voting page, anti current random practice, in general pro clientside judge) I'm not in favor of banning a current practice until we can actually notice an ill effect from not doing so. I'm against needless authortarian regulation of any sort. I'm pro-voluntary code of conduct.

Can someone make a "Contest Rules Debate" Group! Please!

It's Molly's fault! She kicked over the can! ^_^
(hugs and pat for baby)

Maybe just a group for debates in general, then start a contest thread and bullet point
the main issues! :)

wow, what a can of worms! :P I think we all need to keep in mind, this is just a fun colour website with fun contests. People aren't trying to keep others from winning on purpose, or anything malicious. It's not fun to lose, but keep everything in perspective please. I myself have never won, and I don't really care, I enjoy entering because it's FUN! Let's not become sore losers, let's just enjoy it for what it is? Ok, thnx bye.

TOC, pasting/receiving badges is not a problem for everybody. Most want them. Those few who don't can voluntarily apply code to help repel them, as do some who welcome badge. I have welcoming text on my own page, no pop, up though. But posting badges to people's pages not the only place to put them. There are groups and forums. Additionally, much mileage is to be had from pasting to pattern/palette/template pages. Banning badges would be a catastrophe, IMO.

Please nobody read any ire or excess unwanted passion into my posts, I'm just nattering. Clarity is the prize.

Right, Eighteyed, and I was not suggesting banning all badges, I was going along with Daisy in saying banning the repeated copy/paste of contest entries.

PLEASE CONTINUE AND MOVE YOUR DISCUSSION HERE TO THE FORUMS

This is getting very detailed and lengthy - and a little out of my range in helping contests as in more a wish for community involvement than what the team can provide. Please see my remarks concerning the latest in discussions over here.

I will also add some repeat of what I have already said to get us back on track and at what is going to be a realistic idea of change to contests. But PLEASE feel FREE to continue ideas, suggestions and the like over here at the forums.

Thanks everyone! - Molly

While I was at it, I started a discussion in the same area to give out suggestions for making GROUPS easier to manage.

Please submit your suggestions as minimally (non-novelish) as you can. If I need more information or reasoning, I will ask you for more information.

Thanks! Here is the link for it: GROUPS: Dish your ideas here

I DID kick over the can of worms and I will try to keep scooping them back in to the can! LOL

Thank you for saying this, gibbygirl. I know a couple others have also expressed this and I appreciate it. Please let's keep things uncomplicated an in to perspective.

I cannot keep up with novels of theory - so let's keep things down to reality and bullet lists and keep debate out of it. :) If possible. But I do appreciate all the involvement.

gibbygirl wrote:

wow, what a can of worms! :P I think we all need to keep in mind, this is just a fun colour website with fun contests. People aren't trying to keep others from winning on purpose, or anything malicious. It's not fun to lose, but keep everything in perspective please. I myself have never won, and I don't really care, I enjoy entering because it's FUN! Let's not become sore losers, let's just enjoy it for what it is? Ok, thnx bye.

such wonderful patterns..they are going to have a heck of a time trying to choose!
Good luck everyone!

Deco paper by bizee1
www.COLOURlovers.com

This is not my entry, it is Ambu's. I just happen to think it is amazing and deservs everyones vote! ;D

Not intentional by ambu1959
www.COLOURlovers.com

Just so everyone is aware that wants out of the discussion, there is a "mute" button at the top and all you have to do is click it and you wont have the conversation in your updates anymore...
mollybermea wrote:

PLEASE CONTINUE AND MOVE YOUR DISCUSSION HERE TO THE FORUMS

This is getting very detailed and lengthy - and a little out of my range in helping contests as in more a wish for community involvement than what the team can provide. Please see my remarks concerning the latest in discussions over here.

I will also add some repeat of what I have already said to get us back on track and at what is going to be a realistic idea of change to contests. But PLEASE feel FREE to continue ideas, suggestions and the like over here at the forums.

Thanks everyone! - Molly