I cancelled my 500px account exactly for the fact that one's pictures are forced to participate in popular voting. I have several pictures at 0% that have done well on other sites, such as appearing in Flickr Explore. One was submitted to a weekly contest here on 1x and got several positive comments and favs. Others have a (much) higher percentage, but it just doesn't say much to me. If I need feedback I can submit it to the "post for critique" site. At least I will get a constructive comment with the votes. I find publishing this value not constructive and stimulating at all.

While I think about Clydes comment I would like to know, if the likes or votes from the weekly theme are taken into account for the score of an image. In my opinion this would not be good, because the voting in the weekly theme is definitively a buddy voting. The more comments you write and tell your "friend" that you had voted on his image the more likes you get. That's why I don't participate on that event anymore. In the early days of my 1x-membership I submitted some images to the weekly theme but not for curation because I knew that the quality would not be sufficient to convince the jury to publish the image. I'm rather reassured that none of these images has a score.

Clyde, you're right. I did not think about this fact, that some (or may be all) of the non-curated photos in the ALL PHOTO-tab were never submitted for screening. Sorry about that.

I find it interesting to see the different views of users concerning the score, voting and buddy voting. Like Marie-Claude I would like to know which other facts affect the score. Several months ago I talked with some 1x-users who complained that after the relaunch of the 1x-site the non-curated photos were visible when looking at the photographers profile. But people who do not want to see those pictures can click on the "curated"-button above the photos and all non-curated photos disappear. So, where is the problem ? And with the issue of the new score it is the same. If I don't want to see "inferior" photos, photos which have not been curated, it's no problem for me (as described above). On the other hand, it can be interesting to look at the profile of a photographer who has curated and non curated photos as well. Then you can see which picture did meet the taste of the jury and which did not. And you can compare this different result with the score of the pictures. That may be very interesting. On the one hand you see the taste of the curators, on the other hand you see the taste of the users. But one thing remains very important to me: It is necessary to prevent buddy voting.

Thanks for taking the time to answer Ralf. However what do you mean when you're writing by "mainly"the score is mainly calculated from the voting in curate, ? What is (are) the other (s) factor (s) taken into account since you're saying it is "mainly" not "entirely" based on voting ? One more thing, it is impossible to say voting is "anonymous", it is not at all since when we vote on photos we have already seen most of them or at least some of them when we click in "following". We know the author's name. That's the reason why I have stopped voting. Same with the weekly theme, I think we do have to face facts : IT IS 'buddy voting". The author's name appears when you open the thumbnail. Well I don't care that much, except that because of such things 1X has become less interesting for me. I'm aware I'm not a prominent member of the site and my opinion doesn't matter much, but probably some other members think the same as I.

Frédéric, I think you are wrong. If you view the curated photos on the mobile site, then you see exactly the same informations as on the "normal" 1x-site. The likes, the faves and so on. But when you go to CURATE on the mobile site, you'll never find any information about the author or anything else. It's really anonymous. And I personally like this ! It's an anonymous voting that gives valuable information to the photographers (if the voting persons are experienced enough for evaluation).

Oh, I see I can partly answer my question (see below) by myself. I go to PHOTOS and then to CURATE. After doing that a picture appears with 5 grey stars and one grey heart. Moreover you can write a text. What seems advantageous for me, is that the picture is published without author information. Now my question: if I leave the site without voting or commenting the picture, does it influence its popularity ? I hope this is NOT the case.

I'm 1x-member since about 7 months and I like some characteristic features of 1x compared to other sites (e.g. 500px). I'm happy that 1x is a curated site and if one agree or not with the decision of the curators does not matter to me. I'm a hobby photographer who wants to improve his skills and so I think that beside the curation a meaningful popularity index can be helpful. But it must be meaningful !! It should be prevented that the index is calculated on the basis of likes from other users as is the case in the weekly theme. That's why I don't participate on that event anymore because the more you like others the more your pictures are liked, independent if they are good or bad. Now my question to Ralf or someone else: Who are those people that influence the popularity of a picture. If I look at myself, I have no possibility to have an influence on the popularity of the picture of other users except I write a comment or add it to my favorites. But when I look at my fresh (not yet curated or not curated) pictures that haven't any comment yet and no one added it to favorites, there are nevertheless popularity figures between 53 and 64. What is the reason? Thanks !

I don't think this new addition to 1X is for the best. When I joined 1X, I joined a curated "gallery" curated by curators, not a site where people "vote" or write a few "like" beneath a photo just to please the author or because he or she is a person you like. I appreciated 1x because it was stimulating, because it induced me to try and improve my photography in order to have some of my pictures published. I don't recognize 1X any more, i don't find what used to make this website so different from the others any longer.

I second Frédéric's request.

It is of course very nice to know that a photo of has reached a certain level of popularity - let's presume it got over 60%. I wonder what it means, accept that viewers think it is a pleasing photo and that a photo with less than - let's say - 35% is less pleasing. It doesn't tell me anything about the quality of the two pictures. It is very possible that the less scoring photo has much more artistic value than the high scoring one. So in this sense the score doesn't give much feedback. I would be much nicer if fellow photographers would write an honest comment telling why you think an image impressive, what it tells you, why you look at it longer than usual, etc. Is it an idea that voters have to write a comment when they rate a photo with the highest rates - four and five stars?

I don't want to have this popularity. It has little value to me. Could you please make a user setting so the individual member can decide?

While I welcome the addition of the popularity score I find this confusing in a number of ways. For example, how do I have a popularity score for images I never submitted for curation? There must be some other way for scores to accumulate other than curation, obviously, but I don't know what popularity means for these images. Also, I have some images that have a score of 0% but more than one person has picked them as favorites. I would have thought that would at least raise the score above 0%, but clearly that isn't the way the score is calculated. I don't really want the details of the algorithm, however, some guidance on interpreting the popularity score would be very helpful. Overall, I am glad to see the popularity score and I think that with a bit of explanation it will be very helpful. Thanks.

There is a picture curated with 100% ..... it sounds like the election results as in the former GDR. Is this type of evaluation really necessary for good photography?

Maybe a little more explanation on the rating. For instance; the rating system below the image during curation is 1 to 5 stars. However the popularity is given in percent. So what does a ranking of 43% popularity mean? 43 % gave i star, 43% gave 5 stars or 43% gave any star?

Popularity is an indication of how popular a photo is among members. This information can be quite useful for photographers. It's calculated from many different factors such as the result from member voting and the number of favorites and comments. If more experienced members vote higher it will get a higher score and vice versa. Even if it was not in member voting it will still get a score based on the other factors. Marcos - The reason this information is omitted is to avoid buddy voting, the photo should only be judged by it's own merits.

I think it will also 'help' to be able to provide a 'fair' vote that the tittle of the photo and the information of the photo is displayed in the 'curate' process. Unless of course the aim is 'only' to value the quality of a photo ignoring all the other facts. I wouldn't imagine going to a museum without the full information of a photo to understand better what is been tried to express by the artist. Also I think it would be good to show who is artist and able access the photo, even the photo doesn't get 'curated' gives the option to favorite it, follow the artist or add a comment to the photo outside of the 'curate' process. Finally, i know that is impossible for curators to give a comment to those pictures that are rejected on why it didn't get curated (there are too many)..., but I think it would be a good idea for the curators to put a 'curator' comment to those that get 'curated' so others can learn from the criteria and a curator feedback (National Geographic does it for the picture of the day). Glad to see comments placed by other members in the curating process will be available soon for the artist to see (even the most critique feedback can be constructive).

INF% should be gone.

One thing I don´t undestand Las night I uploaded a photo to my Gallery and submit to the curators….After 15 minutes it had a score of 53% and that score has not changed since then…score changes over time? I also agree to indicate the number of votes.

Ralf, how different are %INF and %0? And how instant published pictures are marked, the ones that did not go through member voting?

Well, just to be honest, 1x is more of a "popularity contest" than ever in it's history. So this measure will probably be welcomed by most. But as Paul says, "Popularity" is not really the right label for this particular measure. Quantitative "popularity" would need to be a numerical measure of how the photos are listed in the long established "Popular this week" and "Popular ever" galleries imo. That's the context you have established long ago for popularity. This measure is a whole different and conflicted use of that word to me. "Voting results" or something else is far more accurate imo.

Indeed 1x is not about “Popularity”, so the score should be labeled differently, for instance “Member curation index”. In my opinion, there shouldn't be an index displayed if it's based on a small number of votes. Otherwise the number of votes should be shown, as Paco suggests. Also, I'd like to know how the index is calculated. And what would be the difference between “0%” and “-INF%”? How can there be an index for photos that were submitted before the curate option became available?

Thanks. Quantitative indicators are always good to have. Knowing their limits and biases is of course fundamental and it's good to remind that 1x is not a popularity contest :) May I suggest a little improvement of this indicator? It would be nice to have the number of votes too alongside the percentage. Eg: popularity: X % out of Y votes. It would give a sense of how "relevant" that percentage is. Anyway, comments are still more interesting than numbers and I try to always give a constructive comment when I "curate". I would also like to read the comments that other write on my pictures. Would that be possible? (I wouldn't mind if they were anonymous or not).