Comment And there we have what I see as one of the main problems with the Valued Image project. I have my own opinion that my proposed image is better, but like your comment, that is mainly an opinion. But since the scope of VI at the moment allows for only one single image, how is Commons ever form a consensus (especially a lasting one - will the images constantly have to be reevaluated with every new one that is added in the same category? - a daunting task). Not critisising, just giving my two cents. ONE image only each scope seems very narrow to me. How about allowing for more VIs if the scope has sufficient images? -- Ingolfson06:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per the explanations below: "Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value." You basically said "I don't like it." Please provide a reason beyond personal preference? Otherwise VIs WILL become simply a beauty contest. I'm not dead set on forcing MY image through, I am just pointing out something that I think is an issue with the process. -- Ingolfson00:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the reason above, namely that I found the other image better. More specifically, it is better composed, more interesting and sharper. --MichaelMaggs20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point, I feel - Apart from "sharpness" (are we turning VI into another FI clone?) I say that comments like "interesting" and "composition" are extremely subjective, and that it will be hard to get any permanent consensus in any scope that holds more than just a small number of pics. Someone will always point to another picture / newer picture etc... and request that the VI image for that scope be demoted and the new one chosen. What I was suggesting was that a fixed number be set - for example allow one VI for any, say, 25 pictures (IF the criteria for the proposed images are met of course), not just limit it to one. Ingolfson02:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you mean, Ingolfson, when an image is nominated, which is not clearly much better than all competing images. It is indeed hard to decide exactly which is the most valued then. One remedy could be to narrow down the scope a little, until, say there are no more than 25 competing images. This could perhaps be added as a scope indicator. That is, if the number of competing images within the same scope is larger than a certain number, it is adviceable to narrow down the scope. I do not know if we wil end up aving the kind of constant MVRs in those categories, but i agree with you that if we do, it is not beneficial for the projects as there is really no point is spending so many resources on considering images, which are only marginally better than other images. -- Slaunger05:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
