Let the deleting begin.

Quote
jffe wrote: they won't be missed obviously.

Don't panic!

Low usage rank just means these filters have an Underappreciation Rank of High.

Just my two cents but I believe the featured catagory and the usage rank allready filter it

but as was mentioned before retaining them allows fot users to find specific ones that might not otherwise exist

and with the 3 versions now available I think its even more important to keep all filters available since they might not be able to create their own filters or tweak existent ones

----Well, it's either FF's fault for allowing so many mediocre filters online to begin with, or for not having 8,000 sub-categories to sort them in, or it's everyone's fault (more or less eh ha-ha) for submitting too many unecessary filters. There are 2498 filters, and just 15 categories, suddenly China doesn't sound so crowded. I'm not gonna name names (or leave mine out) but out of every 20 new filters (that seems to be about the average per new filter batch that gets upped every other day or so) about 2 or 3 are not entirely redundant or really just not that great/completed (completed meaning they are either one trick pony types, or you can't hardly tell the difference between the 20 presets, and if you can't get 20 different variations out of it, it's not much of a filter now is it).
----I suggested this a while back, and I still think it's a good idea, so here it is again for anyone who missed it the first time and wants a chance to hate on it ha-ha. Give all filters 30/60/90 days (however long seems long enough for them achieve at the very least *average* usage status) and then at that point, delete the low usage filters (starting with a 600-800 low usage filter housecleaning now). The filter creators should get an email notice about their filter being deleted since it was low usage, and to remind them that they are welcome to update it, and resubmit it for another trial period. So just in case you think your filter got overlooked first time around, you can have another shot, and it gives you a chance (ie = almost forces you) to give it some more features, or just adjust it to look better in some way. I think that's more than fair, and will help thin out at least 1/3 (1/3 usage rank-wise) of the crap. If it were up to me, 30 days to achieve *average usage* or delete it, and 180 days to achieve *high usage* or delete it. Having a library of 2498 filters is just ridiculous, how many come with the KPT collection, or how may does Flaming Pear have ? More than about 400 at any given time = too many if you ask me, life's too short to stagger through 223 versions of the same thing (patterns) when only 9 or 10 of those are quantifiably different, and really produce a variety of useful and unique patterns. Like volde said, let the usage rank help sort these things out, that's what it's there for.
----And lastly, anyone who wants all the filters, can just download them now, and copy that folder to cdr or somewhere else on their hard drive, and have the library thus far stored there. Then just download all new filters every time some new ones get posted, and they won't ever be out anything that way.

jffe

i'm totally against culling the library itself (except in the rare, obvious rip-off case). this shld be a users option not a library function. when one goes to a library one finds many, many books, some good, some bad. it's the user's responsibility to choose what he takes home (or, in the case of a bookstore, keeps).

i keep everything. i download everything. that doesnt mean i have to keep them all loaded into FF. i can always delete the ones i just dont want. and, if we get a more user-friendly user-controled folder system (which bella has alluded is going to happen), then i wouldnt even have to delete. i could just move things around for better access and organization.

heck, you could even have an auto-organize within FF itself based on one's personal usage. do what jffe suggests for the library but apply it to the GUI. if i havent used a filter with 30 days, move it to the less used folder. 60 days and it goes down a tier again and so on.

but deleting from the library isnt the right solution. you like apples and i like oranges. i'm gone for a year and i miss even the chance to see what's been uploaded in that time cause X number of filters have already been deleted in my absense.

now, i dont mind if you do something like jffe suggests except rather than delete, move them out of the library to an 'archive'. these would be in .zip format and not downloadable in the regular fashion using FF. so, you'd just download them like any other .zip, unzip them and place them in your FF folders. and i wouldnt use 30/60/90. that's too short. heck, i sometimes take 30 day vacations. 3 month, 6 month and a year would be better.

but, until we see what FF is going to do, per bella's allusions, i wouldnt do a thing.

One other thought maybe there should be a filter archive for low usage filters that way if someone cant find what they need in the main area they can do a more extensive search

There are some filters that have hardly any usage that on ocasion I have used

remove them and the end user is forced to do it manually or recreate the same effect anyhow

I do think there should be a sticky on the various forum areas reminding filter submitters to check for the existance of a filter before submitting

How many times have people accidently created a near duplicate filter and not even realized

I released fractalilly just about the same time someone else had released fracta squares
but since I hadnt checked out all the new submissiion I didnt realize this otherwise I would have chosen a different name to prevent confusion with the user

----Well, at least we have more of an in-depth dialogue going about it now, and FF will of course have their own ideas. Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me that much really, it just becomes a hassle to find anything with 2500 filters and only 15 categories. And if I'm pretty darn mellow about it and am still calling it a hassle, any professional would laugh at the disorganization of it all I think.
----I guess, as several folks have suggested in one word or a few others, a multiple library format might be good to switch to at some point, an *archive* for the 3/4 of the filters that just aren't getting used for whatever reason. Or at least a graveyard for the 1/3 really low usage filters, and maybe not lumping in the *average use* ones with the least popular/used of all.
----Anyways, carry on, and please speak up about however you feel about sorting/deleting lesser used filters. The more specific people can be about it, maybe the closer we can get to helping FF with the next level of organizing things eh.

jffe

My opinions on this aren't too strong, but I still like it how it is -- (I think) if you search filters (with keywords) or browse by category, the higher usage filters seem to get listed first, while the low usage ones get pushed to the back. So you don't really have to weed through all the filters unless you want to.
I liked Kraellin's library analogy. Another one might be the internet itself -- there's tons of sites to go to, but with the help of search engines like Google, you have tools to help find the relevant ones you want.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: I don't want any of mine deleted.....because I'm actively going back and doing upgrades.....especially to some of my first filters that I'm "ashamed" of

----I actually thought of going back and just replacing low-usage filters (of my own) with brand new different ones, just quietly replacing them with completely different filters ha-ha. Luckily I could do that a little bit, as my filter names are a hair more open ended than maybe some like yours are. But other than that, I've got a handful that were just kinda pointless and/or obsolete by the time they even got listed, and I can't see getting excited about trying to make them better when they sucked to begin with.

Quote
Kraellin wrote: that may be the best solution, jffe, separate libraries. have one for high use/rewards/editor's picks and then another for average use and another for low use.

----Something along those lines, with seperate searches for each, and a global search, seems like it would be a big improvement to me personally.

jffe

Quote
jffe wrote: I actually thought of going back and just replacing low-usage filters (of my own) with brand new different ones, just quietly replacing them with completely different filters

Not a bad idea.....use the accrued usage on them.....

----16 new filters today, one that even looks remotely *new*, the stoplight one. FF needs to crack down on submissions. I have yet to have a filter rejected, and that's a bad sign. Where is the quality control ? I've only heard of filters being rejected beause they take too long to render, while I agree that's a decent reason, there needs to be more criteria. I'm seeing filters that have one or two controls that anyone with any amount of experience could make in 60-90 seconds here. There are 2 and a 1/2 THOUSAND filters now, and about 250 (at the most) worth downloading, not good (one in ten) odds there.
----If FF erased the low usage filters, that'd be 1/4 to 1/3 gone instantly, and a good start at updating the filter organization structure. And if they set up some more criteria, like if a human processes the new filters, they should know the catalog and reject stuff for a number of reasons, including; too simplistic, controls not labelled well, too redundant, takes too long to render, etc. And stem the flow of new crap, so that 3 or 4 out of 10 of the low usage filters of tomorrow can be "filtered out" now.

jffe

Quote
Kraellin wrote: it's not FF's job to filter the filters (other than for a blatant rip-offs, copykats and ridiculously long render times). that's OUR job,

----I agreed with that idea back in the beginning, (well, when I got involved around the 500-600 filter point), but it's not working anymore. Much like warez on ebay, I can spot beginner/redundant filters a mile away now, and I'm seeing them as the majority this past month or three, and it's just getting ridiculous. Unless a new system of organizing the filters is implemented now, it's just making the whole FF thing look more and more like the free-for-all it is. Perhaps if FF were just some freeware project, then it wouldn't need to do things better/more professionally. But it's not, and it's becoming more and more amateurish and random all the time because of people not looking to see what's been done, not labelling controls on their filters with anything but the defaults, not using proper/accurate keywords, not filing their filters in the proper categories, etc. etc. WE as you said, as a whole, all of us averaged out, are simply not doing a good enough job of it, so it's time for a new way, FF needs to step in and deal with it.

jffe

Quote
jffe wrote: but it's not working anymore

Quote
Kraellin wrote: that's a generality that i dont agree with. i find your system counter-productive. what if we'd had that when we started out?

----Well, 1) then we wouldn't have this mess we have now, and 2) when/how it started out is of little concern at this point, considering we all do agree that there are too many filters for the few (15) categories they are sorted into. I'm just trying to help look ahead, to see what more of a mess might be avoided by changing things now.
----As far as myself, as a user, allowing every pointless filter to be posted into the library is NOT working to the filter maker's benefit at all. I download and check out two or three filters a week, but I only bother with something I haven't seen ten times before, the rest are just clogging up what could be a pretty good system.
----Anyways, carry on, and anyone else should feel free to post their thoughts/ideas on the subject.

jffe

I had a feeling this topic was going to come up sooner or later!

I'm one of the few people who regularly posts here and who hasn't submitted a filter yet; but I've used a fair amount of them. I subscribe to the RSS feed of the recently-submitted filters, but have been thinking of unsubscribing because it seems to me like many are derivatives and near-duplicates of previously existing ones, as pointed out. They don't offer compelling new functionality, and while they may very well be the first steps of an aspiring filter maker on his or her way to creative greatness, I don't find them useful within themselves, nor distinguished.

Especially with so many outstanding requests, wishes, and challenges out there for various types of filters, I don't know why there should be such a high degree of sameyness. But then again, needless redundancy has never appealed to me, and I'm optimistic I'll find many new faves in time to come.

Down the line, I'm hoping more from our community will start blogs posting about their fave Filter Forge filters, providing color commentary and examples of practical usage. I like the Editor's Pick section here because it's one way of showcasing highlights without a deep system of categorization (which of course has its own uses), but it won't scale if Filter Forge's popularity continues to multiply drastically. I've made a few blog posts myself previously about my passion for Filter Forge and fave filts.

If possible, I wish I could take two filters and compare how alike they are — a percentage rating would suffice. Furthermore, as part of a greater organizational scheme, if I could view any filter on the website and see which other ones closely related it, that'd help me both (1) avoid near-duplicates as stated before and (2) find complementary filters to suit my tastes.

What do you all think + feel?

Quote

Torley wrote: I subscribe to the RSS feed of the recently-submitted filters, but have been thinking of unsubscribing because it seems to me like many are derivatives and near-duplicates of previously existing ones, as pointed out. They don't offer compelling new functionality, and while they may very well be the first steps of an aspiring filter maker on his or her way to creative greatness, I don't find them useful within themselves, nor distinguished.

I second Torley's sentiment.

Apart from a few notable exceptions, it's mainly variations on the same old filter "themes" that are coming in the last months. This is quite surprising to me, as I would suspect that aspiring filter authors check the library to educate themselves on what is there already (and what really shouldn't be there), and then try to contribute something novel or at least significantly better.

[This is entirely subjective, but I can smell a certain authoring 'lazyness' lately. Slap in a few noises, make some random connections, submit, and in time the reward program should yield. Gah!]

As I've pointed out a few times (see this thread, for example), there are plenty of inspirational resources available on the web. Let's face it, it is not too hard to come up with stuff that's new to the library, even with the 2500+ filters it sports now. I'd start my search with Genetica's Texture Packs, really. These textures - ranging from mediocre to brilliant - should really serve the FF community as an indication of the basic quality and creativity level the filter library needs to surpass. Just faithfully converting any of these to FF would certainly yield a successful filter. And we are just talking texture filters here. In my book, anything below that basic level of quality COULD be interpreted as filter spamming...

Just for the record: I'm against deleting anything from the library. We just need way better tools to manage and navigate the libraries' growing complexity, and better quality control overall. I'm not going to suggest community voting again here...

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: We just need way better tools to manage and navigate the libraries' growing complexity

I agree....

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: better quality control

I agree in respect to obvious cloning and close filter variants....

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: community voting

Strongly dissagree with this one because it would turn it into an outright popularity contest.....which already exists to a certain extent....

I don't know.....I think everyone makes some valid points here.....but on the other hand, you can't really expect new filtermakers (who are just learning) to be making stand-out, original, high quality filters right out of the gate.....and if they can't afford the program and are just learning, the 30 day trial forces them to "cut corners" and use other filters in the hope that it will be popular like the original.....instead of having enough time to learn it without being under any pressure from the time restriction to produce.....

Just my take on it

PS..... I would be very interested in reading an opinion from FilterForge Inc. on how they feel about the issues that people have raised here.....

Maybe another way to approach this is to give the user quick option buttons for (1) "add to favorites" to put them at the top of future searches.....and (2) "don't show me this filter ever again for as long as I live" to omit it from any future searches......

I believe as it stands, FF has a hand in deciding which filters come up at the top of certain keyword searches.....as probably a way to guide users to the better quality filters. I've experimented with typing in all kinds of general search terms.....and found that popular filtermaker's filters almost always show up at the top of the list.....even if the filter would be the last thing a user would be looking for under that search term. Maybe giving some of that power over to users would allow them to decide for themselves which filters they want to see first on top of their searches.....

Bottom Line, I'm not for doing anything more that will further single out and promote popular filtermakers at everyone elses expense.....especially with there already being Editor's Picks and being placed at the top of search lists to reward good work.....which already insures that their work will be seen more than anyone elses. If it does not help everyone equally, then I don't think it should be done.....

I believe those filters, no matter what their usage, are the ones that FF wants to use to represent their company. I would do something similar to portray what I wanted portrayed. The formula is......there is no formula.....just what someone at FF likes and decided to use as an Editor's Pick. If I had to make a guess, I would have to say that Vlad has alot to do with it.....

Deleting low usage filter seems like removing low usage fire extinguishers. I just selected several that seemed perfect for a current project -- not one had many downloads or high ranking.

I agree to be even more confused now
Just kidding
sounds like everyone has a plan that to a major extent intersects with one anothers

search and filtering ""FILTERing"" sorry couldnt help it but it sounds like that is where the major consensus lies

I agree I would love to hear the FF staffs view point but at least to my perceptions they have been strangley quite of late
Hopefully they are in full blown production of the next Phase for their product
wich by the way I would love to beta test

Ive submitted quite a few filters over the time I have been here except for some notable similarities with the organics --all preaty much based upon noise


Please let me know if my current submissions fall under this catagory

I realize some of mine are simillar to another but part of that is the fact that more people seemed to express a desire for more focus purpose filters that had limited controls so In instances where I believe there are variations of note I will spitt the filter into a few different ones to fit that niche

If you feel I should just combine them into one monster one let me know

I submitted quite a batch of ones Ive had on the shelves of late so that would be a good start

Per-user-account 'library & search preferences' would be the way to go, IMHO. This would make 'community voting' obsolete (since everyone would decide for himself what to filter out) and properly respect the obviously very diverse needs and tastes of the FF community as a whole. We could have per-account whitelists (i.e. favorite filters, favorite authors), blacklists (i.e. 'never bother with this Crapadilla again, he's too mainstream!') and extended search options.

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: As I've pointed out a few times (see this thread, for example), there are plenty of inspirational resources available on the web. Let's face it, it is not too hard to come up with stuff that's new to the library, even with the 2500+ filters it sports now. I'd start my search with Genetica's Texture Packs, really.

Yep can even go to places like Turbosquid and other sites that sell and host 3d textures. No copying just inspiration..
Also do a search for Photoshop plug-ins to bring up some more inspiration.

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: Per-user-account 'library & search preferences' would be the way to go,

This would be a way for the user to filter out what they do and do not want to see...

Wow, that's a pretty exhaustive list Kraellin, that would be some great search methods to have available though. The more I shut up, the more constructive ideas and lists seem to get presented here. <Runs away to shut up for another 24-48 hours>

jffe