Let the deleting begin.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: 4. by usage. i.e. high, average, low 5. by rewards i.e. has gotten a reward or not 6. by 'editor's pick' i.e. has gotten one or not I like most of your search methods, but I don't want to see these three methods implemented

These seem to be among the most important search options in my book!

[quote]Kraellin wrote:
1. by filter name
2. by author name
3. by filter type i.e. texture or effect or both
4. by usage. i.e. high, average, low
5. by rewards i.e. has gotten a reward or not
6. by 'editor's pick' i.e. has gotten one or not
7. by date submitted

By adding any these or others to the keywords in the filter threads wouldn't that make those criteras searchable so all we need to do is add them either ourselves or ff

Well I don't hang around here to much these days but I will still put in my 2 penny's.

I use FF for game textures, and quite frankly about 85% of the filters here are not suitable for my needs.

So if it is possible to see all filters that are suitable for game textures away from those that are obviously not, then that would be better for me, and others who use FF for the same thing

steve, nothing FF can do about the 'intimidation factor'. that's going to occur no matter what. there are some stellar filters here. no question about it. so, do you penalize the good filter makers to promote the bad more? i dont think that's a good solution.

and like fluxtah just said, FINDING the filters one wants is the big issue in all this. and that's what jffe has been arguing for also. so, one wants to accommodate all users, filter creators and filter users. jffe's biggest valid point in all his arguements is that finding filters one wants is not easy right now and just going to get worse. the guy USING the filters shld have it as easy as possible to find the filters he wants. that promotes FF and FF USE. and that's just as valid as getting more people MAKING filters.

and i think it was jffe who put forth the idea of a 'development library'. that's actually not a bad idea. throw everything into the development pool to start and let them get promoted to the main filter USE library with time and people actually using the filters.

i'm all for promoting filter maker development, but not at the expense of filter user use.

you do make a valid point and i'm not trying to flush it down the toilet here. it can be intimidating to new creators. but that can be treated in a whole different way. you could even do a whole new forum devoted to nothing but that and a whole separate library, if you wanted.

but i know that currently, when i want to FIND a filter for a specific purpose, even when i've seen the filter i want before, FINDING it can be a real exercise in frustration and time. and that does need to be addressed. and what of those who are using just the basic FF, which doesnt even allow for filter saving? those folks are doing nothing but using FF filters. they shldnt have to spend a half hour looking through filters to find that one effect they really want.

so, i think you need just about all of the filtration methods i mentioned to really speed up this whole search process.

now, i'm a bit of an oddball. i download everthing and i look at all of them when i download them, if only when they are in the download queue. and that can be even more frustrating. i find myself constantly going, 'oh, i'd like to look at that one and that one and that one and...' to the point where i know i'll never look at half of them but still would like to. heck, i could spend the rest of my life just studying volde's prolific array. so, the point is, when i actually go to creating an altered photo, i want to be able to find some of those things i saw when i downloaded them without having to wade through 2000+ filters.

this really is the top item on my wishlist now, that and being able to sort the library on my computer the way i want it. so, leaving out those 3 categories would be detrimental to me. there is no way i'm in favor of making folks wade through 2000+ filters just so newbie filters can be seen more. that's just counter-productive and is rewarding the wrong things.

Kraellin: The Development Library was mine and I'm still rooting for it (even though everyone but you seems to have ignored the concept! )

Look at this in terms of other industries... If you go to a restaurant you don't want to be served someone's experimental Asparagus Raisin Pudding. You just want a steak (or a salad, for the vegs in here ). This Premier Library I'm proposing is the menu. Here's our specialties, with subcategories (we have "Seafood, Salads, A La Carte, Desserts, etc.")... these are the tried and tested items that will satisfy most diners. But in the kitchen, at home... that's where the "experimenting" comes in. "Try a little less garlic. NO! More pomegranate!" As these dishes are tried, tested, and tweaked, they (sometimes) make it onto the menu. (...End Scene. Iris out.)

This is analogous to FF's situation (as I see it from a marketing standpoint). They should have the menu established with the tasties dishes for those Basic users who just need a filter. But the Development Library is the back kitchen where other dishes are tried and tested. So it IS NOT discouraging creativity but it is also not "rewarding" everyone just because they made a filter. It's starting to feel like people are more concerned with having a ton of filters in the library (the reward) that discouraging creativity. If someone's filters were in the Development Library instead of the Premier Library, would there still be all this bellyaching?

I also think we're getting too worried about who gets rewarded / attention / etc. I make my filters for fun and as a creative/technical exercise, not for the rewards. And there are filtermakers in here that deserved the kudos and attention. I could name 10 off the top of my head that I would love to be 5% as smart / competent as. My filters don't get much attention - hell, most of my comments are usually ignored on these boards - but that doesn't discourage me from making filters or stating my opinion. I just choose to be VERY selective about when to release a filter. I want people to get their "money's worth" from my filters - more hits than misses...

Should I have received a free license for my filter? Should mine be in this Premier Library? Probably NO on the first, definitely NO on the second. But I look at my license as a reward for the beta participation, NOT for the quality of this filter.

Anyways...
-Jim

Quote
Andrew B. wrote: Maybe the ability to add user-defined tags/keywords to filters, and allow the user to set views that only show filters with those tags/keywords. I'm talking now about filters that are already downloaded

Good idea.....and would be good for tagging filters that they don't download....customizing them to appear on top of future searches using keywords that you can assign them.....

Quote
Andrew B. wrote: BTW, for the people who want some of their filters removed, would it work for you to roll several of your filters into one. Then let Filter Forge staff know which of your filters have been superseded and need to be removed

I believe you can contact FF and ask them to remove a filter if you don't want to update an existing filter......

steve, let me try this again... i think the 'penalization' i was talking about is to filter users. those folks who mostly or only USE filters and dont make them. they also have to wade through our growing library to find what they want and i see no reason to keep them from having all the search criteria possible. and heck, that actually applies to filter makers too. we all have to wade through this growing plethora of talented output. so, i just cant see making filter USERS being limited because of filter makers. that's just not right. and that also tends to stifle growth. filter users will ultimately be the ones that keep the software alive. you and me probably are here as much for the simple joy of creating these things as we are for the joy of using them, but not everyone is.

so, you want to make it so that filter makers dont get penalized by being excluded from searches, right? you want to make it so that all filters get at least a casual look. i dont think that's viable. we've got 2500+ filters and growing. to make everyone using FF look at ALL of the filters before they can download even one would be prohibitive. if you look at just one category, some of those categories now have hundreds of filters. even that gets prohibitive and sluggish. as a filter USER i want to be able to find the cream, the really good filters. as a filter maker, i want to be able to see it all. but as either type, i want to be able to find what i want and find it without having to spend a day in the library itself.

i really dont think new filter makers are going to be hurt that much by keeping those criteria available and the good of them certainly outweighs the bad in this case. i'm afraid it's just going to be one of those things that as more and more filters are accepted into the library that new filter makers are going to have a harder and harder time earning rewards. it's a numbers game. i started out with the library being very small. so, i'm only fighting a one in a hundred type situation of having my filter looked at. now, it's a one in thousands. and later it will only get worse for new filter makers. that's just a fact of numbers.

and maybe that's your point, that new filter makers shld be given a priority in searches for just that reason. but i find that unfair to the person actually wanting to find, download and use a filter. and that's why i say it's counter-productive to FF to limit the criteria. filter USE is also what will make FF grow. and yes, i understand that new filters help expand that growth as well, but if you stifle filter use, it wont matter how many folks make new, great filters, FF would die eventually because nobody would want to chop through the forest to find the gold.

if i have to spend a half hour in the library looking for that one filter, especially if i'm a commercial enterprise, i might well turn to other resources after a few times of doing this. it just becomes tedious LOOKING for resources instead of actually using them.

now, one way to augment that, is to also fix the FF internal searching and organizing. i download 2500 filters, delete the ones i'm not interested in and organize the ones i am into a more accessible order and there ya go. subsequent searching becomes quicker.

you could also add a user rating system to the library, the good old 'rate this filter from 1 to 10' type system and display that and allow searches based on that. that might also help. i know when i go to some place like Tucows (a file sharing site) looking for files, i often use that rating system to determine what i'll download. in that system, you are presented with ALL of the files that meet your original search criteria and then you can look at all of those on a page and also see their rating. no reason that cant be done here, too.

i dont want to discourage new filter makers. i just dont want to discourage filter use, either. both need promoting.

Quote
Andrew B. wrote: To do this it would have to create a local database of filters that are not downloaded, and then allow the user to add to it via browser clicks and popups to add tags

Exactly, each person's program would save the info tags.....which is pretty basic programming.....and would be just like a log file. Personally, I would just like to see something simple like "Add to Favorites" and "Omit from further search" quick options.....then be able to organize your favorites something like Internet explorer.....without having to download the filters.....which also seems to slow the program down having more filters in your FF folders.....

Hey Craig, we meet again I agree that serious users should not be bogged down and burried with having to wade through hundreds of "quickies" to find a quality filter to do the job right. I think that we see eye-to-eye on all the issues except for adding search criteria by high usage, rewards, and Editor's Picks....

My point is that there is no need to COMPLETELY block the gates with existing high usage, rewarded, and Editor's Pick filters.....and that's exactly what I think that search criteria would do. It would be different if high usage, rewards, and Editor's Pick's were totally unbiased.....but they are not.....

In alot of cases, high usage can be attained by "salesmanship" and putting effort into making them visable.....alot of times over other filters that had no promotional effort and are actually the more useful filters. In other instances, I've seen alot of exceptional "theme" filters by very talented authors quickly become high usage just because of the author's popularity.....when in reality, the filter is extremely limitted in its' applications in comparison to hundreds of other filters that don't have high usage and are much more useful with a much wider range of applications. I can't count the number of times I've seen extremely limitted high usage filters and scratched my head to who would be actually using them unless they had some really specific advertising need or something.....

Editor's Pick's are chosen by someone at Filter Forge as flagship works to promote the possibilities and potential of their software.....it's biased by FF for promotional intent.....and by no means does it denote the more useful filters.....so why add them as search criteria.....especially when they are already manipulated to be at the top of certain search terms.....

I mean absolutely no offense to talented authors or degradation to any of their works.....I'm just making a case against implementing that search criteria. There are alot of exceptional filters by extremely talented authors.....which get all kinds of downloads, recognition, glory, attention, high usage, rewards, usually made Editor's Picks before anyone has a chance to download them, and placed at the top of corresponding search terms even if it was the last filter a user would be looking for under that term. As I stated, I think that anything further in this regard would be outright overkill at the expense of needlessly putting up more barriers for new filtermakers to overcome.....

Personally, I would stop submitting filters if this became any more of a popularity contest where the front lines of FF were completely dominated and clogged by the filters of the most popular and talented authors.....no matter how usable.....and no one else is given the same chance that alot of us were given up to this point. I'm okay with a competitive spirit to make better quality filters, but I'm not okay with this becoming elitist.....because it would no longer be fun and personally rewarding to share my work in an environment like that....

As I said before, I have no special interest in this other than to see FF grow while retaining the open and inviting environment that makes it so special.....and such an excellent place to share and mold my work.....

That's my 12 cents worth.....I'll shut my pie hole and say no more

Quote
Andrew B. wrote: So how would this work? The person would click on "Open in Filter Forge" and then there would be a choice to record the filter name without downloading?

I was thinking that while a user was logged in and looking at filters in the library, there would be two new option buttons; "Add to Favorites" and "Omit from Future Searches" that would be registered like their user preferences or profile under either their account.....which would accompany a user every time they logged into the library. Then each user could have their own "Organize Favorites" tools like Internet Explorer.....where they could manage their own quick access to library filters without having to have them downloaded or go through a search again to find them.....

Really the same principle as managing links on your internet browser with the added option of blocking unwanted links from your searches.....

As a user, I thought this would work nicely to create customized quick access to filters.....since you can't manage or expand your FF folders......it becomes a pain to find things having to scroll thru alot of filters in one file......and having alot of downloaded filters slows down your program.....

On a tangent...
Seems often it's one of the variations that I use. I'd suggest, whatever the categorizing / searching methods, displaying (as an option?) say four or five variants of each filter rather than just the default. Yes, four or five time more rows to scroll through, but isn't that faster than downloading many possibles to see how widely they can be tweaked?

Yeah its preaty arrogant for us to debate FF policy it is their program after all
though I do realize that customer feedback is always a plus lets face it we are a skewed and narrow selection to truly represent the client base

steve,

of everything you've said, i pretty much agree. the ONLY part i dont like is this:

Quote
.....be forced to explore and feel out for themselves

that's all. so, we're pretty much in agreement. it's just that one point. so, ok.

ultimately, we're not going to decide this ourselves, anyways. i've said my piece. you've said yours. that the two dont quite meet up, why ok. so, if there's a way to showcase ALL filters but still have the searches like i suggested, that would be optimum. not sure we can, but, oh well.

oh, just had a thought on this. what if you did allow the searches like i suggested, but, for those 3 categories, you also slipped in some others, either on a random basis or by 'most recent' or whatever. would that satisfy things?

Well, as we've all discovered (if we didn't already know), while we may not be all that annoyed at the current library format, we seem to all have ideas about how it could be working way better, and just making those known, was worth any "tense-ness" this subject caused I think. We can end it now, or people can continue to post ideas for improvements and discuss them, but maybe we should try to avoid too much ground that has already been covered from here on out. Ie = new ideas only please ? (And for the record, I did hear some good ideas for ways to search/organize the filters, so even I have to sit back and go hmm, maybe that would work better than my idea.)

jffe

ok.

Oh, I get it now.....very good idea!!!

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: only a fraction of all FF users out there take the time to browse the forums on a regular basis, absorbing discussions, work-in-progress posts and filter 'marketing hype' in detail

I don't think that's true. I've run a couple of little experiments to test this "theory". I've let some of my submitted filters drift by without any attention (no sample pics, comment's, etc.) and they get very few downloads.....I let some time go by, started posting sample pics and engaging in comment feedback in the comment string which keeps the filter at the top of the comment string and visable.....then I get 20 or 30 downloads on it overnight. The same thing has happened when I've gone back and bumped some of my older filters the same way. So I can only conclude that there are alot more users viewing the forum than just us few "geeks" and "little flashlights"

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: A filter that noticeably sparkles & glitters among its peers in the Filter Library will certainly get the attention it deserves, regardless of any 'marketing hype' and 'author popularity'

Again, I don't think that's true. I think that an author's popularity automatically makes any filter they create 'sparkle & glitter amonst its peers' and already have built-in 'marketing hype' no matter how useful the filter is in comparison to other filters. Although popularity can be well deserved upon an author's outstanding talents, it doesn't mean that their filters are the most useful. I think that the current system is already set up to reward and guide users to talented filtermakes.....and I just think that over-doing it would create too much of an imbalance.....

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: Ultimately, it's the quality that matters!

I think that there are two distict catagories for what is a "quality" filter.....quality in showcasing an author's talents.....and quality of usefulness. I think that one of the biggest misconceptions here is that a filter which shows an author's exceptional talents is considered "better quality" than a more useful simple filter that does not show as much talant to make.....

Dilla, please don't take any offense to any of this. I think you are one of the most talented filtermakers here.....if not "the" most talented one. I think you have alot of very useful filters.....your popularity and rewards are more than well deserved.....and you know that I've applauded it all along.....even though you have never commented on any of my filters.....ya bastard!!! just kidding

Bottom line.....I just have some concerns about it being "overdone" to create obstacles for new talent.....that's all!!!

Quote
jffe wrote: getting 200 downloads won't automatically make your filter high-usage

very true!!! I've seen some new authors create many quick filters thinking that the numbers will get them the free copy.....create dummy accounts to stack up downloads on their filters.....and even use dummy accounts for commenting on their own filters to make them visable in the comments string....

I don't know if it is possible, but I would like to see a system where new authors don't feel compelled to do things like that.....and feel like they can take their time to create a unique and useful quality filters. I think that the time restriction on the demo has alot to do with all the "quickies" that get submitted......especially with those who want the program and can't afford it.....so they resort to those means.....

This comes full-cirle to my concerns about creating further barriers for new filtermakers here.....

LOL.... Well, kinda if you can afford the program

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: StevieJ wrote: ...even though you have never commented on any of my filters.....ya bastard!!! Wink Big grin just kidding Smile Crapadilla wrote: I haven't?! ... *nervously fumbles through his notes* ... Ah well then... just do a little one-trick-pony and I'm gonna be right at it!

I think you have.....I was just fooling around If you haven't, well, I'll take it as a challenge to make a more "worthy" filter.....

Quote

StevieJ wrote: I don't know if it is possible, but I would like to see a system where new authors don't feel compelled to do things like that.....and feel like they can take their time to create a unique and useful quality filters. I think that the time restriction on the demo has alot to do with all the "quickies" that get submitted......especially with those who want the program and can't afford it.....so they resort to those means.....

This appears to be a very accurate observation. I'm not sure what a good solution would be to the problem of the 'quicky' flood though. Extend the trial period beyond 90 days, but watermark all output of the demo after those 90 days?

Quote
Redcap wrote: I think the only problem with the "samely" filters is that hard core Filter Forgers like us get worried that our good filters will get lost in the crowd.

----I wouldn't say that even figures in to my p.o.v., I simply don't care if anyone sees my filters, and don't need to, already got my copy of FF (and how many long-time/harcore filter makers don't have a copy by now, like maybe 1 or 2 at the most, if that ?). And if I'm bored or feeling under-appreciated or whatever, I can always post about a filter on the forums, my own filter even, under my own name even. I just got tired of seeing 9 out of 10 of the same old same old the last couple months in the new filters page, and wading through all the copies and pointless stuff to find something worth checking out when I had time to stop and do so.
----Rearranging the library might very well help things, but unless they are going to severly restrict what gets posted online here with it's own page etc., then it's not going to do much good really. Maybe they'll get it sorted out by v2.0, and if I'm still around trying to get a free copy of that one, then I can get some filters rejected and feel like they are actually paying attention, anything less, is just a crowded clusterhump no matter how many categories. Going from 2600 filters and 15 categories, to 2600 filters and 2200 categories with 1 or 2 filters in each won't help obviously, and inbetween, well, like what 2600 filters and 200 categories with 13 filters each ? Still no good, more than 20-30 categories and I'm just yawning, like where's the good stuff, cause that's the bottom line.
----Maybe there is nothing wrong with the library and the high usage rankings, maybe the trick is simply to not bother looking for, or using any "new" filters for 90-120 days, give things a chance to settle down, and let the crap sink away from view. Then only shop by popularity rankings, and let the world sort it out. Too bad that doesn't work for Google and they are supposedly the best search engine on the computernet, how many sites out of 10 for anything even remotely normal, aren't just storefronts trying to sell you something maybe vaguely related to your search terms, or fake search engines trying to bombard you with pop ups ? Answer = About 1 or 2 if yer lucky. Anyways, an improved library sorting system sounds better than letting more stuff pile up and make FF look bad, and I'll be more than willing to give it a go when it's done.

jffe

<insert sounds of Crapadilla's fruity cyborg platoon not snoring in the mid-day heat>