Forum:Featured Pictures

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Featured Pictures
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4016 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Uncyc's overall quality has been increasing. But we still have some very crappy pictures on the main page. I think is time to arise VFP and PFP too. Proposal:

  1. Don't feature any picture bleow a +12 score.
  2. Take down those alredy featured which are below a +12 score.
  3. Feature a new picture every four days instead of every three days. So to give time for the really good ones to show up at VFP.

---Asteroid B612B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Berate this photo...

For --Atomsk.gif Kaizer the Bjorn takkun Takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 21:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, some of the good pictures have low votes and will be culled, while some rubbish ones have high votes. We should just remind everyone that the archive is there and can still be voted on. FreeMorpheme 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Once something has already been featured, it tends not to attract many votes, either for or against. Such is the nature of the process, it gets nominated, it gets votes, it either gets featured or gets forgotten. The process then effectively ends, with PFP being just another of a brazillion minor discussion pages that no one often uses.
Whether this would be any different if the process were automated and every original image was always open to voting? Dunno. There is plenty of software out there for "rate this" or "vote on this image"-like functions (the "(be)rate this photo" at right is a screenshot from the Joomla-comHotorNot2 app, which is under a free license.) What would it take to adapt this sort of system to our uses? --Carlb 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been using +8 as the lower limit for featured images. Raising that to, say, +10 wouldn't bother me at all. As for older images, setting the limit at +6 would currently cut out 13 images and +8 would cut out 27. I don't know if we'd want to go much higher than that (but I fully endorse a somewhat stricter PFP cutoff). —rc (t) 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Score: 0
Personal tools