I don\'t understand the voting on here

[Dagorlad]

Hi, I\'m new to this site and have posted what I consider to be my best model yet:

http://www.coolminiornot.com/107315

and its currently been voted around 5.4 - which, according to the scale, is \"tabletop quality\"

Somehow I seem to have offended someone and they have rated it extremely low. I don\'t mean to sound arrogant or egotistical, but I\'ve been told by several people that the model is actually one of the best scratchbuilt versions of Weathertop around.

What is the etiquette for posting here? Am I doing something wrong? Should I have left my name and/or the title off the image? Should I have rated it low/middle myself and then let everyone else vote for it?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

 

[Sonnyslayer]

it only have 6 votes.. so i wouldnt worry

 

[finn17]

You can\'t make any sensible judgement...

...until your piece gets at least 50 votes. I like it and gave it a nine.

 

[Naukhel]

That\'s true. Votes don\'t count toward your standing until you have 50 votes on the mini. And you don\'t get a standing until 5 minis have 50 votes each.

And don\'t worry too much about the votes you do get. If you search the forum for the word \'sniping\', you\'ll see that a lot of people have been short-voted for whatever reason.

Be proud of your work (I gave it an 8), and when there\'s comments left on it, decide for yourself whether they\'re useful or not.

For myself, I\'m a consistant 5-6 painter, looking to improve, so I want comments more than I want votes.

 

[bayrodney]

If you notice your great weathertop is getting higher votes

its now at 7.6: i gave it an 8


i am not being sarcastic by they way
That wasnt sarcastic either
[size=-1]Or That[/size]

 

[Dagorlad]

Thanks for the explanation folks. I know that 5 or 6 votes is far too small a small sample set to really get an accurate figure, but I wasn\'t aware that there was occasional \'sniping\' here and so wondered if I had done something wrong.

I noticed that hardly any images had user\'s names on them and I was wondering if I had broken some unwritten rule or something.

 

[Ogrebane]

Its up to 7.8 I gave it an 8. For scratch built thats pretty good work.

 

[supervike]

The pics are a bit hard to make out close detail, but it is obviously worth more than \'tabletop\'.

But, like the others said, its on an upward crawl.

Looks good!

 

[Dragonsreach]

Well to understand the voting you have you look at the overall bias of the painters on here.

Historical miniatures don\'t seem to earn enough respect. (Which is a shame cos there\'s some really fine pieces shown).

Terrain also doesn\'t get as high a status as perhaps it should. Which is also a shame cos there\'s a lot of effort gone into pieces of accurate terrain.

Single miniatures get the highest accolades.

As for your rendition of Weathertop.........Very nice and I\'ve voted accordingly. It seems very faithful to the layout in the movie, even down to the stairs. It must have taken you a fair old while to do it. Kudos to you.


Edit: You are currently sat at 8.6 which is a very respectable score.

 

[Einion]

Really impressive work Dagorlad, I gave it an 8, could easily rate a 9 with better painting.

Einion

 

[dauber22]

The voting here remains a mystery to most everyone so don\'t feel bad. You\'re fitting right in with the majority.

Really nice terrain piece and currently voted up to a much more representative score. Welcome to the wild and whacky world of CMON.

 

[Maori]

Very nice work!
Here\'s a list of youre \'mistakes\':
It doesn\'t say \'GW\' , \'Rackham\', or \'Reaper\' in the title.
There are no bare-breasted females visible.
You do not use magic words like \'NMM\' (or, better yet, \'SENMM\'), \'Golden Demon\', \'Games Day\', \'\'Eavy Metal\' (shouldn\'t that be \'me\'al\'?), or any of the \'Warhammer\' trademarks, like \'Empire\', \'Skaven\', \'...of Tzeentch\', etc. etc.
Nobody is mounted on a giant monster, or standing on a base that is higher than the model itself.
You didn\'t photoshop the picture into a Warhol-esque collage of front/rear/side views with close-ups of gems, bare bottoms, cleavages, eyeballs that would be hard to paint that way on a lifesize model.
You\'re probably not one of the site in-crowd.

These things do not necessarily get you higher votes in and of themselves, but they sure do attract attention, yeah, boy howdy.....

 

[Dragon Forge Design]

Well your up around 8.4 now closeing in on 50 votes. Pretty respectable for a first post. Its a very nice piece, just doesnt have that wow factor that most people need to get 9-10\'s total score..but you must be getting more high votes to ofset the low ones.

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by Maori
Very nice work!
Here\'s a list of youre \'mistakes\':
...
You didn\'t photoshop the picture into a Warhol-esque collage of front/rear/side views with close-ups of gems, bare bottoms, cleavages, eyeballs that would be hard to paint that way on a lifesize model.

What\'s wrong with giving the viewer a closer look at the details of the work? Especially if they are done well and worth looking at.

You\'re probably not one of the site in-crowd.

Which in-crowd is that, the very good painters, or the people who frequently post to the forums?

I think the problem with this piece was that people missed the fact that it was scratchbuilt. It resembles a precast resin terrain piece, which would be somewhat less impressive. You should add more of a \"blurb\" describing how it was made.

 

[freakinacage]

i think the main let down is the picture quality. the piece itself looks as if it could be a 9 but it\'s hard to tell. it is very well contructed and very well painted. it is true that terrain recieves crap votes here. and it does look like a pre cast piece. take that as a compliment!

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by Maori
Very nice work!
Here\'s a list of youre \'mistakes\':
It doesn\'t say \'GW\' , \'Rackham\', or \'Reaper\' in the title.
There are no bare-breasted females visible.
You do not use magic words like \'NMM\' (or, better yet, \'SENMM\'), \'Golden Demon\', \'Games Day\', \'\'Eavy Metal\' (shouldn\'t that be \'me\'al\'?), or any of the \'Warhammer\' trademarks, like \'Empire\', \'Skaven\', \'...of Tzeentch\', etc. etc.
Nobody is mounted on a giant monster, or standing on a base that is higher than the model itself.
You didn\'t photoshop the picture into a Warhol-esque collage of front/rear/side views with close-ups of gems, bare bottoms, cleavages, eyeballs that would be hard to paint that way on a lifesize model.
You\'re probably not one of the site in-crowd.

These things do not necessarily get you higher votes in and of themselves, but they sure do attract attention, yeah, boy howdy.....

Ok, I\'m no expert, but that smells alot like sarcasm...
:duh:

 

[Einion]

Originally posted by freakinacage
...and it does look like a pre cast piece. take that as a compliment!

Aye!

Einion

 

[Trevor]

Yeah, thats what I thought too, would have been a 6 in that case, then saw the scratchbuilt bit, went up to 8-9. However, the pic is not great and its hard to see what the painting is like, still awesome scratchbuilding.

 

[Dagorlad]

This is all excellent feedback folks thanks.

Yes, its scratchbuilt, and yes its very similar to Forgeworld\'s piece, but thats because both of them were based on the actual movie set and so the similarities are inevitable.

The tips about photography (close ups etc), I will take on board for my future submissions.

(And I will make sure to include a semi-naked Wood-Elf warrior princess astride a massive Chaos Beast carrying a huge NMM piece of hardware, on my next work).

 

[Ogrebane]

I think dagorlad wins the prize for sarcasm. Welcome to the forums you will fit in quite well I think. And nice job on the mini as well.