Welcome to Fractal Forums

Instead of adding their images to the appropriate sub-category under the current competition, they were entered in under the main competition group:

  http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;cat=36

FractalWoman's AquaBuddha
   http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=2144

Bent-Winged Angel's SPIRITS IN THE NIGHT
   http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=2167

Tried to Move them, but does not seem to be a way to do that.
 

have you pm'ed them ?

I'd suggest Trifox simply move them (which he should be able to do as root). The Buddhabrot into either Fractal Fun or Mandelbrot and the other into Mandelbrot.

In the meantime I've noticed a few issues elsewhere:

1. Someone entered six images or so into the same area. Moving some to another category where they fit may be kinder than disqualifying them all.

2. Some of the ones in the Mandelbrot character appear to be multilayer or misplaced. Again, they might be better moved than disqualified, if their authors don't have too many already in another category.

3. Sometime last night or early this morning someone apparently gave nearly everything one-star ratings for no apparent logical reason.

4. The rules for the Mandelbrot category are slightly vague. "Color schemes can not overexagerate[sic]!"? If a similar category is used in the future I suggest a simple restriction: z² + c (or maybe zⁿ + c?), solid inside color (any solid color), and outside color must be a consistent map of smoothed iteration value to color-space. (Integer iteration based coloring, and solid outside coloring, are special cases of this.) Perhaps even have two categories like this, one for deepzooms and one for shallow zooms/any location.

Just my opinion of course.

It's a bit late to change the Mandelbrot rules, but those with too many entries should be given the chance to delete or move the extras, else I'd suggest keeping only the first 3, and deleting the rest.

As for our mystery "One Star Rater" - I can assure you it was not malicious!  I looked, and it is a trusted, long-standing member.  Just one with very discerning tastes and who has seen quite a lot.  It's not easy to impress that person   :o   I assume that the voting is supposed to be anonymous, so I'll leave it at that...

i am kinda in holiday, you have a list of these 2xtriple entries ? :police:

I can't now find six by one author in one area, oddly enough. But I found four by "gandreas" in Mandelbrot with only one by him in Fractal Fun, so I suggest moving one of his four Mandelbrot Entries to Fractal Fun, where he has "room for two more" within the rules.

Obviously. I meant to suggest that those rules be used next time there's such a category.

Maybe...but also maybe you underestimate what it's possible to do in UF within only 1 layer using coloring classes.

Nope, do not like using the Forum's PM function.  (Which is why I usually ignore messages sent to me through that means).    ;D
 

That is because there was not six entered altogether by a single person in one category.  What you saw was six entries being made by the same person, one right after another.  But, they were three in Mandelbrot and three in the Fun sections.

At first glance it just appeared to be all in one area.
 

One problem here is that we would need to demand the parameter file to verify such a claim.

The other problem is that the rules did not say anything about using the equivalent of "special effects" plug-ins on the single layered Mandelbrot image.  Something that the UF graphic editor is famous for.
 

Their logic and reasoning is definitely not the same as what you might have, since you were unable to fathom it.

But it could be something as simple as feeling that everybody that made an entry deserved at least a single star for their effort, instead of some not getting any at all.

Or maybe they would rather not show a lot of favoritism to specific images, people, or applications used.  (Though there will be a lot of that going on anyway, seeing how many non-contributing Members, some that have not logged on in many months, have now logged in again for the voting process.)    :evil1:

Or it could be some other reason that only they feel is apparently logical.    ;D

And besides, I do believe it is their right to vote as they see fit, and not have somebody try and control what, how, and why they vote.
 

The conditions and/or rules have been posted for public viewing since March 25, 2010.  There was plenty of time to make such suggestions at the beginning of the competition.  Why wait until it is too late to come forward with these observations ??
 

Let me repeat this one more time. I was suggesting something that might be tried next year. Obviously it's too late to change anything like that this year -- so anyone apparently thinking I meant this year either is insulting my intelligence or is insulting their own, I'm not sure which.

And do I detect a note of hostility toward me in a couple of your other posts in this sudden blitzkrieg you've launched in this thread today?

hey, these suggestions will be taken into account ( next year ;) ),
and i have stated in another thread that it is a fun competition with relatively "low" prices
i think we have sorted out some wrong posts, thank you all for contributing!

I think maybe you mistake Pauls bluntness for hostility. You can always trust him not to mince his words or pussy foot around any issues but I'm sure he means you no malice.

I for one like his direct attitude, if your looking for an honest opinion he is the one to go to!!

IMO, bluntness does not masquerade as hostility so much as it simply makes what hostility may be there more overt and less covert. But this is veering far from the original topic.

As the other "offender"  :) I suppose I should weigh in.  As Pauldelbrot stated rules can be vague/ ambiguous.

Soo as to not be ostrascised for making a mistake, being that I have had several ambiguous warnings in the short time I have been here.  :hurt: I figured I would let the "powers that be" choose the cattagory.  Which BTW I thought that's what the thread I put my image in was for.  The thread was there without explaation.. BTW what was the purpose of that thread?   :hmh: