Interestingness - Top 500 (READ THE RULES!) / Discuss

Picture This1 ( Finding my Zen)    says:

Oh I know computers do amazing things I work for one of the largest computer company’s in the world lol. I am saying that a computer can’t see a picture. Yes they can take information such as tags key words that have been programmed in and pick what gets in the top 500.All I ask was how a picture goes from #19 and drops clear off the 500 and then a hour later shows back up.I understand about gamming the systom and why this would take place and maybe that is why mine never made it because it had

Viewed 1966 times.
75 favs
125 comments


I can see why the computer would think this has been manipulated to get to the top but why keep taking it off and putting it back on.

www.flickr.com/photos/36081663@N00/108741947/

Sorry if I have upset you it was just something I had wondered about
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Yolise    says:

I am saying that a computer can’t see a picture.

I'm fairly sure that no one has ever suggested that it works this way.

The reason photos drop in and out is very likely because Flickr wants them to and so has created a system that is volatile by design.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Picture This1 ( Finding my Zen)    says:

You might want to reread some of this because you did make it sound like there was a computer that could do this.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Yolise    says:

Could you provide a quote or a link to a specific post so I know how not to confuse people in error in future?
Originally posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )
Yolise edited this topic 46 months ago.

caitlinburke    says:

I thought she was pretty clear, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of us feel like this has been discussed to death. Interestingness uses data stored in the database in the regular course of managing the site, and uses a combination of traffic and weighting factors to make decisions about what to add.

yolise speculates that the dropping in and out of images on Interestingness is designed it; I have opined that it has more to do with hiccups and tracking methods.

All in all, though, I think this subthread is an outstanding example of why the numerical ranking within the top 500 is so problematic.
Originally posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )
caitlinburke edited this topic 46 months ago.

SilentObserver    says:

yolise is right.
We are randomizing top500 a bit to show more photos from different people.
And, once again, explore pages are not for ranking, but to display some photos that may be interesting for Flickr users at this moment.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Yolise    says:

All in all, though, I think this subthread is an outstanding example of why the numerical ranking within the top 500 is so problematic.

Indeed. And reading backward as suggested, I realise I said I was bored and wouldn't post anymore. So I lied. ;-)
Originally posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )
Yolise edited this topic 46 months ago.

caitlinburke    says:

SilentObserver, as long as you number that list, there will be endless comments reflecting ranking anxiety.

And yolise: no jury would convict you, no worries.
Originally posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )
caitlinburke edited this topic 46 months ago.

Picture This1 ( Finding my Zen)    says:

Silent thank you
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Yolise    says:

Thanks Caitlin. Seems people just can't stand to be corrected, poor lambs. And I try to use smileys and everything! ;-)
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Picture This1 ( Finding my Zen)    says:

Your funny V you really are
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Foto Buff says:

Wow that took more than half an hour to digest. I just want to add my two cents as to how I feel about all of this.

This formula thing has alot of feathers ruffled and I don't think that you can ever run an algorithm to satisfy all. I've been with flickr for 5 months now and have never been bitten by the Explore bug. I find the community, my choice contacts and the sharing aspect of site more important than kudos from an alogorithm run by a computer. Yeah it's nice but who cares? There are plenty of groups that showcase great shots and hey if a poster makes them there by qualification of that group (if there are rules)then they may get their shot of glory they are looking for.

I find that there is so much to do on flickr that I barely have enought time to cover my contacts, the groups I've created and the groups that I want to participate in let alone worry if my picture is on Interestingness or Explore. I have 7 groups I've created with three of them being what would be call cross-over groups. I belong to far too many groups already and find myself only posting to and or participating in only a few. I'm tempted to quit many groups for that reason. I get invited to at least 10 or more groups a month.

I think I'm modest in my addiction to flickr and have about 140 contacts that I comment on their photos on a semi-regular basis. I've posted 398 pics so far and enjoy all the feedback that I get. I'm growing slowly on flickr and only have so much time to share with everyone. I get red eyes and lots of grief from the wife about the time I'm spending already.

I have never thought of using this site as a method of getting my picture on Interestingness or the Explore page by sending to many groups or have a gazillion contacts. Maybe some do and if so then so be it. We all have our own agendas when it comes to what we want out of flickr, so let the bits and bytes fall where they may and keep the hiccups to a minimum.

I think you are doing a great job no matter what formula you use. There are alot of good suggestions for impovements. Sorry I don't have any time to make my own. I'll have to leave it to you guys. Thanks and spend my money wisely.

A flickr fan.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

Lindsay Beyerstein    says:

It would be great if there were an Interestingness penalty for posting to multiple groups with a high percentage of photographs in common.

Currently, the incentive is to post the same picture to as many similar groups as possible, provided that your total number of groups doesn't exceed existing the penalty threshold.

As someone who really likes groups, it's frustrating to have to belong to "Food" and "Foodies" and "Yummy" and "Food Photos" and "Yummy Food Photos" and "Yummy Photos of Food for Foodies" in order to keep up with all the latest foodporn.

I'm using this example because I seldom post food photographs but I consume them voraciously. It's frustrating to have to check multiple groups when there's an 80% overlap between them.
Posted 46 months ago. ( permalink )

SF buckaroo says:

my apologies if this has been mentioned already, or if it's done already, but it seems like the interestingness machine should check whether anyone has actually looked at the image from within the group to which the image has been posted.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Acme Explosives    says:

Interesting. I've noticed that I had two images posted on Intrestingness. The day I posted them to the group Apex, and they disappeared from Explore almost instantly. It was mentioned above that the fact that if a photo is in too many groups it will be removed from Explore. (there is some nice logic to that thought) However, these pictures of mine that disappeared....were only in three groups that I knew of.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

acampm1    says:

Too group/tag dependant.

I think I probabaly have the measure of the group end of the algorythm now. I like playing the explore game - it is just like chess, and people seem to like the shots, so why not?

Point - it damages the Fun Of Flickr by not allowing ENOUGH groups and tags. I follow the logic of discouraging massive spamming, but once my shots have been invited into a few "prestige" invite only groups I don't have any allowance left for groups that relate to the subject.

So, good shots are either not hitting explore where people might like to see them, or if the poster is keen to get in explore, not hitting the groups where people might like to see them.

Same goes for tags.

Examples: I have one of a pretty sailing ship. It has been invited into various "presitge" groups, and well meaning people have given it group related tags. Now, if I want to keep it high in explore, and I do, it can't go in anything to with the area or the subject matter, nor can I tag it.

Anyone searching to find pictures of Bom Successo, Olhao (where it is a landmark), Sailing Ships or Algarve is going to be missing out on a good quality relevant shot, as will anyone looking in the Algarve, Ships Of Sail or Ports HArbours and Moorings groups, because although the shot obviously should have those tags and be in those groups providing the tags and adding to the groups drops it ~ 300 places in explore.

Good idea, but IMHO you have gone Too Far.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

Brenda Anderson    says:

Just a quick response. If I'm looking for a good shot of a sailing ship (in your example), I'd be much more likely to look in a sailing ship group than in one of the "prestige" groups that you mention. It's your choice whether you want people to see your photo in those "unrelated subject matter" groups or in the Explore pages. I don't really see the logic, then, in your statement

So, good shots are either not hitting explore where people might like to see them, or if the poster is keen to get in explore, not hitting the groups where people might like to see them.

acampm1    says:

I think to understand my point you have to grasp that the interests of the viewer and the photographer do not match.

As a viewer, I want to find relevant photos.

As a photographer I want encouragement in the form of friendly comments and a nice high explore rating.

If you are going to go stay in the Algarve and visit Olhao you might well go looking on Flickr for stunning locations and interesting sights to see.

It would be in your interests, as a viewer, to find that the Bom Successo is a stunning sailing ship that sits in the lovely Olhao harbour, and has smouldering sunsets behind it if you stay up the marina end.

The photographer doesn't care one way or the other about your holiday.

Once upon a time had you looked in the Algarve pool, or seached on the Olhao, you'd have found out. Now you won't, because the photographer won't have tagged it "Olhao" or posted it to the Algarve group, because to do dumps his precious picture down the charts.

As more and more people twig that groups and tags are bad for the explore rating, and hence tagging and posting reduces the number of views they get, the less they tag and post, and Flickr becomes less and less useful as a resource.

I certainly notice. Where once I'd have queried tags if I wanted to see useful photos, now I Google.

I'm all for discoraging group proliferation and spamming. The basic idea of penalising over-tagged and over-posted photos is spot in. However, in my view the actual numbers are too radical - Photos are not in the relavant groups and no longer have sensible tags.
Originally posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )
acampm1 edited this topic 44 months ago.

Barry Wallis says:

@acampm1: You assume that most photographers find it important to be ranked high in Explore. I think you may be mistaken there, although I do understand it is important to you. We may miss your photos, which would be a shame, but there are plenty of others.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

SilentObserver    says:

As more and more people twig that ... tags are bad for the explore rating

This is incorrect.
Number of tags doesn't affect interestingness of photos negatively.


PS I'm developing interestingness algorithms in Flickr.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

Steve Webel    says:

The fact that the # of groups affects it, regardless of if tags affect it, is a serious flaw in the 'algorithm' if you ask me.

Is this done just to ease the stress on flickr's resources as has been suggested here and in other discussion threads?
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

acampm1    says:

Thanks Silent Observer - good to hear.

But I'm baffled now.

I did a load of beach modeling shots in March - a new departure for me, because one of the joys of photography is that it is a chance to do things that don't require the co-operation of others.

They got viewed and favourited, propped into explore and invariably dropped out the next day, for good.

I liked them, the model liked them, but I began to lose faith in them, stopped bothering, and returned to my old style.

I didn't know you'd changed the algorythm.

A couple of months later I was looking through and thought "that's crazy - these have 1000+ views, a good number of faves, loads of comments, they aren't dodgy or in any dodgy groups, how come explore hates them?"

The only difference I could see from my normal shots was the number of tags - because they were technically quite interesting I'd tagged them up with the equipment, location, model, photographer (some done by my partner), etc etc.

I cut the tags on one down to location and model and it came back in at 24. Did the rest and they all came in (except one, for some reason).

So you can see why I reckoned tag numbers mucked it up.

I'd love to know what the hell that was all about then!

In the meantime I need to go creeping back round my model - you don't want to give her a call for me do you? :-)

By the way I have to say that interestingness does work really well - you undoubtedly get 450 or so excellent photos, which is amazing without human intervention. I'd love to know what parameters you actually have available. I used to assume you had access to things like time viewed and number of downloads (hence my feeling that my model shots disappearing out of explore was actually telling me that people weren't very interested and were just quickly clicking in in the hope that she was wearing less than it appeared on the thumbnail) but 'm starting to get the feel you actually have fairly little to go on.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

acampm1    says:

@ Webel Photography

IMHO it was getting mad out there. Near identical groups were profilerating like crazy and shots were being put into anything that sounded even vaguely right.

That was annoying for the users because:

1) They kept seeing the same photos in every group, which is really boring.

2) If you were playing the game, you had to waste ages posting photos into a huge number of groups.

3) If you were actually looking for something specific, you had to check about fifteen identical groups, full of photos of very marginal relevance.

I think the current system is much better. My only gripe is it seem to be TOO tight. But that might be something to do with MY stream, I don't know. I can only say in my case if a photo gets invited to Spectacular X, Best of Y, and Selected Z, plus I put it in thegroup for my immediate circle, that leaves me one or two other groups I can put it in before it drops like a stone. And one or two doesn't actually cover it.
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

JuanJ    says:

Which groups are considered irrevilant or bad to post too? What about these groups:

1-2-3.....3-2-1.....etc
ViewXXX
FavXXX
Flickrworld, Nation, etc
Wow

thanks,

Juanj

Also, does SFW = Safe For Work?

& What is the easiest/painless way to remove your pix from a lot of groups?
Originally posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )
JuanJ edited this topic 44 months ago.

OneEighteen    says:

I just read the entire thread (whew). It seems to me that the algorithm might be trying to do several incompatable things -- or at least people expect at least three incompatable things from the algorithm.

a. "Explore" is what I'm reading from the Flickr staff and many posters. They enjoy a site where one can experience the variety of postings to Flickr. The emphasis is on diversity and the ability to find new photographers that you might not otherwise be aware of. I personally look at "Explore" with the idea of a random walk through Flickr that has been weighted somehow to give me a selection of higher quality photos. I had thought initially that it was the best of the photos submitted that day but I realized early on that that wasn't the case. Having read the thread I have a better understanding of why that is and appreciate the democratic intent behind it. I think the algorithm does a great job at this.

b. "Interestingness" seems to be a more singular quality. Many people want to know how "interesting" their photo is considered by other people -- synonymous with "popular". This is an easy thing to do and I suspect might be a bit shallow...as one writer put it "titties and kitties."

c. Others want to go to a site where they can see the best of the photos posted that day so they can have an juried/edited aesthetic experience and perhaps learn how to make their own photos better. The algorithm doesn't do so well here and this appears to be the source of dissatisfaction.

Why does there have to be just one algorithm? Couldn't Flickr split the Explore, Popularity, and Best Photo functions? Of course some photographers would come to be very prominent in the second two groups; but while I enjoy Exploring for new things, I'd also like to learn from and compete with the best of Flickr in an open competition in the third group.

You say that a computer can't make aesthetic judgements and that is certainly true, but an algorithm could be designed (or taken out of the current algorithm) to determine popularity, views/favorites ratio, # of favorites, etc and (the hard part) find a group of users with good taste (I told you that would be the hard part) who would be jurors (names and number unknown even to themselves) whose personal taste, represented by what they look at, how long they look at it, what they comment on and what they favorite, would influence the rankings as well. I suspect you already do this to some extent so it might not be as difficult as I think.

Flickr remains my favorite web site and I think the staff have done a great job in putting it together.
Originally posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )
OneEighteen edited this topic 42 months ago.

OneEighteen    says:

Well.

It's been two days. Does this mean I have the last word? I live in a house full of beloved women. It's not often I get the last word.
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

musicmuse_ca    says:

Maybe you just wore everyone out with your comprehensive post, lol.

;)
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

LouieR says:

Ha ha.... I joined this group just so I can post in this thread and 118 is right. Whew! It was a major drain on the attention span.

I think "interestingness" may be going the same route as another computerized "art" scoring system. What am I talking about? It's those damn scoring systems in the videoke machines!

Who can ever figure out how those things score the singers? Some singers, though obviously bad, seem to be "machine-friendly" and score high. The opposite is true. I know some professionals who've scored low.

Since flickr is trying to capture what are essentially human judgments with a computer algorithm, I think we humans will always be flabbregasted by the results.

Which does make the whole exercise, well, um....... interesting! :)
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

manganite    says:

It seems, they have changed the algorithm again...
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

acampm1    says:

Looks that way. First it chucked most of my photos out. Then it shoved a load into the top places. Then it let the rest back in too. Now it seems to have gone to extremes and had a radical cull (Boo, Hiss), but left a load at number 3+ including my first ever number one (Hurray, crack open the champers). So, on balance, assumong it has finished mucking about now, I reckon I came out well. Time will tell if the photos are more interesting for the viewer.

How is evryone else doing?
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

Life in AsiaNZ says:

I used to have around 35 to 40 in Explore with another 20 or so in my recently dropped list. Now its the other way around. :(

Its a bit strange how they keep changing the formula every few months. Even worse is the fact they don't explain what's changed and why as if it is top secret information or something. Was the old formula producing bad results? Does the new one produce better results. Judging by this out of focus photo which came in at number ten on 25 June, I don't think so. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it!
Originally posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )
Life in AsiaNZ edited this topic 43 months ago.

manganite    says:

I think they don't want that a few people dominate the interestingness, so they changed the formula to drop out pictures of the top people and let new ones in.

Improving quality is not a goal anymore, I would say, the new pictures are not better than the old ones (you could make Top 5000 list, and 99% of that pictures would be of high quality...), but now there are a lot more people having there pictures in the Top500. That's not the worst...
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

taka_itaha    says:

So why do people think that the amount of photos you have in "explore" is an indication of the quality of your photos? And why do people follow their number of photos in explore, in the hopes that they at once are a better photographer, or feel disappointed when "explore" judges them a worse photographer?

It's too easy to get into explore, and having a photo in explore tells more about your efforts to get your photos there, then about the quality of your photos.
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

Julie Ann Matkin    says:

I have to say, I was recently and fleetingly seduced by the 'explore' phenomenon, when I realised I had 3-4 pictures in there. But when I started to consider the shots I was uploading, and what groups I was adding them to in order to try and pimp them in explore, I stopped and thought to myself, well, would I rather have thoughtful and considered comments from my contacts who are people who I respect and who's work I admire, or tons and tons of 'nice shot', 'wow', etc. (Of course it's very nice that someone who doesn't know you from adam/eve should stop and even leave even one word to let you know they like your picture and I'm by no means unappreciative of that, but a hundred of them doesn't make you better, where a couple of constructive crits will make you think more next time you're out shooting.)

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that explore is a numbers game. It doesn't tell you how good your pictures are, or which of your pictures are better than the others, it tells you what the general concensus is, what the average flickr consumer likes - from a thumbnail view, kind of like the MTV charts. That's why you'll always see simplistic, graphic, colourful images on there (beside the titties and kitties that is)...

If you want to be the Britney Spears of photography then fine - but I'd rather be obscure and an acquired taste, any day of the week ;) Stop number watching and go out and make yourself a better photographer, in your own eyes.
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

acampm1    says:

I find I do most things better if I have a benchmark. True explore is only a computer, but it gives me an idea of how popular the photos are. The latest algorythm change has chucked half my photos out - doesn't bother me a bit, I know it is the machine, not me. But I'll be trying hard to produce shots that do well there. I honestly think the invisible, silent, number crunching opponent makes me a better photographer.
Originally posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )
acampm1 edited this topic 43 months ago.

mimbrava    says:

The algorithm has obviously been severely tweaked again, as many new photographers are appearing on the Explore page, but Interestingness has become extremely volatile, with rankings changing seemingly by the minute. Explore and Interestingness are, er, interesting, and it's nice to be on Explore and nice to be highly ranked on the calendar page, but I still say that the great value of Flickr is posting what YOU like to the groups you enjoy and visiting other's streams to admire, learn, be inspired and develop Flickr friendships.
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

taka_itaha    says:

> I honestly think the invisible, silent, number crunching opponent makes me a better photographer.

Maybe it helps you become a more popular photographer. The thing is that it's not the computer which makes the decisions based on the pixels of the photos. It's an algorithm based on views, comments, favorites, tags and who knows what else. The one thing that the algorithm does NOT do is look at your photos.
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

acampm1    says:

Yes, ever so politely, I think that's a flash of the blindingly obvious.

However it does use a great deal of experience to gather what makes for a popular photo, and that's a lot more useful than asking Auntie May. I wish some of the many deluded fools I see on sites like DPReview producing endless dreadful photos that they have convinced themselves are brilliant would put their photos somewhere where they can get a sanity check.

As a means of judging "art" Explore is obviously flawed. But the only thing I've found better so far is selling prints, and that can be a nasty shock too, I can tell you.

And one has to keep it in proportion. Most of my popular shots have been taken at Marinha and Lagos (I have a new one in today looking good). But I don't ptopose to waste my entire photographic career shooting stacks, tomorrow Flcikr gets a black bee on a Lantana bush in a cemetry. It won't be as popular, but it was wanted to take. I'll still be chuffed if I'm wrong and it does well though.
Originally posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )
acampm1 edited this topic 43 months ago.

fd    says:

Even worse is the fact they don't explain what's changed and why as if it is top secret information or something.

@Chinapix, it is top secret information. Yahoo is a search company. Algorithms that can filter and rank relevant items are worth a lot of money. Part of Explore's purpose may be as a testing ground for research and development of improved image filtering algorithms.
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

acampm1    says:

I used to think that, but it is looking simpler and simpler these days. I'd love to know what data they have to go on...
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

Life in AsiaNZ says:

@fd - It may be top secret information but to my mind Explore is becoming (has become) more of a marketing tool than a filter to find the best photos on Flickr. They realise that having a photo in Explore is a buzz and helps to hook people into the site. But the more you get in Explore the harder it gets to get more in because they want to give others a go too. Then every now and a again they "tweak" it, not because its producing bad results, but because they don't want the same people's photos always appearing in Explore. Quality has a way of rising to the top so they have to keep changing the rules to level the playing field and give the others a chance. That's fine but what they are actually saying is we aren't looking for the best photos but rather looking for new people to get hooked into the system. At the end of the day more customers = more money. It is a business after all. That's why interestingness does not equal quality. Some top photographers may have to get a large number of faves, views and comments before their photos get in while others may only need a few. Sure Explore produces good results but I don't think its about finding the "best" results.
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

fd    says:

Explore has never been about finding the "best" results. Art is subjective. Faves/views/comments do not equate to quality. And computer algorithms based on those numbers aren't making artistic or quality judgements. The very best photo on Flickr may be languishing out there somewhere with 0 views.

I doubt that Explore has hooked many users. Only about 2% of Flickr users are represented there. We folk who gab about Explore in these groups are probably in the 0.1% range.
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

Life in AsiaNZ says:

@fd - You are probably right that Explore isn't about finding the best results. But that's not how it is presented. The Explore page says:

"Flickr labs have been hard at work creating a way to show you some of the most awesome photos on Flickr. We like to call it interestingness." and from the Interestingness page, "Beautiful, amazing, moving, striking - explore and discover some of Flickr's Finest."

I understand the subjective aspect of photography which a computer will probably never replicate any time soon. But I guess what I'm saying is an algorithm to find the most popular photos on Flickr (which may or may not be the best but probably wouldn't be far off) probably shouldn't need to be tweaked on a regular basis like Interestingness/Explore is. It seems to me that the changes are driven by other reasons than improving the quality of photos that get into Explore. Just my humble opinion.

By the way, thanks for all your wonderful tools which are such a great help and its people like you that really make Flickr a great place to share your photos.
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

Beauty Before Art [deleted] says:

I've found this discussion thread very illuminating. Life is all about ends and means.

If your end is to get your photo into Explore/interestingness, then the means to do this is to find out all you can about the algorithm, then plan your strategy, mobilise your resources, begin your campaign, etc., and keep tabs on your progress and worry a lot.

If your end is to share your photos with people who appreciate them for what they are (and vice versa), then the above is wasted effort. The best means to do this is to find groups of similarly interested people.

Everytime I post a photo to a group, I try to view and comment on at least one other photo in that pool. Call it balancing karma, if you like. But this is what I have found:

Some groups seem to be peopled by those who are allergic to viewing and commenting.
Other groups are full of generous, kind and constructive souls who are apt to view and comment without being prompted.
Along the way I have found some amazing people with whom I have established reciprocal contact. I expect this group to grow as time goes by.

It was only today that I discovered that 3 of my photos were in the top 500. That is gratifying but, compared with the pleasure I get from seeing my contacts' photos and the photos in my chosen pools, it is peanuts.

I find more beauty, talent and surprises this way than Explore/interestingness could ever deliver. I also suspect that the by-product of this is that my photos made it into Explore. If they slip out again, so what? Even The Beatles slipped off the charts.

In the end, I guess it's up to what you value. I've told you my story.

To conclude: Thank you Flickr, you have made me a richer man.

Dunottar
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

Nikographer [Jon]    says:

BTW, I noticed a photo in like 100 groups that was in explorer, saw it before it made it, and then later in the stream... I wonder if part of the latest changes don't penalize so much for group counts...... *scratches head* ... like the changes in Feb introduced.

It was this photo if you're interested.... and is currently ranked 454 with like 100 groups.................
www.flickr.com/photos/bom_mot/182127695/
Posted 43 months ago. ( permalink )

Mc Shutter    says:

"Explore" is now just another way to do some exploring of the total data base.
It is no longer any more interesting than "Most Recent Uploads."
We should rid ouselves of the "TOP 500" mentality, and look at Explore simply as "500 Photos You May Find Interesting."
There are many more that fit that bill in the "Most Recent Uploads" link.
I now feel they should just remove "Explore" as it causes too many quarrels and disappointments (because people are expecting too much of it ---- expecting it to be something it was never meant to be) and just refer "explorers" to look at the "most recent uploads." Virtually the same results would be seen.
Posted 42 months ago. ( permalink )

quebon2 says:

I'd say that's a good idea except what I see in "most recent uploads" generally amounts to group snapshots and people's pets.

I'll stick with the ever-flawed Explore. ;)
Posted 42 months ago. ( permalink )

topquark22    says:

So please explain how good photos get seen in the first place, if posters are penalized for posting to "too many" groups and/or having many contacts?

New photos are only visible for a short time (as others get posted), depending on the amount of traffic. I imagine few people bother to page down to the 3rd or 4th page of results when viewing a group or "everyone's photos." So it is very easy for a good new photo to get missed, I think.

When it comes right down to it, photos can only gain "interestingness" if people can find them and appreciate them. There is some kind of chicken-egg problem here.
Originally posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )
topquark22 edited this topic 41 months ago.

SuziJane    says:

Personally, I think Explore and Interestingness get taken way too seriously. As a result, they tend to turn Flickr into a competition, and defeat the friendly community atmosphere it should have. TPTB may claim it's not a rating system, but clearly that IS how it's perceived by members.

The opportunity to interact with other photographers who have similar interests is one of two reasons I am here on Flickr. The other is feedback on my photos. There is no way in hell I'm giving those two things up just for the sake of a number on Explore.

P.S. There wouldn't BE so many duplicate groups on Flickr if:
1. The "Create a new group" mechanism TOLD you when a group with a similar name already existed, and
2. The "Search for a group" engine worked worth a damn.

[stepping off soapbox now]
Originally posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )
SuziJane edited this topic 41 months ago.

matt duke    says:

O.K, so I understand the penalty for posting to too many groups and the reasons therefore. Makes sense to me.

But does anyone know (or have something that sounds like a good guess) whether it applies on a cumulative basis or to current groups only?

I hope the latter, since, as a practical matter, any opportunity to display an image in most groups lasts a day or so before it's buried with new posts. Also, good images are often posted to groups like 100 views or 10 faves, often then to be later removed and posted to 200 views and 20 faves. It would be too bad if such success dimished a photo's statistical interestingness; and an unfortunate irony if posting to this group knocked an image out of the box.
Originally posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )
matt duke edited this topic 41 months ago.

~Dezz~    says:

Okay, I have a question about the "may offend." I read that if someone clicks that on their OWN photo, it will keep it out of Explore...but what about if someone ELSE clicks "may offend?" Do you get a notification if someone does that and will that keep you out of Explore...another question..is there any "setting" in one's account that would prevent their photos from reaching Explore? I just keep getting told by a lot of people that they are surprised none of my photos have ever reached Explore and if I'm preventing them from getting on there...not to my knowledge!! LOL...not that getting on Explore MATTERS to me or anything...;-)
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

~Dezz~    says:

WOW!! I have 7 photos in Explore now!! YIPPEE!!
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

Magicker    says:

hmm I had 13 "intereting" photos 3 weeks ago... now I have none!! grr

not happy!
Posted 39 months ago. ( permalink )

Vanda's Pictures    says:

All my pictures have been dropped apart from one! I am not going to stop posting in groups, I would much rather get feedback on my pictures and leave comments on my contacts pictures than be in explore.
Posted 39 months ago. ( permalink )

dbthayer    says:

today I briefly had a pic in Explore (#495, haha) with only 1 fave, 26 views, 3 comments and 4 tags. it was posted to only four groups at the time, and it doesn't even rank as one of my own top 200 most interesting pics. LOL, I'd love to know how that happened...
Posted 39 months ago. ( permalink )

EssjayNZ says:

I have one that debuted at 437 (not for long) that has had 21 views, 1 Fav, 3 comments. It was in Lets PLay Tag and 1 other group. It .


I have had photos with 6 faves and less than 50 views not get in at all, ah that Magic Donkey, he be real magic!
Posted 39 months ago. ( permalink )

another_name_for_me [deleted] says:

LOL
And I have one that shot straight to no. 1 on Explore of September 28. It's in just 3 pools (none of the "bad" ones), it's been viewed 1000 times, has 55 comments, 77 faves , and now it's dissapeared completely! It hasn't dropped to no. 5, or 10, or 100, or 200. It'snot in my list of dropped from Explore. It's dissapeared! Completely! How sane is that????
Originally posted 39 months ago. ( permalink )
another_name_for_me edited this topic 39 months ago.

Mac ind Óg    says:

I give up! I had 26 in Explore, went on holiday for a couple of weeks and when I came back, I had only one.

It'd be nice to know which groups or types of groups they don't want us posting in. Maybe groups should have an Explore index displayed or just a warning like "Posting here could seriously damage your Interestingness!"
Posted 39 months ago. ( permalink )

kylejones    says:

Looks like the new formula is working as intended; breaking the spirit of those who would dare compete for exposure in Explore. You can either go the route of self-promotion to get exposure for your work, or you can pray that the donkey casts a favorable eye upon you. But not both.

Best current strategy seems to be to upload and wait a few days for the donkey to notice. If he doesn't, then start making the rounds in the groups. If he does, then wait until the Explore driven traffic dries up and then hit the groups. That's if your objective is maximizing exposure of your work, which to me seems the only good reason to pursue the donkey's favor anymore.
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

♫ marc_l'esperance    says:

the best exposure comes from hitting explore on the day you upload.. preferrably in the top 10 or so. then you get a lot of hits and comments, as well as new people adding you as a contact.
if increasing your audience is your aim, explore is still the best way to do it.
after a few days it *almost* doesn't matter if you land in explore. after 7 days it really doesn't matter..
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

Hambo    says:

So submitting a photo to a group or group(s) is bad, especially if the group is one that people are forced to participate and rate/rank the image. Now has anyone figured out if removing a photo from a group removes the interestingness deduction?

Maybe I should re-submit all my images group free to see how they would rank for interestingness. Also, maybe from now on I'll submit the image twice, once for use in groups and once for use in Explore. Seems sort of pointless though...
Posted 33 months ago. ( permalink )

leavespictures says:

I must respect all flickr staff decisions, who am I to be reluctant with filckr decisions, but I would like to add an observation here.

Flickr encourages their users to create groups if the users wish to do that. Many users are so happy to create a new group and many of them dream to make a good group. But if your group become a great success with many pictures on the pool and being very popular on the flickr community you will suffer a penalty from flickr system because all pictures added to your very successful group will get penalty too getting low rank to be showed on flickr Explore. Maybe all pictures added to the group get a too low rank that makes the pictures impossible to be showed on flickr Explore.

So because of my group's great success I most get an enforcement and flickr users need to avoid my group because flickr transformed my group in a unwanted group. My success must become my defeat on flickr. Something here is not seeming to be good. That algorithm is not fair in my opinion.

The biger the group success, the higher the penalty the group suffer and the consequence is all photos added to the group pool will get too low rank making all pictures almost impossible to be showed on flickr Explore. It not makes sense.

I never saw at any place such kind of thing where a honest good success must become your defeat, because when most of flickr users know that, my group will be banned from the flickr community and it will become the most unwanted group because it is a great success. Nonsense.

So we need to tell to all people which want to create group to be careful: "Be careful my friend do not create a good group, avoid big successes or you will fail". Nonsense.

I think that flikr algorithm needs to be reviewed.

I am not here to make bad criticism please, it is my sincere observation. Sorry if I am wrong and can't see the facts, I am new on flickr and I am learning about photography and I must learn more, mainly about other important things like that algorithm to understand that supposed contrasense if it really is a contrasense, maybe I am wrong.

Anyway I thanks flickr for this opportunity to belong to one of the best photo corporation.

Thank you very much.

PS:

To clarify why I wrote my observation.

I wrote that because of this statement of the "SilentObserver", which I think belongs to the flickr Staff:

"...*Some* groups have special penalties.
That happens when group pool contains too many photos..."

(The underline is mine, not showed on the original text.)

www.flickr.com/groups/interestingness500/discuss/72057594...

"SilentObserver" is marked as "staff" on this thread:

www.flickr.com/help/forum/28288/#reply139086
Originally posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )
leavespictures edited this topic 28 months ago.

Mc Shutter    says:

^
Nonsense !
Originally posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )
Mc Shutter edited this topic 28 months ago.

leavespictures says:

To clarify why I wrote my observation.

I wrote that because of this statement of the "SilentObserver", which I think belongs to the flickr Staff:

"...*Some* groups have special penalties.
That happens when group pool contains too many photos that are potentially not SFW."

(The underline is mine, not showed on the original text.)

www.flickr.com/groups/interestingness500/discuss/72057594...

"SilentObserver" is marked as "staff" on this thread:

www.flickr.com/help/forum/28288/#reply139086
Originally posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )
leavespictures edited this topic 28 months ago.

Mc Shutter    says:

You didn't include (or probably understand) the full sentence that followed.

It reads:
".....................too many photos that are potentially not SFW."
( Bolding & underline are mine.)

"SFW" = "Safe For the Workplace"
Posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )

Baron von Beerfest says:

@Mac - *clap, clap, clap*

@leavespictures - the reply by SilentObserver on the thread that you quoted says exactly what kind of groups are penalized. If your group is one of those, that is the reason for the penalty, not the number of photos in the group.
Posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )

leavespictures says:

Many thanks for the replies.

I have seen that part "...that are potentially not SFW." and more. I did not add that because I though it was not necessary because I was focused on the underline sentence of my text and I used reticence to make it obvious that such sentence was not complete and I added the related url to everybody see the complete text, but not problem I edited my last post text and added that part.

I have wrote that I am sorry if I am wrong, and I think now I am wrong, but would you mind please explain what kind of of photos are SFW, or post a url where we can read about that? Is it possible to show an example of SFW photos or it can't be showed?

Is a "SWF picture" a kind of photo with many forced comments and faves asked by some kind of groups like "post 1/fave2/comment 3"? If it is, I think I got the meaning about that.

Sorry for my lack of knowledge related to this issue, but I would like to learn about.

Once again thank you very much @Mc Shutter and @Baron von Beerfest for take your time to reply me, I really appreciate.
Originally posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )
leavespictures edited this topic 28 months ago.

Baron von Beerfest says:

I think you are still confusing the two separate issues here. Groups that force comments and faves are penalized, as are groups that have NSFW contents. NSFW simply means it is not safe for the workplace. It does not have to have anything to do with forced comments and faves.

I will not post any links to NSFW photos in this thread, nor will I allow it to stay if anyone else is going to post one. This is a family-friendly group, and I intend for it to stay that way.

FYI, photos can still get into Explore without having been submitted to any groups at all. Groups are not the key to interestingness; taking quality photos worth viewing is.

In any case, thinking too much about interestingness is bad for your health. And this issue regarding groups is certainly not worth this much discussion.
Posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )

leavespictures says:

I got the meaning now, your last explanation worked like a key (eureka) to me and helped a lot to understand that. I was very wrong and that algorithm is necessary and now I agree with it.
About Explore, I agree with you, although it is important, personally I do not care about interestingness and I only would like to understand that issue and It is clarified to me now. I understood.
Thank you very much, I really appreciate that.
Best regards.
Originally posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )
leavespictures edited this topic 28 months ago.

Mc Shutter    says:

NSFW (Not Safe For the Workplace) means photos that your boss would frown upon (nudes, porno, gore, racial slurs, etc.,) if he/she saw them on your computer screen at work.

The algorithm cannot judge the quality of photos.

It does, however, consider the amount of activity related to the photo ------ how many times it is viewed within a short timespan, and how much the photographer participates in the Flickr community after the photo is uploaded.

Do you visit the streams of lots of other Flickr members and comment upon, or "fave" their photos ? Or, do you just upload your photo, add it to some groups, and then disappear ?

( These are hypothetical questions ----- not accusations.)
Posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )

Arathrael    says:

I have to say, I don't quite understand what the current algorithm is doing. It seems a little odd.

Here's why I think that. I have a photo from the 22nd of September that's entered Explore. It's reached up to #29.

Then, every afternoon it's exited Explore completely. I could understand that, with a few hundred photos out of thousands big changes are likely to occur. Except, it comes back in at the same position, give or take a couple of places. Every time. Then it goes out again, the next afternoon. Then it comes back again - at the same place. So in the morning, it's been consistently in Explore in the range #27-#32, and in the afternoon, nowhere.

And when it's out, all of Explore for that day is completely different. All the photos around it are different.

It's as if, every afternoon, the algorithm switches and creates a completely different list. Then at some point it suddenly switches back again to the old list.

I'm not overly bothered about it doing that - ultimately it's showing interesting photos regardless, which is all it really needs to do - but I am curious. I can't think of any reason why it would do that. Is that the randomizing element?
Originally posted 28 months ago. ( permalink )
Arathrael edited this topic 28 months ago.

ASHCROFT54    says:

Well let me start out by saying, I join the group so I can be part of the discussion topic. I can see this has been picked apart and talked to death topic, but people seem to be drawn into the Flickr Drama. To everyone and everybody whose obsessed with Interestingness Explore, Posters, Joining The Right Groups, Tags, Faves, Comments, Notes, Discussions, more power to you. No matter how old we get. We all seemed to be pulled into popularity contest. I can see that no matter how hard the flickr people try to make it fair. Someone has to try and figure out the formula or complain because they didn't make the top 500. Kudos for the Flickr-hackers out there. It's turned into a urban legand. I will admit that I tried to figure out how it all works with Explore.

Bottom line is if you love what your doing. It not gonna matter about how Explore, Interestingness and Top 500 feels about your image. Some people just know how to capture time, a moment, paint with light and or my favorite "the art of fixxing a shadow" better than others. Some people went to school to learn how to photograph. And some people went out on their own and taught themselves how to use a camera. Being in the right groups, awards, right tags, number of comments in an hour or that day, is not going to make u a better photographer or a photo god. Going out there to shot does help improve your skills. Hang out with real photographer who love it, helps a whole lot too. Because when your with that right group of people who love doing the same thing you do. It makes the whole experience great. I would like to meet some of these people who love to photograph. I want to see what makes them tick inside and someday I hope it will happen.

You want to know my opinion about the Interestingness algorithm. I will break it down to you in lame man terms. They make a bingo card and put in a certain number of images they think qualify in the bingo basket. who knows how many will be in the basket, because everyday is different number. Then they turn the crank and start calling numbers. Now if your number is called you are the winner and u get to be king or queen for a day...if not then better luck next time. You can tell me I'm wrong. That it's this safisticated mathamatical formula. Yeah so is 2+2=4 and 2x2=4, wow they both equal 4. Some people are amazed with just a simple math problem. I say keep doing what your doing Flickr, if it works then don't try to fix it.

I will probably will not have an image on Explore, Interestingness or Top 500, but I know no matter what, I'm a great photographer. I want to go out and learn as much photography as I can before I can't do it anymore.

Just my two cents...
Originally posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )
ASHCROFT54 edited this topic 27 months ago.

Adam N. Ward    says:

I've found this topic very interesting (and amusing).

I often find myself looking on the www.bighugelabs.com/scout.php page to see if I've managed to beat my own high score. I should get out more, eh?

In any case, I have a quick question, that page on BHL seems to sometimes count a photo twice (for instance one of my photos has been ranked at #60 and #293 simultaneously). BHL's FAQ says this is because the picture's date has changed since it was in explore the first time. But actually I haven't changed the date on that photo ever so I was wondering, is this a fault with Flickr or with BHL?
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )