|
Explore photos are chosen by a computer algorithm, and they change the algorithm periodically to prevent people from figuring out how to game the system. They may also have included some sort of user-specific factor that prevents anyone from getting into Explore too frequently, or maybe not. Only the Magic Donkey knows.
All we can really say is that one of the older versions of the algorithm liked your friend's photos more than the current one does.
In any case, they're phasing out the Explore top 500 "soon", so there's not much point worrying too much about it. (Not that there ever was, really.)
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I doubt he got that response from staff.
Staff have said repeatedly that the Explore algorithm does not include any way to ban individuals.
Staff do tweak the algorithm from time to time and make changes to how the computer calculates the "most interesting" score.
When tweaks get made, people who had previously scored high, sometimes find that their scores are not as high.
Read through the links on the front page of this group to find out what is known about the algorithm. In essence, it measures activity around a photo. These activities are weighted and from time to time, the algorithm changes to add more weight to some kinds of activity and less weight to others.
If he did get an email from Flickr staff that says "that he had been getting too many in, that he was a professional, and that he was not giving others a chance " then I, and the rest of this group, would be very interested in seeing that.
The most recent staff statement says that the algorithm was changed to give more people a chance to be in Explore. Some groups had been gaming the algorithm and so staff changed it up a bit. But no one was banned.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
 Did this change to his Explore rate happen around September or so last year? Apparently that one was a significant tweak.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
ratsj
I'll have to ask him.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
He got his answer from Big Huge Labs and the same day that he asked about the matter his posted picture showed up in Explore - now he's even more suspicious of the whole business.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Big Huge Labs doesn't control what gets into Explore. Their Scout page just tracks (more or less) what Flickr puts into Explore.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi Ron,
We don't actually have the time or staff to play "hide the member from Explore." Sounds like some coincidence at work. ;-)
[I am staff]
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
People love conspiracy theories, don't they?
1) "The CIA killed John F. Kennedy!"
2) "The Americans have never been on the moon!"
3) "The US government commissioned 9/11!"
4) "The MI6 killed Lady Diana!"
And now 5) "Flickr bans people from Explore!"
Well, all these things are true. Or none of them is. Or only 5) is. Choose for yourself! ;-)
Originally posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
Silanov edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
That the thing about coincidence, the law of averages say it almost certainly going to happen.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Is it true that explore is being axed?
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Louise Lindsay
It's superstition. The Explore algorithm changed how it weights various activity around the photos. Different people are getting into Explore now, because the criteria have changed.
Chapmanc123
Yes, it's true. Staff have said that it's going away. When? no one knows.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, what they said was that the "top 500" was going away. There will still be ways of exploring interesting photos.
Posted 26 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
its almost 6 months since i joined flickr.and I was getting frequently explored .. The sudden dip came when i took my pro account....
Is Getting Expored a way to encurage people to taking a pro account.. and once they do... "drop" !! :0 .. i mean that what i see in my case :)
I have noticed people without a pro accont getting frequently explored..
They say.. interact more...(which is always there...) ..
Where is the catch.. may be the Pro Account .. Maybe I Paid To Get Detached.. :/
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
'Getting Expored' is not a way of getting people to buy accounts, and it's not an accolade. It's a way of trying to help people to explore interesting work that they might not have seen otherwise.
Of course, getting a computer algorithm to do that successfully is a tricky business...
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"Getting Explored" sounds like what happens to you if you pass out at a frat party.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Not that I would know.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If EXPLORE is being axed then i'm sure it will be replaced by some other 'best of the best' style incentive to keep members happy. They need something for the front page don't they? I predict alot of unhappy members if EXPLORE gets the chop, unless there is something equally as 'interesting' to replace it.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The plan is to have it be about exploration, not about 'best of the best.'
;-)
[I work here]
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I predict a fair number of happy members if Explore gets the chop.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I won't like it, I don't think. But I'm not going to pout. In public.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Anything that makes Flickr more about photos and photographers and less about view counts and computer-generated rankings is a big plus in my book.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Since the aim of Explore is to showcase fresh content, it would make sense to me if people who have already been featured quite a bit have a little bit more of a time getting in. Not a ban at all but the need to surpass their past efforts a little to keep their hunger for empty praise and attention from strangers fed.
In other words, the threshold for newer people would not be as high as it is for people who dominate the arena constantly. Those people would have to outdo themselves a little to impress the donkey.
I don't know anything (an no one who does will be talking here in this forum) but it seems fair and reasonable. Give other attention whores a chance.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Spangles44 - away in spain till 8. may But if the algorithm changed daily how would one knows that one's photos had been chosen by the algorithm with good taste?
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
 Naturally, I disagree. Furthermore, when you wrongly chide me, I get really mean, like a rabid little squirrel.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, I don't know. I get in less than I used to, but I'm not very talented.
I resist the idea of making elaborate theories based only on my limited experience or what a friend of a friend experienced.
Flickr says that they don't block anyone from Explore but that the algorithm simply gets refreshed from time to time. I do not believe they lie to us about this, because that would be silly--why would they? In fact, I have no reason to disbelieve anything we have been officially told about this; it makes more sense to believe it than to embrace some random conspiracy theories based on limited data coming from people of unknown reasoning skills.
But, at the end of the day, it's just Explore, which is, in fact, something that doesn't matter much at all.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was curious about - changes that appeared to happen after Feb 23rd 2010. In 4 1/2 years I've had 500+ shots pop in and out. bighugelabs.com/scout.php?username=31052081@N00&combi...
I am not on flickr FOR explorer but it WAS nice. And it was a form of at least encouragement - the exposure.
I'd been wondering if someone started to flag my photos, so I suppose it is nice to know it isn't just me and not that.
A few weeks ago I decided to take the lemons and make some lemonade. Explorer never really liked "vertical" shots, so I've decided to start posting 100% vertical photos as my own little response... Heh. It has been fun and is actually helping me grow as a photographer. :D
www.flickr.com/photos/-jon-/sets/72157623776071417/show/
BTW, updated my theory with this blog post (of mine) - the did a near ban, turned soft-ban, and then poked holes for certain big shots IMHO.
natureandwildlifephotography.blogspot.com/2010/06/banned-...
Originally posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
Nikographer [Jon] edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
I really don't see what is so mysterious about this. It would not be difficult (I don't believe) for the algorithm to be adjusted to increase the required threshhold of interestingness, for a given user, based on her/his number of photos that have already made explore. This would require flickr to keep track itself of explore'd photos but that could easily be done (more easily than BHL does it, anyway) and it would both explain the change in fortunes of the formerly oft-Explore'd users and ensure that other users have a better chance of getting in.
Not saying this IS what was done; my point is that a simple explanation suffices. Don't need to imagine that "banning" has taken place.
Originally posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
ratsj edited this topic 25 months ago.
|
|
|
Which isn't the same thing as a ban, even if this is the case. It could not fairly be called "Explore" when day after day you're just "exploring" the same few people over and over again.
It's not a democracy, no one has a "right" to be on there, and if Flickr adjusted it so that the more you're on there, the higher the bar, then that's good. Fair, at least.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm not so sure about the algorithm making it harder for people who've already been explored to keep getting in.
I recall the folks who were on the witch hunt several months back... I sometimes made an effort to look at their Scout info and many were themselves in the 300+ level of Explore pics. I've gone back and searched a few out on a couple of occasions and see that they're still doing fine, still getting a dozen or two Explored each month. By and large, they seldom post to groups, but get tons of love, even though they don't have an unusual number of contacts. So, I suspect they're in some sort of a mutual admiration society that they don't want the riff raff members to know about.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well my pro account just expired, and I had this for three years and to be honest I think I got some photos could be Explore, but ever in those years I had one! so What is the secret then? I m going to Explore everyday for the last couple of months and I see some people get twice or more times in Explore, how do they do? or I´m such a bad photographer!!!! :(
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think it's probably the inverse. The people who are not getting in as much anymore and are complaining were playing some games that no longer work well. The people who are still plodding along, doing what they always did, not striving to flim-flam into this rogue's gallery, are not complaining and are doing fine.
I am not in any "societies", don't play games of any kind, never have and never will, still get in, am happy. I just don't get in as often. But I also don't put up pictures as much.
The people who went on *witch hunts* might well have been like me... people who don't try to cheat or sneak or force their way into a fake prize made even more fake by the struggle to win it. I never cared enough to go on any hunts but the news of people cheating to acquire something so meaningless did make me laugh and throw up in my mouth at the same time.
Originally posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
Muzzlehatch edited this topic 25 months ago.
|
|
I've been a Flickr user for about a year and about 16 of my pictures had reached the Explore feature. That's not a big number compared with others and also I've been experience a fluctuation on interestigness, some of my pictures going higher and others going down, some of my pictures going dropped.
I kinda understand the concept of Explore and how it works, however on May 9, 2010, one of my pictures reached the position #1 on explore, you can see it here:
www.flickr.com/photos/altamiranopics/4591361433/in/set-72...
This picture went from #9, to #3, to #2, to finally #1 to go down to #13 and then up again to #10.
During all this time this picture acquired tons of views an favorites, however today (May 14) it just got dropped, and this doesn't have any sense at all. Sorry there is not math or algorithm that can explain such a huge fluctuation.
Can somebody explain me what's going on here?
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I explained what I thought about this here:
www.flickr.com/groups/secretsofexplore/discuss/7215762387...
I explained it over and over again until no doubt most people who didn't block me felt sorry for me.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yeah... but you are really not saying anything... after reading all your posts, my conclusion is that you don't have a clue either. You are speculating somebody is banning pictures.
And maybe you are right. I read somewhere that Flickr doesn't allow illustrations or nudes to reach explore... so, their argument about images going to Explore only because a computer algorithm determine so, is a lie, since somebody MUST go trough the pictures to determine what is what, it is not possible for a computer to know the difference between an illustration, picture or nude, specially those very artistic ones...
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
All images are supposed to be flagged for type (photo, illustration, screenshot) and content (safe, moderate, restricted). Illustrations should be flagged as illustrations and nudes (of any sort) should be flagged moderate or restricted. Only safe photos get into explore.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You don't seriously think anyone who really knows is going to say, do you?
Disabuse yourself of that notion. Flickr staff don't discuss this. The only people who will talk about this is people who are guessing.
Wait a minute. You didn't read what I said after all. I never said anything about anybody banning anything whatsoever. It appears you might have read something someone else said? I'm confused. I do NOT believe anybody is banning anything.
Originally posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
Muzzlehatch edited this topic 25 months ago.
|
|
|
Sorry there is not math or algorithm that can explain such a huge fluctuation.
Here is what I am guessing: There is a non-denumerably infinite set of algorithms that can explain such a huge fluctuation.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
What a Very Interesting Read I Have Just Had In The Recently ' Bumped ' (and then closed again thread by zyrcster) ~ Some Great Links
START HERE ~ THE F A Q ~
It Struck Me That A Quote Made Famous By The Female Photographer Diane Arbus Would Be Most Appropriate With a Slight Adjustment ~
" A photograph is a secret, about a secret ! The more it tells you, the less you know " !
" Explore Is a Secret, About a Secret ! The More It Tells You, The Less You Know " !
And Long May It Remain So !
" Keep Clickin ' " !
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
oh... I do believe somebody has the final decision, or at least the control.
If I'm the owner of a website, like Flickr, I mean, if I was Yahoo, I won't leave and algorithm (or many of them) to have the final decision and take the risk of having an inappropriate images on Explore. I'm not taking about a nude or an illustration. I'm taking about images with copyright, political incorrect, etc, etc. There is not a single picture like that on Flickr Explore, and why is that? The only reason is because I believe there are people doing a very strict control of what it shows here.
It's not just a computer algorithm, a computer can not determine those things.
I'm sure there is an algorithm, but at the end, who really takes the decision of what gets or not to the Explore is a real person.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Maybe. Those who tell don't know, and those who know don't tell.
Also, those who knell don't tow.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Rafakoy wrote I'm sure there is an algorithm, but at the end, who really takes the decision of what gets or not to the Explore is a real person. That must be on our Secret Conspiracy List already ...
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It's like fight club. If you ask questions about Explore you are excluded from Explore.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Lu: Don't be silly, you are making fun of this but it's common sense.
Do you really believe Yahoo is going to let an algorithm to decide what pictures goes to the explore without having some control of it?
Let's say somebody decide to take a picture with the svastica Nazi on it, or have some racists connotations, or political incorrect... and that picture makes to Explore. Do you think nobody is going to do anything and Flickr is just going to leave that picture there? I don't think so... they need to have some kind of control... If they don't, they are exposed to lawsuits from offended people or institutions...
Look at the Youtube case, they are having that problem right now.
The difference with Flickr is that in this case, there are only 500 pictures on Explore everyday, it's not that hard to control it.
It's common sense. A company like Yahoo, can't afford to let people to upload whatever they want and let a computer algorithm to decide what picture gets to Explore without human intervention.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hello [I work here]
"Sorry there is not math or algorithm that can explain such a huge fluctuation."
Yes, actually, our algorithm is programmed in such a way that these fluctuations will occur and indeed are expected to occur.
"I won't leave and algorithm (or many of them) to have the final decision and take the risk of having an inappropriate images on Explore"
When photos get flagged for abuse, this would cause photos to be reviewed and removed from Explore if appropriate. But by and large, enough members correctly flag their photos that incorrectly flagged ones aren't really making it to the Explore daily 500.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Yes, actually, our algorithm is programmed in such a way that these fluctuations will occur and indeed are expected to occur."
So you guys do this why? just to upset people? for fun? Sorry... I'm a little stupid and I don't understand certain things...
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
For fairness. Explore is not a reward.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Exactly.
There are some millions of photos uploaded daily. 5,000 or so a minute. And 500 slots daily for Explore. So, the math right away explains the fluctuations. Consider that a photo's interesting quotient is constantly changing based on what's happening on both that photo and on others' photos, and one can see that this has nothing to do with on a personal level, but the entire system is designed to be a very revolving doorway for exploration for the viewer.
Or, I could just go back to cthulhu being the root cause as an explanation.
:)
Originally posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
zyrcster edited this topic 25 months ago.
|
|
|
But you guys do recommend to ad tags, geo-tag, EXIF, ad to groups, comments, etc, etc as recipe to get to Explore but at the same time you are saying that "our algorithm is programmed in such a way that fluctuations will occur and indeed are expected to occur" and also "the entire system is designed to be a very revolving doorway for exploration for the viewer"
Why just not make it completely random then?
You still can pick 500 RANDOM images from those with more faves, comments or whatever, that way you will have nothing to explain to hundreds of people like me who doesn't understand what the hell is going on, feeling upset for being in a sort of "unfair competition", everything would be on the table, and you guys wont have to waste your time in forums like this one, answering questions like this one, and you also would have beautiful images to anybody who wants to look at pictures...
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The tips you've seen show you some of what the algorithm takes into account -- it's all data that can be "seen" by a computer program. But as you can easily imagine, the amount of attention the five thousand photos uploaded every minute get at any given time changes. Sometimes someone else's photo actually is getting more attention than yours. Sometimes five hundred of those thousands and thousands of photos uploaded the very same day as yours are getting more attention.
The good news is that staff have said that they do, in fact, plan to do away with the daily "top 500" anyway, so you won't have to compete anymore on being loved by the computer algorithm.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I appreciate that you're concerned about this issue, and we do plan on revamping Explore when we knock a few other projects out.
I also don't 'waste my time' anywhere on Flickr - I love the site and love working here, so... :)
We also do have beautiful images to look at every day - millions of them! Really, and I'm sure we only tap the surface of what's out there, but we do, you know, curate what we post to the blog and that's an adventure for everyone on staff in how well search and tags and geodata and galleries work....
I also subscribe to a great many blogs in which Flickr members are posting their finds - really, it's all about corners of discovery.
Thanks!
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Aw darn I won't get to have my egotrip anymore after Explore is canned. ;)
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that flickr is growing in new users, so its logical that you don't get in so often anymore as we are used to?
To be honest i think its not so important of getting into explore... and do believe it is down to a algorithm, if is see what stuff makes explore sometimes.. it can be tasteless from time to time (but that is according to my taste!)
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My photos aren`t good enough for the algorithm !
Well never mind...
I like to be on Flickr.
Posted 25 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
And so, after reading the posts above concerning the sudden stoppage of Explored photos, it is completely due to a change in the algorithm.
It just seems odd that a change would completely stop some of us that were Explored before to a point that we are totally un-Explored now.
Nice.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Gary Randall The change was probably intended to reduce representation from a small group of people who were gaming explore to achieve undue representation. You may, or may not, have been caught in the crossfire.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@iansand
Thanks. It appears that I have... although I'm not sure, if nobody knows what the algorithm is, how anyone can exploit it.
I can sit here and act like it doesn't matter, but really... it kinda does. All the friends that I shoot with are still knocking down Explores and mine have just stopped. None of us can figure out why.
And so, you see, even though Flickr can claim that they do not ban a person from Explore, they effectively have done just that to me by the changes to the algorithm that they made.
Thanks iansand! : )
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Its all nonesnese. I have contacts that are in Explore all the time, others never get a look in.
Its just a load of cods wollop the lot of it.
Its no use making statements that it doesnt mean anything and all that baloney, it obviously does, people use it as some kind of awrd or recognition, no matter how much flickr staff say its not.
If Explore is going to stay, flickr should sort it out once and for all, otherwise scrap it!
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The Red Pill Care to make an attempt to reconcile your first two paragraphs and your third?
Flickr is not required to pander to the delusions of its members. If some of them have decided to "use it as some kind of awrd or recognition" perhaps those members should try using a pill of a different hue.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
even though Flickr can claim that they do not ban a person from Explore, they effectively have done just that to me by the changes to the algorithm that they made
By that logic, I've been banned from every lottery during my lifetime, not to mention the Nobel prize. Just because your photos don't get semi-randomly chosen, it doesn't mean you're banned.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Nor does the fact that your friends are "still knocking down Explores" add any additional meaning to the web page full of photos.
Though really, all they have to do is implement my years' old suggestion/solution, and limit any explore appearance with a delay before that user can appear in it again (say, a month). That would eliminate the "knocking down Explores" phenomenon once and for all.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@andyscamera
You're ignoring one important point that I made. I received 201 Explores and then one day they stopped.
I'm not asking why I'm not getting them, I'm asking why I got them with some regularity over the course of two years and then one day they stopped and I haven't gotten one since.
Cheers.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Because the algorithm changed -- I took for granted everyone understood that.
The algorithm looks at activity surrounding photos, and the old one liked the activity around your photos more; the new one doesn't like it as much. That's all.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I wonder if the algorithm includes a subroutine which counts how many posts a person makes saying that their photos are no longer in Explore, and negatively weights their chances of doing so accordingly*. A sort of self-fulfilling prophecy algorithm :)
Let's try it:
"Waaah! Since the algorithm changed I don't get into Explore as mush as I used to."
If I'm right, I won't get a picture in Explore tomorrow.
* I like the idea that it checks the text of the posts for phrases like 'I don't care about Explore' and assumes that they're true when it applies the weighting.
Originally posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
Kaptain Kobold edited this topic 24 months ago.
|
|
|
I like Explore threads because they are like a University course in logic. At Bizarro University.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ :
Your photos don't show up on Explore any longer? So what? Does this fact make you feel less important and admired?
Why don't you just enjoy Flickr and give a damn about Explore?
Hundreds of thousands of people upload millions of photo to Flickr each and every day. Why do you think that yours have to be chosen? Welcome to the crowd whose photos never show up or only once in a while. :-)
Think it over: Making Explore really isn't the same as winning the Hasselblad Award. Needless to say that it's just a blind algorithm which makes the selection and not a jury consisting of Jeff Wall, Annie Leibovitz and William Eggleston.
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
Silanov edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
@Silanov
It is not an issue of whether or not I feel important or admired. Where in the hell did that come from? : ) Think it over... You were being quite presumptuous.
I simply asked why, when I would get them with certain regularity, that they would stop abruptly.
I hope that brings you up to speed.
Cheers.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Things sometimes change, Gary.
And it's often pointless to ask why they have changed...
By all means there's no plot against some Flickr members, who seem to be quite obsessed by making Explore.
PS: By the way I didn't want to sound presumptuous but rather direct a simple question at you - just to understand your motivation.
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
Silanov edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
|
I call shenanigans!
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wishing someone would tweak the Explore algorithm. Check out the current Explore FP, 6/29/10, www.flickr.com/photos/chrisglass/4742386191/
Really 5,615 views (ok- some gaming-- or blogging- or people just searching for the word), but also 65 faves, with only 27 comments?? - a bit strange, unless some gaming in giving faves is going on.
Wishing, wishing the Flickr staff would tweak the algorithm so that these kinds of low comment, but high view, and "faves way higher than comments" strange photos would be screened a little more- or wishing that my talented contacts with 200 views (no groups) 150 comments, 80 faves etc.-- really good work, with faves and comments just because they are good- -- could get show-cased so that others might find them. Something is way way out of balance.
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
Louise Lindsay edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
I have never had a picture in Explore. I presume that this means not that my pictures are rubbish but, rather, that I do not have a squadron of tame and sycophantic friends.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think flickr does indead ban people from Explore. infact the (m) with the dog Icon was a Admin of a lagre challage group once before she she started working with flickr. Me and a freind that have been on Flickr for about 5 years now both have never had a photo go to explore since Some of the (m)? on flickr are not the best people. they are like anyone else and have it in there Head they are better and think they know it all. I have a copy of a few things that happen in the pass. I feel some people just dont have a life and nothing better todo so tey feel they get power and it goes to there head.. ( like the kid that got beat up in school all the time is now getting even.........:)
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Wade Rose: What's your evidence that people get banned from Explore?
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And this time, in English, please.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
OK, Wade. I know Muzzlehatch's rather harsh restriction has been a setback. How about making this simple: forget sentences; don't worry about verbs and tenses; disregard clauses and conjunctions; even omit the random reminiscences of your school days. Just give us one incontrovertible fact which proves that someone has been banned from Explore - just one.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I was sure I'd been banned from Explore, with my last one being in November. But just the other day, somebody else's photo of me got into Explore!
Explore is devious that way.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think this is the first Explore Conspiracy Theory that specifically included zyrcster, though. So, points for originality.
*points*
*laughs*
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
can someone sum up the above into less than 20 words please
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sure.
No one is "banned" from Explore. Rather, the algorithm is periodically refreshed to keep Explore fresh. There is no pogrom.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
That would appear to be twenty one words of reply to the original question asking for twenty words or less.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Nah.
"Sure" is a response to the post above his.
"No one is "banned" from Explore. Rather, the algorithm is periodically refreshed to keep Explore fresh. There is no pogrom. " is the summary in 20 words.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Come on, Colleen.
Please don't quash this beautiful conspiracy theory.
All those people, who believe that they got a raw deal, might not know about what they could bother their head now...
So how about discussing 9/11 instead now?
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Silanov
I am She Who Speakses. You could offer tributes of gold, silver, jewels, property, and/or vehicles now if you want me to discuss 9/11.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And, if you want to count the "sure" in my word count, then read "there is no pogrom" as "there's no pogrom." Done.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
ColleenM.................I don' t know how to do those little icons
Humbug !
Muzzlehatch
Accepted and Done...However
" there's no pogrom."
Thank Goodness............
Wiki.......
A pogrom is a form of violent riot, a mob attack, either approved or condoned by government or military authorities, directed against a particular group, whether ethnic, religious, or other, and characterized by killings and destruction of their homes, businesses, and religious centers, property.
Which may or may not include those who say they are " Banned from Explore "
Back in a few days, hopefully with a theory, (not on 9/11) going to watch some episodes of the TV show ' Numbers ' to see what an algorithm is..........
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
When you boil things down to 20 words, you're going to have to concentrate the language a little bit to get across the meaning.
Literal readings are not very poetic and are better reserved for wordy medical journals and complicated assembly instructions.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I just wanna have my say in this :)
ok, so everyone is saying, that the change in algorithm is to keep explore 'fresh' and feature new users etc. etc. Why is it that only some users have been 'banned' (well, not banned, just not getting in any more) from explore, while some of the users who used to get loads of photos in explore still are! There are literally people who get every photo they post in explore, which to me, doesn't really seem like a fair showcase of new photographers.
I don't want to name names here, but.... *cough* *cough*
Originally posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
Sid Black edited this topic 22 months ago.
|
|
|
You need fans. Lots and lots of fans who think everything you do is great. And you need to do the same thing all the time. Don't deviate from the formula.
If you stray, and take non-formulaic pictures of interesting stuff you see, you're doomed to normaldom.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
haha, good answer :)
I mean, i would say i have 'fans' i get a fair amount of favorites on my pictures, but I 'stray from the norm' which i suppose is why i never get explored anymore... meh there's other ways to get views :)
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Having a gallery opening and selling fine art prints for hundreds of dollars each is the new Explore. Try that.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
(not that I have. But I poo poo the new Explore.)
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
All I know is the new formula definitely favors young girls taking low res camera phone photos in a mirror. :-/
Loved the subtle hint too Sid lol.
I'm not opposed to someone getting in frequently if their photos are deserving of it. But you can only take so many closeup photos of hands holding something before it starts to get pretty unoriginal.
And it shouldn't be about popularity necessarily either cuz some people have eleventy-billion contacts so they have a bigger pool to draw from.
The fact of the matter is that the algorithm has needed to be changed so much because people find the right jig to dance into the Magic Donkey's heart and then exploit the crap out of it and now it's diminished to the point of almost being random or is inadvertently no longer picking from certain people who had once gotten into Explore fairly regularly.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And I say, Let Those Jiggers Dance. If flickr is upset by it then flickr will do something about it. (It seems that they have indeed sometimes done something about it.) I find it better to not care. Flickr is fun but it is not life itself.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, either the algorithm has changed very recently or I'm suddenly taking much more "Interesting" photos. I'd prefer to think my photos are improving, but I tend to suspect it's an algorithm tweak.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Join the Getty program. Some of those people are competing to see how many images they can get accepted into the Getty library in the same way they used to compete for Explore. The members have even established off the record glittery awards for themselves "gold level member, 200 images in Getty, Bronze level member, 50, etc etc.)
It's superbly lame, but that's what people do. Oh, and unlike Explore there's is actual real money involved... sometimes a fair amount.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Of course, with Getty, like Explore, it isn't necessarily about "good" images. It could just be a picture of a Blackberry sitting on a table that gets in.
It's always in the eye of the beholder.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yeah my Dad is in Getty and makes a decent amount off of it and he says that the submission area can sometimes look like a dumping ground of junk not too much different than a lot of post-and-run groups out there, only in higher volume.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes, people put in all kinds of stuff. Just today, 10 shots of the same butterfly in a confusing jumble of branches. Nothing special about any one of them, let alone 10 from slightly different angles.
But there is (thankfully) a monthly limit of 40, and most people these days are lucky to get 2 picked from that.
Not like in the beginning, I hear, when they were accepting all kinds of crap to build of the collection fast. (I wasn't there).
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@Nikographer [Jon] ** I was curious about - changes that appeared to happen after Feb 23rd 2010 **
Exactly the same for me.
I know I haven't been banned from explore. But since Feb 23rd 2010, it's getting harder to be on Explore. 8 pictures on the last 6 month whereas it was almost every days.
First I was disappointed ... now I don't really care. Even if I get less visited.
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Just thought that I would report back in a follow up to my earlier post wondering why my photos stopped hitting explore.
They started back up again.
Sometimes the algorithm likes you, some times it don't! : )
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The Magic Donkey is a capricious beast!
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Secrets Of Explore /
Discuss
ratsj 
Louise Lindsay 
Chapmanc123 
:
Silanov 
Feed – Subscribe to Secrets Of Explore discussion threads
