|
|
The computers do it! They look at things like how many people view/comment/favorite a photo, and calculate a score based on that and other bits of magic.
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
me thinks the computer cheets
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Curious about the 'other bits of magic' part... Really don't like technology referred to as metaphysical - even tongue in cheek.
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I just uploaded some photos and immediately after that I checked interestingness and they already appeared in my photos above other older pictures. They had no views or comments. How is that?
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's a Magic Donkey. He looks at each file and nods yeah or neigh.
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Curious about the 'other bits of magic' part... Really don't like technology referred to as metaphysical - even tongue in cheek.
In other words it's about 1K of LOC.
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
just uploaded some photos and immediately after that I checked interestingness and they already appeared in my photos above other older pictures. They had no views or comments. How is that?
It means that all your photos have the same interesingness, in this case they are ordered by date.
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I always figured it had something to do with literally how graphically different it is from most other pictures. Is that totally stupid?
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I always figured it had something to do with literally how graphically different it is from most other pictures. Is that totally stupid?
it isn't stupid, but that's not how it works.
not that i know how it works, just that i know that isn't it.
it works essentially how eric describes up top. how many and what tags and groups it has/is in also play a role.
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@TRJA
It's not stupid but we are using different approach: Magic Donkey!
:)
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ALL
Groups play minimal role in interestingness calculation.
So posting photo in too many groups can only decrease interestingness (in some special cases) and will never directly increase it.
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why is one of my images sudenly dropped from the first place on the tag "amsterdam" to somewhere at page 5?
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Because it suddenly became less interesting of course! Perhaps the trained monkeys/donkeys/computers etc. got tired of it...
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, it probably got something to do with time. At this moment an older image is ranking at that first place, with only 200 more views and less favs.
So it must be tired of the image.
Well, time will learn...
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Slabbers, maybe it's because sooo many photos are tagged "amsterdam" that the Magic Donkey thought "Oh no, not yet another amsterdam pic ..."
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Actually, Magic Donkey thought:
"Oh... no... this is a wrong group :)
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
have you ever tried the tag jpg. I think the MD will go crazy on that one!
Amsterdam happens to be an excellent place to take photos! I noticed that "Venice" got 1/3 of the amount of photos. In my opinion everybody is carieing a camera in Venice!
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
bunchofpants may have hit on something, Interesting.
Posted 80 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Slabbers, I got the same situation. Please check:
flickr.com/photos/jzpixel/74255867/
Posted 78 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I just went to look at the 1/1/06 page of interestingness, and many the photos are repeats. Same photo, on different page.
(Banal, mostely; not interesting photos.)
Posted 78 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Magic Donkey is on holiday and his subordinate Digger Mole is subbing. Just doesn't have the same eye for detail.
Posted 78 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i don´t think it has anything to do with views and comments...i have seen photos on interestingness that have had near to no views and no comments...
Posted 78 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think its great that there is a little bit of 'mystery' about it. It gives us all something to aim for, should we wish. A photo on the flickr homepage etc.
I'm also sure that if the staff went into too much detail, the system would be exploited and then interestingness would become worthless!
Keep up the great work with Flickr and Keep clicking!
(browse my six best pics: www.flickr.com/photos/paulhurst/sets/1796345/)
Posted 78 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I uploaded a bunch of pictures the other day. One was viewed a few times and favorited by someone. Another is one of my worst pictures and hasn't be viewed by anyone. The latter was ranked #6, while the favorited picture is #75.
Interestingness appears to be either random or based on some irrelevant factor, such as (just guessing) pixel/color/contrast relation.
Posted 77 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mark Lewis....
but "appearances" can be deceiving.
Posted 77 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well... I had the same question about interestingness rating, but reading this forum I realized that, at the end, it is a kind of lottery. Maybe a mathematician can solve the MD logic...
Posted 77 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I, for one, hope that even if they drop interestingness, never to use it again (and presumably shoot the magic donkey for dog food) that they never, ever reveal how it works.
I have such a fundamental issue with people wanting to be considered "more interesting" than someone else by an algorithm.
Try being interesting. You will draw people that way too, you know. Maybe not as immediately as being featured on a page of not-quite-random photo's in one area does, but they'll arrive. No-one had interestingness to find Special, awfulsara or Fubuki (among many, many others) but find them they did. And by the thousands...
Why not let your interestingness grow rather than desire to buy a fully grown tree?
Posted 77 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Perhaps you solved the MD logic: to motivate people to give more of themselves while they are behind the camera...
Posted 77 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've also been pondering the meaning of "interestingness". I can't quite grasp the logic, looking at my photos ordered by this strange algorithm, even allowing for time factors (I'm new here, maybe 'interesting' develops over time) and the unquantifiable influence of humans (or donkeys) on distribution of views, favorites & comments. It's baffling.
I'd post stats on my top 10 most "interesting" but I doubt it would help explain anything, just muddy the waters.
My suggested hypothesis is that there is a "coincidence" factor that produces non-deterministic results in the computations. Whilst using Flickr this weekend I have experienced two minor but notable manifestations of "coincidence". I am waiting to see how this effects my "interestingness", in the mean time I'll search the tags for photo evidence of this mysterious Magic Donkey.
Brock, I think you are right there. Also, FWIW, there is another (rather tenuous) coincidence with your mention of "dog food" and what I found when I recently search for "qatsi". This is a fascinating world that we live in. :-)
Posted 77 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We all determine interestingness, with help from some algorithm or other. First, by posting photos. Second, by looking at other people's photos.
Probably, third, by being interested in what determines interestingness. (By the way, is that a word, except on Flickr?)
Maybe Flickr should translate "interestingness," like they do with "Hello" so that different words, in different languages, appear as alternatives.
Posted 77 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads