|
|
I lost 44. I think they dump a whole bunch at once every so often to let new people in.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Good to know it's not just me. Thanks dotlyc.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I had five, got dumped this afternoon.. they have been bouncing for the last two months.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It is not just you ..There is a new algorithm...
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
oh really, now what???
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I am not too sure ..I know there are all new faces unfamiliar to me in the top 20 the last few days ..Actually I went back now to about the 20th and I am not familiar with any of the names in the top 10 of each day..
Time to get rid of the old and bring in the new I guess
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There should be some change. Many of my contacts as well as myself suddenly lost a bunch of photos from Explore. Explore has grown more and more meaningless for me when it doesn't list up many great photos.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Agreed, must be some change lately. I lost around 40 and don't have any photo in top10 for few days already :)
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oddly enough, I finally went from the mid-twenties to 35 earlier today.
As said though, it's meaningless.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
After 3 months at about 360, in the last 36 hours I jumped to 86 with quite an old photograph.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mine went from 38 to 23
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hey guys, I just want to confirm that we've really deployed some adjustments to the interestingness algorithm. Have fun and enjoy all the new faces on the Explore pages :)
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
oh the humanity! Explore is a fickle mistress :)
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
mine's from about 23 to 3.
lovely.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Mine went from 58 to 32 ????????? , Did you noticed the shit on front page lately ?
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I saw a picture of a gun on the explore page. Shouldn't that be censored? Nudes are verboten, but guns are ok? Must be made in America! hehe :)
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@SilentObserver: But you tweaked it not very perfectly, you have overseen some of the old guys, so go on and kick them out, too ;)
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I see:
more pets
more kids
more boredom
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But more happy customers getting attention, they didn't get before :)
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I see
More new members (I think just )
No post processed picture
more kids and people portrait
!
But if Flickr change the algoritm no problem , but why delete all my picture in expore from last two month ??? this is one injustice
Valerio
(excuse me for my terrific english )
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You're a lucky guy, I lost everything until last November, and I think it just started :)
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Valerio, maybe we all should start shooting young beautiful sensual girls with loads of fireworks around? };))
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Great idea Toni - but you first have to cancel your subscription (what might after all the trouble in the last time be a good idea) and start under a new name. And even then it will be hard for you to send something in the now requested low quality. Don't forget to give the young beautiful girl a birthday cake in her hand - cakes are very popular at the moment ;-)
@SilentObserver - It is quite difficult to enjoy anyting on the first pages of explore - it is the typical mixture of more or less interesting pictures you can find in any given group - but without the really good pictures you can find in these groups. So --> no fun at all!
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You are missing the point, the intention is not fun for you, it's fun for the people now in explore. So they will be happy customers in future, which you already are...
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've just had two old ones jump back in - haven't added them to any groups, in fact, haven't done anything to 'em since they dropped out of Explore a couple of months back...
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You are right aremac, I forgot about the cakes! :)))
I thought these changes were to make more good pictures from not so popular people to go into Explore, and that would be great! But I'm seeing that now the Explore refreshing is even less freqüent than before! And I will not mention the quality because this is a very subjective stuff... Anyway, I really don't understand :((
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
its ok photos from new faces, but the quality has deteriorated and it is not that fun to browse through explore photos anymore. let us wait, perhaps as time goes on, it will be better.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I went from high 20s to 5 currently in there. But a few of the remaining shots in explore SHOT UP to top 10 positions, which they had never achieved.
huh????
Oh well. I'm sure someone will figure out the magic recipe soon.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yesterday when I checked my results in the Scout of Flickr Toys, I ended up with many of my posters increasing in amount of images I uploaded both for posters that don't include removed images and for posters that do include removed images. My highest for posters without removed images is now at 26, while posters with removed images has my highest at 33. Today, all has gone downhill, and my highest without removed images for today is at 23. The highest of 33 images for posters with removed images has not changed. And I uploaded nine Explore posters yesterday.
You can even post your comments about what is going on with Explore in the fd's Flickr Toys group if you are interested in being part of that group.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
Chrisser edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
|
SilentObserver
just tell me how to enjoy new faces in explore if they are the reason my pictures are out of expore since November last year?
tell me how I will enjoy watching those pictures if one of my very best architecture picture, blogged by a very well known British architectural photographer dropped out of explore?
Tell me how to enjoy explore now?
Probably you can't, because now even if I posted my best picture ever; flickr, explore or the algorithm won't recongnize it, just because I am not a new face in flickr, but a trusty old customer... Do you really think I will enjoy this??
Well done, flickr, again!!
making changes without any warning to the customers, just waiting until the clients complain to make the announcement... and of course telling at the end... "if we don't like the service, go out and look for another place..."
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I enjoy nature shots, and occasionally they tweak explore to allow more in, but usually I see only a very few there. I am bored to death by architectural shots. They can't please everyone. Explore is not meant to be a 'hall of fame' of the best shots, if you look at it even for a few minutes that becomes abunbantly clear, as others have already pointed out. Tweak On Flickr!!! :)
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Now, pictures on Explore are not even changing! I'm seeing the same ones for hours!! Great way to "improve" Flickr... :(
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
jeez louise, perikita, you write like your life depends on being ever present in explore :o
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
As I wrote before, it's not made to please you, it's to please the new faces. Maybe they want to make a small present to new customers from Yahoo!Photos, to make them happy about their new place. Explore is just a business tool, not more not less. And for the business it's better to have a lot of people participating and giving a lot of people the feeling they are posting good pictures. That makes them happy and staying on flickr, telling their friends what a nice place this is. Having always the same old guys there frustrates the people, that's bad for the business.
And don't speak about quality, it's still high enough to please uncle Bob...
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
quality
the decline in quality complaint comes out every time the algorithm gets tweaked. if you believe that, quality has been in freefall for at least a couple of years. maybe it's true, and by this time next year we'll all be looking at bad passport photos. ;-)
I don't know why anybody ever thought explore was a measure of 'quality' in the first place.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
not that i really care, but i do think it's odd how every time they adjust it , it makes my own photos in explore all the more mediocre, the really good popular ones with tons of comments, views and faves etc generally the ones of which i am most proud, get bumped out and the less popular ho hum shots (not that i have ANY of those) get moved up.
seems to me that excellence is definitely a detriment if having lots of ones own images in explore is desired. -- and it's not, not by me anyway.
i also have no desire to pretend that what i say matters but it certainly seems like any media channel, be it television, print, web or otherwise would want to have the absolute BEST stuff available for the channel surfer -- isn't that how you get them to stop and stay a while? -- the way it works now is like FOX bumping American Idol so Smarter Than a 5th Grader and MadTV will feel good about themselves as if either one of them is gonna high tail it to another network.
ha ha -- kinda retarded i think.
keep it mediocre people. keep it mediocre.
btw, i'm not complaining, really, i'm not.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
merkley??? edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
|
I'm happy to be in Explore, but I'll say it again...
Explore should be a random presentation of the most "popular" images for that given moment, as determined by the logic of the algorithm. However - and this is where I think Explore could please more people and be more fair - it should not assign any numerical order to their presentation. In other words, each person looking at Explore should get a random order of whatever pics popped up in the Explore algorithm.
If this meaningless numerical ranking wasn't applied, people would finally have more fun with Explore. We all know the ranking is momentary and meaningless anyway. We should just have them presented in a randomly ordered grouping.
Just yesterday, one of my images was at #50 for the day. That made me happy, but I knew it was a pointless thing to be happy about. I was more happy just to be anywhere in Explore; not cuz I feel like I won, but because more people would see the image.
That's my two cents. Feels more like two and a half cents.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I agree the comment of manganite !this is the sistem of flickr , I'm one member from 2 years and at the beginnig this site one was still not of yahoo, when it has become diffused and the staff it has understood that he was becoming a good ones business have sold all to yahoo, hour this is one instrument to make moneies with the publicity and logons, are drugging and like for the drug addicts they donate to us and then they remove to us therefore to become flick employee !!
from one mounth I change address and in new house I don'thave ADSL line ! this is perfect for go out from here !!!!!
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
With uploads around 3,000 per minute, I'm really not sure how it would ever be possible for flickr to ensure the best 500 posted each day appear in explore.
It's a computer algorithm folks, it does no more or less than it is programmed to do. It certainly does not know how to tell a great image from a poor one.
For example. it was selecting censorship notices that people started putting up as 'jpg files when the censorship fiasco in Germany happened. If it chose those, then it has no idea what is a photograph and what isn't and so relies on an arbitrary set of rules to determine popularity or interestingness that really have nothing to do with the image quality but only as to how many people view it, make it a fave, what tags are displayed and so on and on.
Having an image on flickr Explore is probably not something you should put on your resume!!
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm trying my best NOT to be on Explore! I would be embarrassed to have one of my latest posts next to some of the stuff I've seen on there lately. I'm working on the ones I have in right now, posting to groups and such to make changes to get off Explore.
As far as I'm concerned, Explore no longer represents a cross section of the best and/or the most interesting photos. A photo that has 12 comments, 3 faves, no tags, no posts to groups and no invites should not be rated #9. Just because a photo gets a large number of views does not make it interesting, nor does it make the poor quality of the photograph any better.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
jafvis(ystspzz) edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
|
I don't want explore to please me!!
I want it to be fair and if someone has a better picture than mine, that is perfect! Congratulations, and great that, that picture is shown for me to get inspiration and motivation to make better pictures.
Chesil...
I liked what you wrote specially your last sentence. I got it clear..
I am out of this thread... thanks.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
After all is said and done ...some food for thought ..
If I were a potential customer coming into flickr and looking at the explore page which is nothing more than a marketing scheme, I would have to think twice as the quality is just not the same as it was before.
I am forever finding some really excellent QUALITY shots and I dont necessarily look to explore to find them and certainly that is not the case now.
Being new to photography I know the excitement of one of your shots making explore and making it in the top 20 which generally was the more cream of the crop.
But there is more to life than the explore rating which is far over rated. If I want to see some QUALITY shots I will not be looking at explore at the moment for them I will look at my friends and contacts shots.
I used to look at explore with awe and want to learn how to do some of the shots that I used to see.
needless to say Flick staff has certainly shaken things up.
explore was motivation and inspiration for me..
Not anymore. I am all for new faces in the explore pages but the good ones should still be there as well.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
after reading through all of these comments one thing is clear...
almost all of you have mentioned that your best photos, most popular, most comments, most favs, etc... have been bumped out of explore and this enrages you..
But you have just mentioned exactly what you should be feeling about some of your favorite photos! Explore means nothing (while it is FUN) your apparent appreciation of your own photography should be enough!
explore will flatten out in a week or so.. just like the last time.. and your shots will be right back in there..!
But i do agree that the good people at flickr need to realize that having those same people who always have outrageous photos.. not only encourages people to take better pictures and become a better photographer.. but also pushes them further!
blah blah blah whatever! =]
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ms Ladyred:
the quality is just not the same as it was before
exactly the argument we heard from a bunch of old skoolers after the big shakeup in early 2006. and again when there was another adjustment in the middle of 2006.
how far flickr has fallen since the glory days of 2004/2005, eh?
I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. mostly because I never thought explore was a measure of quality to begin with.
but you're absolutely right about looking to contacts for inspiration.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
guys, wanna go for good pics?
explore the favourites of your most admired contact.
and then again the faves of the faved of the faves of the faved.
it's even better in case you really do not care about kittens.
that's a way to get your quality
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Explore sucked before, it sucks slightly less now.
Stop complaining, jeez.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Explore Interestingness Application Patent ( Stewart Butterfield & Caterina Fake) :
appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=...
CONCLUSION
Their "Interestingness" is not our "Interestingness" :
[0046] Other interestingness score components may be set by the system designer. For example, some media objects may be treated as undesirable.
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amsterdamned! edited this topic 72 months ago.
|
|
|
looks like the good ones are back in explore. hooray!!!
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i hope the intrestingness algorithm really did chage,
i was kind of tired always seeing flower or sunsets in the top pics of each day...somehow one of my shots moved up to the TOP spot for one day...and be sure it wasn't flowery sunset stuff...
nonetheless had 40 pics in explore, how it's just 20, but still quite enough...
Posted 72 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have only been in explore one or two times, but it is dissapointing to see how photos only with 20 comments and 7 favorites stand in the top 10... and when the quality or the "interrestingness" is rather doubtful... it seems there not to be any logic...
Explore does not have to be an obsession and in my case is not it... but either I think it's not "correct" that these pictures occupy the top 500 during all day long, while other probably others with more merits do not arrive at position 1000.... I home that it is due to some type of readjustment or error in the algorithm and that very soon normalizes...
regards
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The new algorithm of the Magic Donkey maybe doesnt like Award groups....at the moment many photos in the top 10 are photos of members who did'nt enter an award group or maybe entered only 2-3 "general" groups....let it be......."interestingness" is a "fake" term .....its a Flickr media tool they can change any minute......its not interesting.
The word "Interestingness" is used in a misleading way.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amsterdamned! edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
I had 20, now I'm down to 4. Two, consistently in the top ten since they were posted, were dumped at #5 even though the views/faves keep going up.
I notice that even Scout's changed their wording.
Then: "Warning: reading too much into Interestingness is bad for your mental health. This is just for fun, kids. ;-)"
Now: "Explore is a swell way for photographers to be seen by thousands of people, but the only way to get there is to take great photos and upload them to Flickr (so what are you waiting for?)."
Talk about towing the line!
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Amsterdamned! wrote The new algorithm of the Magic Donkey maybe doesnt like Award groups....at the moment many photos in the top 10 are photos of members who did'nt enter an award group or maybe entered only 2-3 "general" groups...
I think that the algorithm is trying to make pictures from not so popular people appear on Explore more often. And people usually is not popular either because they are new or because they have done little to be popular (for example, not posting to any group, ot at least to the "strategic" ones in terms of raising interestingness). I think this is the reason why we don't see too many award groups (neither others of the most popular ones) in the top 10.
When I started on Flickr and was completely unknow I only posted to "general" groups, without thinking in terms of gaining interestingness. Then, I learnt about the interestingness mechanics and started to post to award groups (and other "prestigious" ones) for obvious reasons, and forgot about the others...
So, I think it's not that the algorithm doesn't like award groups, but that it tends to favorite people who doesn't make use of them, so it's a "side effect". Some of my pictures were front page these last days (after the algorithm was changed) and I posted them to the usual well known groups, many of them being award ones...
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I had 23 and dropped to 9, but the real change is that since June 9th I haven't had a single new image added to explore. I know this sounds self centered, but prior to that I was on a pretty decent average of about 1 or 2 every two weeks, sometimes more, sometimes less, but never zero for almost a whole month straight.
I'm glad to hear that something did change, because I sure noticed it on my end.
On the other side of the coin, I am glad to see new faces in explore, and I am glad to see that the change foiled a few people. I read Valerio's comment from this page, and franky, I am glad that for once I am not seeing a sunset from Valpopando on the front page...at times even TWO of his on the front page (after hitting refresh a few times) on the same day, day after day.
hey I'm valposorry, I guess the formula that you valpofigured out valpochanged.
lol. Sorry.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
hehehe Pisco why you write this ??
I dont have one my formula for go in explore !! and also I are happy to see new member in explore ( quote in my comment up) !! and I'm sad for my frequently presence in explore excuse me , but I do not decide them photo that they go in explore, and if mine have gone a lot time I am not responsible, perhaps they are beautiful for many? … hour not there is more problem of valphoto in valexplore because valpopando to september will exit therefore will not give more annoyance
excused all
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
Valpopando edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
In June of 2006, the algorhythm changed to "cycle" more people in and out of explore for the three months after the posting date. This allowed more people to be in explore, but it also meant that photos would drop in and out for the first three months, before they "stabilized". The idea (I'm guessing) was to be more inclusive.
The explore algorhythm is partially a measure of popularity of a photo relative to your OWN photostream. That's why photos with only 8 faves and 100 views can get into explore. . if the person averages only a rare fave. The mathematical assumption is that if a photo gets a much greater than average fave/view rate, it must be better.
What is WEIRD about the recent change is that photos that previously were in the stable mode (three months or more after posting) have disappeared. For example, in January, I had 4 photos, one of which was number ONE until a week ago, and another that was in the top 10. So what was interesting about them that is no longer interesting? If you weren't around for a year or two before the June, 2006 change, you didn't experience the most amazing drop off: I had over 200 in explore at that time, and was reduced to 50.
Almost all my photos after mid December, 2006 have disappeared from Explore. So what?? If you do a search on a tag, say "eagle" or "one tree", you can still find some of the better (or at least more popular) photos, regardless of their being or not being in Explore.
What's curious is this - how a photo can be in the top 5 of 40,000 photos on the subject and still not be in explore. For example
www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&z=t&w=all&q=eagl...
my eagle photo is # four sorted by "interestingness".
There is apparently little connection between the formula for "interestingness" and "explore".
What bothers me most about the changing algorhythm is that it invalidates each previous version of Explore - meaning that flickr was WRONG about what they had previously determined was worthy of Explore. Therefore Explore is meaningless - and this won't be the last change, either !!!!
Anyway, If you are really interested in the subject, here's a place to read about Explore until you are satiated:
At least it was fairly accurate in as of the June, 2006 change. Who knows now?
It's a mystery.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
creativity+:
excellent post.
Explore is meaningless - and this won't be the last change, either !!!!
Yes! it's not worth hanging your hat on.
seems like they have to change it as soon as too many people figure out how to game the current version...if it gets too transparent, they have a problem.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The last change I do not understand really. First it seems to be a drastic change. Lost all pictures from now back to December last year. And now? Since yesterday they reappeared all again...
So, will they vanish again, or have they canceled the last change already?
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Okay, Flickr---
I think it is great that you are trying to get more people on explore--- Fine
Yes everyone, Explore really means nothing-- we get it-- but we like it-- so stop trying to sell that it means nothing and move on. If it didn't mean anything to you, you wouldn't be in this thread.
Back to the flickr People--
Okay Back in October you penalized scoring/commenting groups because they required you to comment/score on certain photos, people couldn't pick which ones they wanted. Okay, everyone got that message. Those groups suffered big time.
So award/icon groups became popular. People get the attention, awards, and PEOPLE GET to CHOSE which photos to give the icons to. That should have made you happy
I have worked my butt off to make a fair, fun group where people get the awards their photos deserve. But now it seems you are penalizing these groups--- and this type of group is what you wanted way back, everyone gets a fair shake. You are giving explore to people in just subject groups, and invite groups(which you had better have a good contact to invite you to) The subject groups, people just post and run, don't look at anything else, so you better have some good contacts to fave and comment. So the next thing you will probably do is penalize people with a certain amount of contact base. Who fave and comment to help people get on explore.
Where as the icon award groups, people have to look at the photo, open it up and post. People are getting the attention that I believe flickr is suppose to be about. Getting your photos out there. having fun, interacting, getting new ideas, and hopefully reaching the top, even for one minute.
Explore, while meaningless in the real world, is a huge pat on the back for photographers. It makes people happy, excited, proud, confident, gets them to keep on shooting. Take that away, AGAIN, and AGAIN, and well I think you are finally going to push lots of people away. I am really getting tired of it. And while I am not ready to quit just yet, I have thought about it, which means, well down the line I probably will grow really tired, after being penalized right and left,
My 2 cents, and it would sure be nice to know some staff is reading this thread, even if you just say Yo
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yo :)
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Yo :) "
On average a rather meaningful comment by a staff member...
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks Silent for acknowledging someone is listening to what people are saying.... at least listening
Yo :)
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Seeing the same thing, over and over again, is, almost by definition, not interesting.
Formalized 'fave any 2, comment on any 4' type groups and Mutual Appreciation Award societies are barely a half step up the evolutionary ladder from Chain Letters, Email Viruses, and Marketing Scams.
These things should be found, ridiculed, and penalized whenever possible, not rewarded by a feature on the front page of flickr.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What's the problem, sevensixfive? If you post crap to such a group, you will not get any comments and favs, if you post a good picture, you will get. So it's the same for explore. If there's crap in, it will not get any attention and is pulled out of it. if there is a good picture in, it will get attention.
Beside any changes, in the and there old people are in explore, cause on average their pictures are just better... So will it be this time. it's shaking now heavily, but you'll see the same people again. All the hate and jealousy (see the posts about valpopando...) one can sometimes read somewhere will not change this...
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 "What's curious is this - how a photo can be in the top 5 of 40,000 photos on the subject and still not be in explore. For example
www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&z=t&w=all&q=eagl...
my eagle photo is # four sorted by "interestingness".
There is apparently little connection between the formula for "interestingness" and "explore"."
This would only make sense if all the photos posted that day were tagged with 'eagle.'
People seem unable to comprehend the huge number of pictures that are uploaded each day. Imagine the millions of photos posted to Flickr on the same day as your eagle shot that do not share the tag 'eagle.' Isn't it possible that amongst them there are 500 photos that a computer algorithm might say are more 'interesting' than yours?
I really don't understand how anyone can be miffed when a photo is dropped from Explore. To be upset about that you'd have to be convinced that your photo was somehow definitively in the top 0.007% of all the images posted that day. No matter how good your shot is, if you've convinced yourself that there can't be 500 more 'interesting' shots out of the 7 million it is competing with well then you're deluded.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
>Formalized 'fave any 2, comment on any 4' type groups and Mutual Appreciation Award societies are barely a half step up the evolutionary ladder from Chain Letters, Email Viruses, and Marketing Scams.
Oh bla bla bla, what rubbish, they're not even related. And trying to argue that they are is like arguing that Flickr censoring titties is the same as Hitler's Germany. You don't help your case, you just come off hysterical.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Dave Gorman
"I really don't understand how anyone can be miffed when a photo is dropped from Explore. To be upset about that you'd have to be convinced that your photo was somehow definitively in the top 0.007% of all the images posted that day. No matter how good your shot is, if you've convinced yourself that there can't be 500 more 'interesting' shots out of the 7 million it is competing with well then you're deluded. "
I think it's not the competition with the 7 million pictures not in explore it's the subjective impression that the own picture is better than at least one of the 500 in explore, what makes people upset.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The thing these groups have in common with viruses, pyramid schemes, and chain letters is this: they exist soley to replicate meaningless, content-free behavior in the people who are their members/hosts.
By participating in them, you are helping spread the infection, and I think that means giving up a little of your humanity and autonomy. You become a sneeze.
And besides that, you're helping make flickr more boring, I've hardly seen one of these groups that doesn't flatten out to the least common denominator. I don't want to see sunsets over lakes, with birds, run through ten photoshop filters, with a watermark, and a frame, and a drop shadow, on the front page of flickr everyday. And the photo I'm thinking of had a zillion comments after it that said 'stunning!', 'great!', 'you are my winner!', etc. because the people who use these groups all day run out of interesting things to say about the boring images they're forced to comment on.
And anyway, glancing at your pages, rgdaniel and manganite, I saw a lot of pictures that I liked a lot, not trying to personally attack anybody, and I'm not jealous, either. I had half my explore shots get dropped, too.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Had about 18 and now I have 2 :(
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
For me it's mainly a game, and seems that some ten thousands of people thinking the same. But that's a question of taste, I think. I for example don't like this 'delete me' groups, often populate by pure photographers using the chance to make stupid comments about the better ones. or groups like the 'biggest one', I just used them to send my worst pictures in, just the place they belong to...
flickr is a big place, so everyone could something, some groups, that suits him. I don't like many groups, but if they are there, okay, some people like it. No need to punish them.
And thanks for looking at my pictures, sevensixfive.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
People aren't really using the groups accurately if they are just writing something like "great!" on a photo they actually find boring. I'm in several of the award groups and I spend a lot of time finding photos that I really enjoy & fave to write comments about. Nobody is forcing you to comment in those groups. You can look and comment on anything you find interesting, which makes them fun. Plus it's a great way to find new contacts, because you are able to find other people who have a style that you like that you might not otherwise find.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 "I think it's not the competition with the 7 million pictures not in explore it's the subjective impression that the own picture is better than at least one of the 500 in explore, what makes people upset."
 Yes... but 'subjective' is the key word isn't it? And it should follow that whoever you are, when one of your own shots is in Explore there were certainly better photos that hadn't made it. That's because trying to assemble an actual these-are-the-best list is impossible. It's impossible anyway when art is inherently subjective but when you add in 7 million variables...?
I'm astounded at people's ability to believe that the algorithm is working right when it does choose their images and is somehow broken when those images get dropped.
It's not that it's got less accurate... it was never accurate in the first place. If you don't put faith in it when it does pick your photos, you won't be offended when it drops them.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
nothing against people who want to play the awards games, although some undeniably use them to game explore.
what I do resent is when the same canned awards start showing up repeatedly on pics that I've commented on: that means that they're constantly bumped to the top of my Comments You've Made listing, where they obscure more meaningful exchanges.
it's gotten to the point where I've changed my comment behavior. I don't comment on pics that are posted to a lot of awards groups, even those pics I may like. I'll also delete my comment if I get tired of seeing the awards in Comments You've Made. sad, but true.
it's been requested many times, but we still need a way to selectively hide pics in Comments You've Made.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ dave gorman:
www.flickr.com/help/forum/45499/#reply258824
I would agree with you except that another photo of mine of an eagle is considered considerably less "interesting", and has many fewer views and faves, yet it is in Explore -
I guess trying to make sense of it is useless - but since it's a mathematical, computer algorhythm, you would think that there would be some consistency.
This one = 79 faves and 5,500 views and is NOT in explore:
This one = 18 faves and 525 views and IS in explore.
Explain that one, somebody. . . .
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
one is in many groups, the other is in no groups. No mystery there.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't think that 7 groups counts as "many" - and I guarantee that if I removed it from all seven groups that would not ensure that it would be in explore.
I've stopped posting to groups because it seems useless to post to a group called "birds", when the "bird" "bald" and "eagle" TAG will help someone find my photo if someone is actually looking for an eagle pic.
More importantly, I don't post to groups because it takes time to post to groups. I would rather spend my limited time at flickr viewing and commenting on the photos of my favorite photographers.
I finally have reduced the number of invitations to the so-called "award" groups to almost zero by rarely participating. I find the award groups anoying, and would rather have sincere, useful comments either critical or admiring.
But still, explore should not be about the kind or quantity of groups you choose to participate and submit a photo to.
No matter what flickr does, there will always be a way to TRICK the system, if someone is silly enough to want to try.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
Creativity+ Timothy K Hamilton edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
"This one = 79 faves and 5,500 views and is NOT in explore:
[picture]
This one = 18 faves and 525 views and IS in explore.
[picture]
Explain that one, somebody. . . . "
Erm... they were uploaded on different days. They're not competing with each other for a place in Explore. One has no bearing on the other.
That said, the fact that you've added one of them to 500 views +20 faves and similar groups probably explains some of it too. (Quite rightly in my opinion)
I'm really not sure that a lot of views tells us much about how interesting a picture is. 79 faves and 5500 views tells me that only 1.4% of people who looked at it wanted to make it a favourite. The other shot scores higher with 3.4% of people... by that measure it's ore than twice as interesting.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
Dave Gorman edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
@Dave Gorman:
"Yes... but 'subjective' is the key word isn't it? And it should follow that whoever you are, when one of your own shots is in Explore there were certainly better photos that hadn't made it. That's because trying to assemble an actual these-are-the-best list is impossible. It's impossible anyway when art is inherently subjective but when you add in 7 million variables...?"
But still the 7 million variables are unknown, while the 500 are. You can just take hours imagine what amazing pictures are in between these 7 million, but that's pointless. But it's easy to look at 500 hundred and compare them with your owns. I don't say, that's the right behavior, but it's the natural behavior.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@creativity+:
Yes, you can always game the algorithm, if your familiar enough with it, but it's pointless to discuss if a certain picture have to be in explore. It have not. There's no guaranty about this.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"But it's easy to look at 500 hundred and compare them with your owns. I don't say, that's the right behavior, but it's the natural behavior."
I'm really not sure that it is. Expecting a computer driven algorithm to agree with your subjective opinion as to which photo is best seems particularly irrational to me. You might well think that your photo is 'better' than one that has replaced it... but remember, the algorithm hasn't actually seen either of them.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Explore...Schmexplore.........Sure, it's nice to see your shots get in...makes you feel like you've recieved a little "pat on the back", I'm proud of mine, but come on now......is it really the end all, be all of your Flickr Life. I think too many people look at Explore with a little bit of, well, for lack of a better term, penis envy. Enjoy each others shots, comment on each others shot's and feel good that REAL people appreciate your work......computer algorithms have no taste!!!!!!
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
2000dan2000 wrote computer algorithms have no taste!!!!!!
Wrong! Well, true, but no completely ;) I mean, Interestingness algorithm is based mainly on VIEWS, COMMENTS and FAVES just because a computer has no taste. But people viewing, commenting and faveing DO HAVE TASTE. So we can say the algorithm do have taste, in an indirect way. People doesn't view, comment or fave bad pictures, and view, comment and fave great ones. So the Interestingness algorithm should pick up the best pictures, according to general taste... Obviously there are other parameters that have influence, bur the basis is this.
If my pictures have an average of 1000 views, 150 comments and 80 faves, when one of them has only 400 views, 70 comments and 30 faves surely it means it's not a good one and the algorithm should ignore it, while another one getting 10000 views, 300 comments and 200 faves is surely a great one and the algorithm should pick it up. I'm assuming I post them more or less in the same groups...
manganite wrote What's the problem, sevensixfive? If you post crap to such a group, you will not get any comments and favs, if you post a good picture, you will get. So it's the same for explore. If there's crap in, it will not get any attention and is pulled out of it. if there is a good picture in, it will get attention.
Well said ;)
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
ToniVC edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
Explore is a PR tool.
The algorithm is based on X parameters.
Its a very flexible and effective PR media tool because the license holder (Flickr) can change the parameters (algorithm) at any preferred moment in order to get max corporate exposure/publicity.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I always figured (without any proof) that Flickr churns the Explore 500 quite a bit. It might be only 500 photos at any one time (has anyone ever counted?) but with frequent replacement who knows how many photos cycle in and out of Explore on any given day. Maybe the new algorithm takes churning to a new high. Rationally, I'd have to be pretty unrealistic to think that any one photo of mine was in the top 500 out of 7 million photos submitted. I wouldn't be human though if I didn't take a little pleasure in it even if I knew it couldn't be true.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Only slightly tangential thinking but one of my favourite (recent) images in Explore was one of those images created in flickrtoys which show all the photos that someone had in Explore. Just think about it... taken to its logical conclusion at the first level Explore could consist of images of photos that were in Explore then images of images that were in Explore etc etc etc etc... that should be recursive enough for even the most recursive of recursive programmers...
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Zixiette
Yes, back in June 2006, flickr started cycling photos in and out of explore so that 2,000 or more could be part of Explore, if only temporarily. That's why everybody's photos pop in and out of explore for the three months after the post date before it settles down. For more details, see the photo link above
www.flickr.com/help/forum/45499/#reply258724
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
creativity+ Yes, I realised something was up with the algorithm when a rash of those flickrtoys images started turning up in everyone's photostream so I checked here to see what they'd done.
TBH it's made some of my contacts so happy that I can't get irritated about the change to the algorithm and don't all send me hate mail :-) But those flickrtoy images are getting just a smidgen out of control (I think they prove Dawkin's theory of memes to be honest) and now they've started turning up in Explore I must admit the algorithm has made me laugh. But then I really love the ridiculous... I'm just waiting for the day that one of them makes the front page but I assume it never will because I assume a human being looks at what will be on the front page. I'd never trust an algorithm to do that... I've taught the people who design them :-D
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I stopped giving a flying f**k about Explore some time ago. Without knowing its criteria for selecting images, it's relatively meaningless.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
Dean Forbes edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
I belong to no award groups and have had only minor changes. Are those of you who are members of those groups members of a lot of award groups? Just curious, and if that is the factor that has changed it is something that should be publicised as part of controlling the proliferation of those groups.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm submitting to fewer and fewer groups iansand but the changes to my Explore score relate to images in the past rather than recent ones. Some were in award groups and some weren't. I put images in groups I like regardless of their policies though I don't like the comment on the next n type groups. I don't mind award groups per se - some work very well. I stick to groups that appear to have the least number of dysfunctional members (ie members who are following a gameplay strategy of reward for them at zero outlay). But as the number of such groups seems to be in decline so I'm spending more time with contacts and less in the groups.
I currently have about 5 images in Explore but 17 have been in Explore recently. This is an increase and it upsets me because since the last changes to the algorithm I have come to the conclusion that the *fewer* images you have in Explore the better you are as a photographer and I thought I was getting better :-/
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oops... just found out that you can't delete a post that you make in these threads.... PRETEND THIS MESSAGE IS NOT HERE.... DO NOT LOOK AT THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
Villa Sams edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
iansand...
Personally, I like the award groups (please don't shoot me) - ;-) I'm in some (not a lot) of them and just created one myself. I particularly like the ones that have been around a while that have a group above the main group (flickr hearts - global village 2 - A+). Groups like these are usually where I find the photos in Flickr that I like the most (usually more so than the explore photos believe it or not). The reason is because of the way the groups work... if the photo gets a certain amount of awards it goes to the next group... check out super hearts, lunar village, or super A+ sometime (the next groups up)... There are some GREAT pics in those groups. I can see how it would be annoying to see so many awards in some of the comment areas... but these photos usually have a lot of awards for a reason. I take getting an award from someone as a compliment. It says to me that out of that big page of photos that they are looking at... all the choices in front of them... they choose YOU. I guess everyone has their personal perference. It's ok if people don't like award groups... They don't have to join. If they don't post their photo to the group then they won't get any awards. Everyone is happy :-)
Sevensixfive talking about award groups - "By participating in them, you are helping spread the infection, and I think that means giving up a little of your humanity and autonomy. You become a sneeze."
Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think that? "Giving up your humanity and autonomy"?!?!? "A sneeze"?!? Come on now... this topic is not that serious dude. :-)
"The thing these groups have in common with viruses, pyramid schemes, and chain letters is this: they exist soley to replicate meaningless, content-free behavior in the people who are their members/hosts." ----- How would you know this if you are not a member or participate in any of these groups? I've met some great people in these groups and their behavior towards me has not been meaningless or content-free in the least.
Oh... and whether or not posting to these groups will affect getting to explore or not doesn't really bother me. I still like these groups... I'm still going to participate in them (please don't quit Kathy... there are a lot of us who appreciate all of the work that you do) :-)
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
Villa Sams edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
achoo! :]
No, I know this topic is not that serious, it's just something that I'm interested in. Social websites like flickr seem to become very particular kinds of breeding grounds for this type of behavior. If I would change anything about the above posts I would eliminate the word 'solely'. I'm sure tons of people have had meaningful interaction in these groups and it's unfair to try to characterize things in such broad generalizations, even though I have followed a lot of these groups for a while.
Apologies.
But you've got to admit that such blatantly rule-based behavior (3-2-1, etc.) seems intended to fool, by emulation, the algorithms that choose images for explore. And by extension, the people who take part in that emulation are acting with little more free will than viruses or equations themselves.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ sevensixfive.....
The 3-2-1 and 1-2-3 original groups were set up long before "Explore" or "interestingness" were in the Flickr world.....so they were not "intended" to somehow "fool" the Flickr algorithms.
Thus, you comment about them being "blatantly intended" is incorrect.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi Jeff,
It looks like the 1-2-3 and 3-2-1 groups that you're an admin for were both created, according to flickr, '26 months ago'. That would mean May 2005.
But explore goes back to August 2004. Which is about four months before you (and I, what a coincidence! Beat you by five days! Old School forever!) posted your first photo in November '04. Maybe flickr started collecting data earlier and applied the explore algorithm retroactively? Any flickr staff (silentobserver?) care to comment? When was explore public?
And anyway, I said 'blatantly rule base behavior (3-2-1, etc.) seems intended', please don't misquote me, dude! Is 3-2-1, not 'blatantly rule-based'?
For real, though, I'd love to hear from flickr staff about when explore went public, it'd be really interesting if this kind of thing went on before there was an explicit reward system in place to (inadvertantly?) encourage it.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
sevensixfive
We released interestingness/Explore in Aug 2005, IIRC
And yes, we can run our algorithm retroactively, even if some components are missing we assume default(zero) values for them.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Interesting, thanks S.O.!
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@2000dan2000:
"computer algorithms have no taste!!!!!! "
Of course they have not, but the programmers of the algorithms have an intention and the algorithm is the tool to realize this intention. The intention behind this algorithm is to make pictures of certain quality and of a diverse group of photographers public for a huge audience. And if the algorithm doesn't make his job any longer it's changed. So behind that all is something like taste. It's the taste of the average flickr user made visible by a computer algorithm analyzing permanently this taste by looking after the behavior of the user.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
Ehm is shutting it down for a minute edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
It is "Interestingness", not "Quality". What people find interesting does not necessarily mean good quality.
Once that distinction is understood things become much less worrying.
Posted 71 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads