|
And your the guy said i worried about Explore too much.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Omsel That was a useful contribution. *Meredith will not be pleased. I was just trying to help, so I had a look.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
:-)
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
WHOAH, THE CURSE HAS BEEN LIFTED.
Thanks Meredith and Good Fellas for the EXIF Tip. I made it back to Explore 500, long wait since June 15, 2007. Yey !!
I guess S.O. wasn't kidding about the EXIF, as fully cracked / explained by Meredith on her How To's.
My own observation is , ON another explore 500 myth - WHICH IS if you put the photo on the Award Groups, the photo will be more likely blackballed. I put this to 4 Groups (Amateurs -High Five; Global Village; Plus 4; Natures). 36 VIEWS, 8 COMMENTS, 3 FAVS. (EXP 500, #447 - Sept. 5, 2007)
:)
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
Uncle Foto edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
Uncle Foto: You have a very high fav/view ratio and it is a stunning photo. The magic donkey wins again.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Good to have a happy customer, Uncle Foto! Way-to-go. :0)
Well, this thread hasn't escaped entirely bicker-free, and there's been some very dodgy logic on display. But hats off to Ian for reining in, to Omsel, bless him, for sharing what he knew, and to Amsterdamned! for his astute 2 cents worth contributions that helped to solve it all. Oh, yes, and a begrudging nod to the curmudgeonly Brock who, true to form, sarcastically grumped up the connection between EXIF and porn. And, indeed, to everyone else who tried to get this nailed. As for Zircon ... well, had he not inadvertently mentioned his hidden EXIF appearances in Camera Finder, we might still be chewing the cud and scratching our heads. Of course, I'd still like to paste his silly egomaniacal arse for his chippiness and difficulty in thinking in a straight line, but hey, you can't have everything ... ;0)
A final word, though. I don't visit the forum much simply because of the degree of back-biting and ill-temper on display here - which always seems to come from the same quarters. So hats off to the rest who frequent this board, who are genuinely well-meaning and go out of their way to be helpful. But these couple of days here have made me realise just what the staff have to put up with on a daily basis, and I am full of admiration for the way they sail on through it all. Whatever Yahoo pay them, it's not enough, I know that.
Anyway, back to the joys of playing with a camera -
Ciao for now, kids. :0)
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
*Meredith edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
oooh - ps:
When later today, zircon wakes, reads this and finally finishes throwing his wobbly, will one of you kind souls slip him a stiff drink and a paracetamol - and tell him I'm just yanking his jambe. I'm afraid I won't be around to help mop up ;0)
M x
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Wonder if staff will ever take this on board, even if they don't chip in here.
I shoot most of my stuff on film which is scanned by the lab in tiff format.
Conversion to jpg for uploading strips the exif but it is not possible to upload the original tiff files.
I personally don't care about explore but I can see how this issue would piss some people off...
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
*Meredith:
I'm afraid I won't be around to help mop up
gee thanks.
sooo, if this EXIF rule has been applied to stop porn from reaching Explore, and it is only applied to 2007 pics...does that mean the MD likes vintage porn?
John©:
I personally don't care about explore
welcome to the 'professes not to care, but must actually be secretly obsessing about it due to having joined this discussion' club. kidding, never mind.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I was interested by the EXIF thingy as it makes sense - if I were programming the algorithm it's the kind of thing I *could* decide to take into consideration, it's so easy to programme. Sooooooo.... I found a recent photo which I'd converted from RAW to jpeg via MS Viewer. For some reason that strips EXIF data. I usually maintain EXIF data by converting via PictureProject (I shoot with Nikon - try to keep up, yes I know I'm rambling). Anyway, the EXIF stripped photo was rather good, got a load of faves (for one of my pictures - this is all relative remember) but never made Explore. Anyway, I reconverted to RAW via PictureProject, replaced the photo along with the EXIF data and hey presto today it soars into Explore at a dizzying 463 (high for one of my pics)... :-º
OK, you'd need to repeat the experiment several times over but hey I have a life... Well done to whomever spotted the connection. I think you may well be right. Of course, genius here forgot to measure views yesterday before she replaced the EXIF version. So any real scientist out there won't be impressed by my sloppiness but it's not been added anywhere else and it certainly hasn't been faved since I did the conversion yesterday... So I'm fairly confident views haven't changed. People don't exactly beat a path to my photostream :-D
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Db maybe he and others are community minded not wanting equality in the system. Not everything has to be rooted in the users ego. Kidding, never mind is of course a disclaimer to, people never say what they don't truely mean.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
September 5th.....see you....in Explore......bye bye all :)
Psst....don't forget to ''geo''....lol
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amsterdamned! edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
SO, staff is not going to come back to this thread to answer the general questions we are having about the EXIF data for "importance" within flickr?
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I just saw Meredith's photo making it @ Explore 500 (September 06, 2007). Yey !! Congrats.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@*Meredith
First: Sorry I'm so late seeing your inane comments above...but I just got back from a fly fishing trip. Tomorrow (actually, it's today now) is the last day of the season...doesn't open again until June of next year..so I had to make the most of today.
Now...down to business. Cloaking your vitriol in a little Aussie slang just won't work. A close relative of mine spent a number of his college years with Aussie roommates. So, I'm well versed in Aussie-ese, buggerlugs. In fact, I even have a didgeridoo here in one of my closets. As far as not 'being around to help mop up' ....there's about as much chance of that as there was of iansand taking my challenge. I only wish there were some kind of counter, so that I could tell just how many times you've checked back here since you wrote the above comments.
As far as my 'egomaniacal arse' is concerned, the last time I looked there were two halves there so I guess ego is the wrong prefix to use on maniacal. Seriously though, I do believe that's a little like the 'pot telling the kettle it has a dirty bottom'. [Lots of anal imagary here]. Seeing as you think you've solved the Explore mystery all by youself, egomaniacal is an adjective best applied to yourself. Actually, come to think of it, it's probably too weak of an adjective.
When I popped in here a few pages back, you were floundering around, saying if you didn't have EXIF data showing your photos couldn't make it to Explore(except for perhaps a random few) and CameraFinder would never be able to 'find ya'. You had me flabbergasted. For someone who professed in previous pages to be so much in the know, you seemed to know very little about which you spoke. But you were good at it. I even thought you must have had your own personal CamerFinder. I told you in no uncertain terms that all my pictures had made Explore (31/190) without the EXIF data being public and furthermore CameraFinder had no trouble picking up my pictures. Told you, in fact, there was one there at that very moment....which, since I told you the camera I use, you no doubt checked. This is a far cry from "inadvertenly mentioning", wouldn't you say. By the way...for anyone reading this...it's all back there in black and white for anyone to see.
One of the first things I saw when arriving here was the connection between porn and EXIF data....but it was Omsel, not Brock who had unearthed that little detail. In fact you, or someone, expressed disbelief that there could be any connection. Brocks two cents worth came much later and only added very little to what had already been said.
And as for iandsand...he may be a fellow countryman of yours but anything I said back there(which wasn't much) he deserved. Seemed to quiet down after that, too.
Anyway, darlin', throw down the gauntlet any old time and I'll pick it up...guaranteed. I don't get angry (throw a wobbly)...I get even. To quote John Mellencamp..."cause that's the kind of fella I am." So here for your reading pleasure are a few verses I just threw together. (Damn, wish your name didn't end in 'th' though)
There was a young woman named *Meredith
Who had a bug up her arse called EXIF (pronounce X-F)
Explore wouldn't add her
Camera couldn't Finder
So, she almost left Flickr for B'nai B'rith.
There was a young lady named *Meredith
Who had a bug up her arse called EXIF
It climbed up her jambe
To Explore the madam
Now it's suffering a fate worse than death
There was a young lady who liked to Explore
Boo hoo, boo hoo, she can't anymore
Her EXIF was stripped
And her psyche was whipped
So, she morphed into a Flickrite bore.
[FIGJAM] :-)
All said and done,darlin'...I don't hold a grudge. Come back, offer an apology, and give credit without any demeaning adjectives and we can be friends. :-) Heck, we could even be contacts (I've been known to give a pretty mean(read...good) comment now and then.
If any of you have read this far (seriously doubt that), are die-hard Explore addicts, and like those at AA can get up and admit it, I do have some ideas on how to break the back of this beast Explore. Won't say it out here though. Give me an e-mail sometime. This doesn't include SO or any other SO and SO's. Can't promise to get back to you for a little while though.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
zircon_215 edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
Maybe it breaks new record for longest paragraph
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
:-) They were there, Omsel. I just didn't have them separated. Just edited it so they are. Thanks.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
No offense to anyone, caste/creed/nation.
I just happened to barge in here by chance.
But Zircon.. you are one verbal assassin mate! I just enjoyed reading meredith ..then a WestCoast Ratt-a-ta-tat from your side. But on the contrary.. we could do better with plain and simple ....help at hand and info sharing, than mudslinging sessions. .....who wins? ..guess none.
Dont wanna sound like UN Peace Keepin Force!! But.. peace!
By the way, some good pics shared up your folio. Keep em going.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
.windowshopper. edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
zircon_215 If you know Australians you would have come across our little conjunction of fuck and wit. I'm sure you head it a lot.
Was that noisy enough?
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 Thanks, and I honestly don't care about explore
. In my previous account I was explore crazy and had well over a hundred pics in there, but I saw how obsessed I was and dumped the account, though there were other factors too.
And yeh, I saw this topic and thought I would chip in, as I do on many, flickr was a great community when it first started up, something that has diluted somewhat recently with lots of infighting.
I just want to see some of the community spirit back....
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Sorry to interrupt, but after some experiments it would seem that the choice of tags makes more difference than EXIFs or the lack of, as far as interestingness is concerned.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@iansand
Oh, yes, mate! We have lots of the same. Rarely have to use them though....a better control of both the language and emotions ensures that.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
 : Well said. ;)
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Windowshopper
Thanks for the comment. Just give as good(or better) than I'm given. left alone...I'm a sleeping dog. Poke me with a stick, and I'll bite back.
As far as keeping the photstream going, I'm now at the 190 (out of 200) mark and so have to make a decision soon. In that regard, I find John's comment two down from yours to be quite interesting.I've been into photography for quite some time...film and darkroom work...came here by accident through my main passion in life...fly fishing. However, I thought it would be more of a forum where good photographers could help others with constructive comments on uploaded photos. Few people do that though and even fewer appreciate it if you try it yourself. Flickr seems to be more of a slightly different version of a chat room...one with pictures. Nothing wrong with that, mind you....just, it could be so much greater. One of the ways it could be is if the algorithm for Explore were available to everyone and folks stopped referring to it with the childish moniker, Magic Donkey.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
zircon_215: I don't know. I find people rather helpful with giving advice and constructive comments. Not always, some people don't, and heck, I don't half the time. I will often comment that things are beautiful (seems to be my most used words), but really that means I like it! And if I favorite it, that means I really like it.
I enjoy getting feedback from people on things. I'm so new to photography that I often am unsure I know what I'm doing. I still am loving flickr.
If the algorithm for explore were released, then people really could focus on just getting into explore, and then everyone would know how. Wouldn't that make it a mess?! :P
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
SO, staff is not going to come back to this thread to answer the general questions we are having about the EXIF data for "importance" within flickr?
The staff best suited to answer this (Sergeui) is on vacation -- he's the Magic Donkey's keeper, or the lead member of the Royal Order of the Carrot. I'm definitely going to toss him back in here when he returns to sort his out.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
heather:
thanks for weighing in.
the fishslapping competition in this thread has gone beyond the pale.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I bet you a fishslapping photo would make explore.
My prediction is that if the donkey could eliminate HDR, sunsets, flowers and kittens then all the bitching would disappear. The few remaining images on Flickr would all get on Explore... :)
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Man, would someone please just call explore a Nazi so that we can invoke Godwin's law and lock this baby up?
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
scan....exif tip
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/52883/
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Zircon...that was great summation imho and what i been rapping about in FC...take the magic out, its not really magic its mearly a transparent rating system...make it a real one and no need to hide a thing.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
the more tags, the less interesting?
should I upload my photos with no tags next time?
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Wow. The thread that won't die :-)
Redbot's been watching the Donkey's antics. Pretty 'interesting' stuff of late. What's more interesting is the major panty twisting going on in here.
@Omsel: My sentiments exactly. Take out the buffoonery, the adolescent Harry Potter appeal, the ad-style hype, turn the BS off and let the traffic decide what's 'interesting.'
Of course, when you own a wildly successful web-based company of your own, you can write your own code and rules too! :-))
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Redgum @Omsel
Wow! There are actually three people on Flickr (or at least in this Forum) that can see the benefits of a transparent algorithm! Your "let the traffic decide what's "interesting" '.... is a grown-up, radical idea, Redgum....now if the adolescent Harry Potter Magic Donkey types would only read and heed this, Flickr would make a giant leap forward, don't you think?
Be interesting (no pun intended) though as to what would happen then. If even half of Flickr's membership are interested in Explore, know the exact make-up of the algorithm, and make a conscious effort to utilize it in order to make Explore on a given day let's say, what would happen? How would the 500 be picked? Would it overload and self-dectruct?
One number I would really like to know....it's not really 500 pics of the total uploaded for a particular day.....because of the drops and adds that are constantly going on, how many (conservatively) would you say actually make it on a given day?
Oh, yes...One more thing, I think this thread really is on it's last legs....Indeed, I thought it had actually expired ...until you gave it a little CPR Redgum. :-)
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
ok, new to flickr - how do I know if I have any pics included in Explore?
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ wentworthphotos
Go here:
bighugelabs.com/flickr/scout.php and type in your Username or Email or User ID then click Apply. I just checked...you don't have any there yet. Not to worry....keep uploading...you will. Good Luck!
P.S. Wow! I'm amazed...you've uploaded 3765 photos in 2 days!!!
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
that's a great tool, zircon. Thanks.
Yes, I dumped all of my scans taken from Leica and Hasselblad negs into this account. No tags, descriptions, comments, just the images. Also included a lot of crap, like dull family shots, which to me aren't as dull but probably don't help my cause, at least in terms of anybody wanting to look at the photostream. I'm wondering if I should set up an account to show off my best few hundred pics without subjecting people to the others.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why not just change the privacy settings on your family shots, etc. so that only you or your family and friends can see them? Hasselblad and Leica....wow! Heard there's a new 'blad that does both film and digital... costs megabucks though!!!
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Zircon, you're a flickr genius! Thanks for the privacy idea.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
At least someone is using the flickr uploader at full tilt without any apparent problems :-)
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, Patrick, the uploader was fine. I use compupic pro to organize my pics. I look at them as thumbnails, one or more directories at a time, and select some or all of them to upload. I dragged them over to the uploader in batches (sets) of as many as 150 pics, hit the upload button, and off they went.
The only problem I had was when they were being loaded into the uploader. If I used any other apps, they would stop uploading, I'd get a "not responding" status, and have to kill the uploader. Last night I uploaded 500 or so in one batch, and that worked fine. Overall a very nice tool.
Posted 27 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm a flickr newbie, and 6 of my photos made explore recently and I really wish they wouldn't have. Especially since its clear to me that they aren't up to the standards that some expect and are part of what many older users consider a decline in quality.
Someone here said (sorry I forgot to notice who when I copied the quote)....
"Under the old algorithm, a newbie with few contacts and little idea of how to play the system to his/her advantage wouldn't stand much of a chance of making Explore... But if the algorithm is biased heavily towards those who include EXIF in their shots (whether it's publically displayed or not) - well, this would level the playing field somewhat, and give newcomers more of a chance to get into Explore, despite their inexperience and lack of contacts initially."
I think you must be right...and maybe Flickr considers that a great plus, but out of the 6 that ended up on explore, only two were photos that even I liked enough to feel comfortable with them representing my current photo skills (such as they are), and I didn't like that the others showed up there. Its kind of embarrassing. I guess there are probably things I could do to avoid having photos show up there, but I do sort of figure that eventually I'll get better and then having a photo make explore might feel like a bit of a boost so I don't want to close off the possibility for the future.
I just think that if the algorithm did change in June to allow more newbies to get a chance than maybe flickr wasn't doing the favor they thought they were? I'd love to make explore some day "for real" because I do actually have an interesting and beautiful image, but it doesn't feel great to think that my current wobbly attempts are part of what the more experienced photographers are calling "crappy". I'd rather they just not be up there at least until I'm more confident in them myself. I'm happy when someone faves them, or finds something interesting enough in them to comment on, and that is why I join groups where people give in depth comments rather than awards, I want the images public, but that doesn't mean I want them "on stage" yet, as it were.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
spryngtree There is no way known that a baby donkey will not make it to Explore. The Magic Donkey is a sentimental burro.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@spryngtree
Don't sweat it! Explore is not a showcase of "good" photos....rather a showcase of "interesting" photos....and even that is sometimes debatable as you've probably seen if you have perused the shots that make it to Explore on any given day.
If, as so many would hope, Explore becomes a place to showcase quality, then you can worry....until then...which will probably be never....enjoy having made it six times....someone or something has found them "interesting".
P.S. If you really don't want them visible on Explore....and I can't really see why not....make them private and then they won't show up there.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
actually just mark them moderate, they won't appear.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Having EXIF date as a "requirement' of explore is a good idea. flickr/explore should be about "learning about photography" and EXIF enables that while making images more 'interesting',
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
Cooriander edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
|
@ cooriander
The thing is cooriander, a photo can have its EXIF data hidden...not missing, mind you...just hidden....and it can make Explore. So, you would not learn anything from a photograph's EXIF data in a case like that. If, as seems to be the case, photographers who have the EXIF data totally missing from their shots, can't make it to Explore, that is a far greater disadvantage to them than it is to someone who would like to "learn about photography" from having EXIF data included with the shots.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wondering if Sergeui will find his way to the "thread that won't die"...
I have my answer as far as my own "experiment" like *Meredith did. From June to now in September, I did not have photos featured in either Explore or Interestingness. However I had been using the Photoshop optimizer feature for about 9 months. In the last two weeks I started uploading images where I just edited my photos to be a smaller file size, manually. Poof, two images in the last two days are right in there, featured.
Same photographer, same type of photos, and suddenly my photos are "interesting" and worthy to explore, LOL!
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well i doubt very much he's gonna show and admit to the bungling thats left so many users excluded in this community.
The exclusion has totally redefined my own thinking about this site, not in a bad way, just seems Flickr has 2 types of people..explore and not expore minded.
Kinda down on explore actually, just from hearing its denial of any kind of meaning so often. It truely is a gallery of single images based in nothing sensible and the real shame is it could be so much with any number of venue changes and the same basic machinery.
To have some reason known why a pic is put in front of the community...or at the least admit its nothing but a transparent rating system and call it what it is.
This ultra secret formula can only inspire faith if users believe it actually produces something. By its own disclaimers it creates a paradox causing older users to fatigue and look for other avenues of input. So it serves the new, or naive, how ever you want to view that.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
SilentObserver: "Explore pages are for viewers and should not be used as measure of image quality or photographer talent"
Why not?
And how can an image be interesting if not for its quality?
And what is "viewers" if not people who wants to see quality images?
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Erling Steen Because Explore is noy designed to select "quality" images (and a millisecond's thought would make that obvious). It is designed to select "interesting" images.
I'm going to regret this.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Explore makes its choices, as we know from viewer input...faves, comments, views etc
And i suppose a site full of photogs choices are not based in quality but mear curiousity.... uh huh
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
>>>And how can an image be interesting if not for its quality?
A lot of this debate comes down to semantics. Flickr chose to invent a word "interestingness" so that they could apply any meaning they wanted to it. And probably have that meaning change over time. In some sense, interestingness relates to popularity. And an image can be popular for any number of reasons, eg cute kitten with a HDR sunset backdrop, without necessarily being a high quality image.
And more semantics - what is a high quality image? Is it any image taken with a high resolution camera? Is it one that slavishly follows the rules of composition? Is it one that is perfectly in focus or one that has been artistically blurred to just the right degree?
I suggest the answer is none of the above, but something less easily defined. And when you can't define something, then it is difficult to code an algorithm to find it.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Omsel And i suppose a site full of photogs choices are not based in quality but mear curiousity.... uh huh Good heavens. A glimmer of understanding. I am surprised.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No need for regrets Ian ;-)
But my questions is to SilentObserver!
And Patrick; the semantics of the English language works quite well and is not difficult to understand if we want to!
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hmmm - how does the semantics of the English language help with a made up word? If Flickr changed the Interestingness label so your images were rated by Fumbasiratz, would that make more or less sense?
And I'd love to hear what your definition of a quality image is? Given the subjectiveness behind appreciating any art, that could start a debate that would keep this thread alive for many more months!
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
RE: SilentObserver: "Explore pages are for viewers and should not be used as measure of image quality or photographer talent"
However, ahem, somehow all members have some type selective "quality" determination by using such formulas, for flickr has a feature generated for each person called "popular". If you click the link you have on your photo stream for that, flickr has calculated the worth of your stream into "interesting", and also views, favorites, and comments.
It would be simple enough for the number of each of the last 3 to come from mere statistics of count, yet the "popular" group was derived somehow. I've noticed a direct correlation of that one to images that have been featured in Explore and/or Interestingness. Thus, I think the mystery algorithm and Magic Donkey sauce DO in a way impact every member, even those who are not obsessed with Explore.
The photo I have currently was ranked in Interestingness yesterday, featured in Explore and suddenly now is #151 of ALL my photos as "interesting". Out of the 4,000+ photos I have, and out of perhaps 300 now that have over time gone in and out of Explore, this photo is now #151? How could that be if not for the relevance of this Explore algorithm? I'm not particularly thrilled to see a popular ranking on my own photos for Popular>Interesting that is determined by a formula that is not transparent.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Cobolt123 - I think it is fundamentally the same algorithm that calculates interestingness for use on your popular sort option, as for Explore.
Note the description under that tab:
This is a view of your 200 most popular photos, ordered by interestingness.
It's that made up word "interestingness" again.
However, only you can see that view, so it is probably as harmless as it is meaningless.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ah, I did not know only I could see this. It has always bothered me that flickr would determine for me and inform me what is "interesting" of my own photos. I don't mind the count features of views, faves, comments, but this one for "popular" as measured by "interesting" was one that I found pretty odd. And yes, I do think that the Explore algorithym is responsible for the rankings in that one.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ Patrick Costello
>>>"And more semantics - what is a high quality image? Is it any image taken with a high resolution camera? Is it one that slavishly follows the rules of composition? Is it one that is perfectly in focus or one that has been artistically blurred to just the right degree?"
>>>And I'd love to hear what your definition of a quality image is? Given the subjectiveness behind appreciating any art, that could start a debate that would keep this thread alive for many more months!
Subjectivity is definitely at work when a person looks at a photograph and labels it great, good, so-so, poor, or downright crappy, etc. There are photographs, though, that 99.9% of the population will view, be stirred by, and, given the chance, will revisit many times ....is it the elements of composition, something in that person's psyche, a prurient interest in the subject matter, the topical nature of the photo's subject matter, something else entirely, or a combination of all of the above.?IMO If we were to ask just every person who has visited this thread to list 25 such images, there is no doubt there would be some which would make all the lists. The thing is, they would be few in number....but they would exist. Therefore, subjectivity notwithstanding, there must be some tangible quality that makes a great image. Even more intriguing....do you think some staff member of Flickr can program that into an Algorithm. I think not. They have almost admitted as much. So, take it for what it is....but, and this is a very BIG but, make it transparent so everyone has the same advantage/disadvantage.
You know, a bunch of intelligent people should be able to come close to defining what the make-up of the algorithm is anyway. In that connection...do you have a particular thing which, when put into an image, you can pretty well guarentee (say with a 90% certainty, anyway) will make it to Explore? ( I do, by the way...everything else considered) Do you think the title has any bearing on inclusion? Re: the newbies comment above....do you think people who have not turned pro are more predisposed to get their images included. ( I know I'm fast approaching the 200 mark and I've had 12 of the last 16 images I've uploaded make it). Do you have any comments on these few ideas or any of your own? (That last question isn't just directed to Patrick....but to everyone)
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
SO, staff is not going to come back to this thread to answer the general questions we are having about the EXIF data for "importance" within flickr?
Existence of EXIF data is one of multiple factors we are considering in the interestingness algorithm.
Although I would not call this "importance" within Flickr”.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
What you talking about "considering??".....you already said long ago lack of it was the reason for exclusion so you can control porn.
And i replied film has no exif and got no responce.
So my deal in this is i'm totally excluded cause i'm shooting film and you seem ok with that but i am not. What was wrong with it before June?....it worked just fine, now you got all these people smokin mad and explore itself doesn't even look near as good as it used to?
I am a victim........moan
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Staff says: Existence of EXIF data is one of multiple factors we are considering in the interestingness algorithm.
Although I would not call this "importance" within Flickr”.
.......
This reminds me a lot of my day job, which is search engine optimization (SEO). As mentioned earlier, search engines of all sorts would rather import viruses into their sites than give out even the vaguest clues regarding the algo, because then their results would become meaningless, manipulated by the unscrupulous.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If I set up a new account and my pictures had no tags, no descriptions, no exif data, and only camera-generated titles (eg. KICX_0123), and I sent out no invitations, is there any way I would ever get a photostream or page view? I guess I might get a random "Most recent photos" view, but once they're not recent any more, do they totally disappear from sight?
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think it's disingenuous to assert that the term 'Interestingness' has no association whatsoever with image quality. It's clear from the reading of the US Patent application for the algorithm that Flickr's intent was to automatically discover popular content. And please, spare me the koolaid-induced mantra about how your version of popular doesn't equate to quality.
Fundamentally, whatever the gyrations, the Magic Jackass is still a bean counter. It counts the tangible results of the passage of human interaction and attentions; Views, Comments, Faves etc. Dismissing the obvious connection between the 'popular' and a general category of 'quality' is dishonest at best.
How much significance any one of the measures the Jackass uses to assign a specific image an interestingness 'score' is the subject of a study that I'm conducting. There is a clear connection between the traffic an image receives and its inclusion and ranking within Explore.
Originally, I think the algorithm was pretty transparent - then came the gamers, or as @thewentworths1 mentioned - the unscrupulous - who were able to figure how to get a free ride to showcase their own work over the work of others; score-me groups, forced-comment groups etc.
Still, despite the greed, avarice and wanton selfishness on display by these needy Explore-types, the images in general were still pretty popular. I think that given the choice, people will almost always select the image that most attracts their attention, and won't bother commenting on photos that don't...so it's arguable that the quality was still there, despite the gaming that may have got them to Explore.
Now comes the idea of 'quality' and all of its various personal definitions. You can't objectively define image quality without introducing a huge amount of subjective reasoning or values. One person's favorite is another's Big-eyed, glow in the dark, 6-layer HDR Kitten-At-Sunset nightmare.
However, it is clear that a vast majority of Flickr users can agree more or less on the 'Interestingness' value of any given image. --psst: For those of you still drinking the koolaid, that's the ones with the high traffic/comment/fave ratios. Images typically don't get lots of views if they're dull, boring, poorly shot or just plain CRAP - unless of course, the Magic Jackass snorts another line of super glue, and places them in the top-10 Explore list.
And it appears the glue has been flowing fairly regularly since June - Hence this discussion.
Lots of angst. Lots of weirdness. Vanishing photos, LSD HDR cats on Explore. And despite their best efforts, there's still a lot of highly successful gaming going on. I see a handful of names regularly in the top 20 positions in Explore several times a week, and a closer look at my Explore database shows noticeable patterns in the groups, people who comment etc.
Personally, I think it's a fun Soap Opera. Although I believe Flickr could save some money and resource time - quit playing Harry Potter with the algorithm, make it transparent and let the community evolve. Who knows? Something different might come from a community effort. :-)
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Redgum All you say seems true but we must admit the donkey does all its heuristics from a human result of many variables.....it obviously can't think for itself if it can't distinguish porn from a tree....which seems pretty clear.
So if human input this makes it a transparent rating system. The only thing different in all the smoz about a "magic donkey" is you can't see it happening. If we all sat rating pics 1-10 the result would be very similar to whats seen now.
Whatever...my entire point in this is why should a large segment of Flickr be excluded from explore cause they can't find a better way around controlling porn??.....cause their hueristics suck is why.
This is where the donkey fails not being able to visualize. The worst photog on earth could sit and compile a better selection by eye.
Not only is this auto rating system a bit lame in design, imho its a sham as other similar rating systems were discussed on photonet in the late 90's.....the only really thing unique seems the term "interestingness" was coined and the idea put into action on this site.
The only possible way to quantify popular is be on top, to compile data on whats being clicked, faved, commented, invited...etc...throw a value on each one. Bean counter ya.
Is this the best Flickr can do for what is percieved to be a community focal point? The hourds of the blind leading the blind mindlessly pursue some ideal that by its own being claims it is meaningless.
With such a large segment of Flickr either excluded or downright dissapointed isn't it time to let go of this laughing stock and get down to building something real on this site?
This is the worlds top image collection and all we seem to be doing is collecting meaningless single images and throwing them in a pile with absolutly no goal or end product. To have no explore at all would improve this site enormously in allowing groups to prosper and improve without the constant noise interference of explore seekers.
Trash the donkey concept, let the groups rebuild, in the meantime we can unload this huge useless discussion topic and turn that energy to using this machine to serve the people of Flickr into something that actually does something.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Once upon a time, there might have been an intent to identify the most "interesting" or popular photos in a sort of dynamic, ongoing way. I don't believe that is going on anymore. While I understand a photo might drift in and out of the most popular/interesting set, I don't believe it is reasonable to expect highly ranked photos (say in the top 200) to vanish suddenly from the whole list, then in a matter of hours reappear at or near their former positions. This happens to mine, for example, all the time. I think it may help to keep in mind that Flickr is a commercial venture, not an artistic or even sociological one. What drives Flickr/Yahoo's decisions is profit and that is a direct result of traffic and usage of the web site. The rapid rotation of thousands of photos in and out of the "top 500" has a strong psychological effect: it keeps folks posting pics because they have a reasonable expectation of finding their photos in an elite group, and it keeps users coming back and checking their photos' status. The initial Explore cut on any given day would seem to reflect some measure of popularity, even if it is a contrived one that certain photographer's groupies create. Beyond that, however, the behavior of Explore model looks pretty irrational if you are expecting it to measure anything quantitative or qualitative. It makes lots more sense, though, if you consider Flickr's motivation in creating it in the first place.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Really good reading here and thoughtful discussion. This is one "thread that won't die", but it continues to introduce new ideas and conversation, and one that I get to meet interesting flickr members who have different perspectives. Good on you all!
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
cobalt123 edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
|
I came across these 2 photos.
Evan sitting pretty for his ball
88 people faved it and it was viewed 7,464 times. 2 pages of comments.
It is #1 in explore. Fair enough well done.
God's house by the sunset ...
652 people faved it and it was viewed 16,544 times. 3 pages of comments.
It is NOT in explore.
The punchline is that Evan sitting pretty for his ball includes EXIF info and God's house by the sunset ... does not!
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Saul Benqish Oh I have a ton of examples similar to that one that would set this discussion on fire. Problem is, I'd end up calling some or most of them CRAP, and be in trouble with the PC police all over again. :-) By the way, that picture made it to the front page of Explore 8 months ago. It's likely one of the victims of the June glue-sniffing by the new donkey brain. Tons of photos dropped out for no other apparent reason than they chose the wrong brand of glue.
@Omsel I think that's pretty much the point of several here who have posted to this discussion. Doubtful the donkey will get fired, but if it keeps going the way it has, I think it will continue to loose significance and attention - something will likely rise from the ashes...or Flickr itself will loose public interest and devolve into something similar to webshots.
Cybastean Yep - pictures wink in and wink-out all the time in my stream, so I suspect the Explore mechanism is set to swap out pics to further spread the Explore sauce. Must be a marketing thing - no IT wonk worth their salt would ever contrive such heresy. ;-)
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Cybastean, that is a good point. Top 10 photos that appear and disappear completely on a hour to hour or day to day basis are clearly a design decision so that more people can have highly ranked photos and feel more "positive" about Flickr. And renew and give Yahoo money. Obviously at the expense of quality (or popularity or whatever).
I would not be surprised if there are 10,000 "top 500" photos every day now. Maybe 20,000.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
So, I see people discussing being able to check what rank their photo is on the 'interestingness list' in Explore - what is this?
I can only see random sets of pictures for last 7 days and so on - where is there a set list in order that is the same when I come back to it?
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
As I've said before, because of the drop and adds that are constantly going on it's not really 500 pics of the total uploaded that make it to Explore on a particular day. Flickr's main concern, of course, is profit and it is definitely to their advantage to keep subscribers happy and to entice more into becoming paid up members. So, I often wonder just what that number is for a particular day. I suspect it's in the thousands as well AustinTX. I'd really like to know it but I guess that's another part of the secret algorithm the Magic Ass keeps closely guarded. Again, as I've said before, it would seem members who have not yet turned pro have a greater incidence of their uploads making it to Explore....any thoughts on that?
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@zebbiejohnson
"I can only see random sets of pictures for last 7 days and so on - where is there a set list in order that is the same when I come back to it? "
You can dream...you can believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy...but in reality....there ain't no such thing. The best you can do is go here:
flickr.com/explore/
or here:
www.flickrleech.net/
There you can find the photos that made it to Explore for any day from August 2004 up to the present (yesterday). However, it will only be a snapshot of that particular instant in time....come back later and it will have changed because photos are constantly being dropped and added to Explore....gotta help protect Flickr's bottom line(profit) you know.
By the way...the flickrleech site is interesting because you can see all 500 at once (thumbs anyway with a little scrolling).
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
zircon_215 edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
|
I don't want to set them to private or moderate, as I really want them public. And I don't care terribly that they are on explore, I just don't particularly want them there either. Of course perhaps now I've been put on the "never put on explore" list. (Though it didn't occur to me that of course pictures of baby donkey's would have to make it...maybe that is the magic donkey)
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
www.flickr.com/photos/cshontz/1402763504/
was on the front page of explore just now. 5 views. No favs. no comments. It did have Exif data. Maybe that is sufficient now. How much more random can it be?
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No point obsessing about explore because the pirates are all laughing at us.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
saul.davis edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
|
So, what are we gone from donkeys to pirates now? What's with the Jolly Roger pasted over the 'r' of Flickr? Did I miss something? Has the Magic Ass morphed into a Magic Pirate? :-) Have the juvenile Harry Potter types got bored and waved their magic wand? Better they used their creative energy (if you can call it that) to try to fix some of the actual problems with Flickr. What was wrong with the logo. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
zircon_215 edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
Four of my photos just jumped into Explore. Not great shots by any means (3 of them don't have any fav's) - but they all involve boats! Happy Pirate Day :)
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@AlisonLOL - Arr - actually it's just Talk Like A Pirate Day - not Pirate Day, matey.
Fiftteen men on the dead man's chest -- Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum!
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Avast, me hearties! Enough of yer kittens and babies — for one day and one day only we’ve boarded Explore and ye’ll only be seein’ photos that we pirates think are interesting. If we hear any complain’ from ye scallywags, ye’ll be walkin’ the plank!"
blog.flickr.com/en/2007/09/19/here-there-be-dragons/
Don't touch that dial! Regular programming will return tonight.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Garrrrhhhh!, I wish I had that fish slapping shot ready to go! The best I can do is skull and crossbones!
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
staff ; a bit of piracy would become you well
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
To Staff
A very strange thing has happened to the "interestingness" of one of my photos. It had been listed as my most "interesting" shot for over two years, and in fact was one of top 10 most "interesting" photos on flickr out of 490,664,423 results. I used a "space" in the search criteria:
www.flickr.com/search/?q=++&s=int&ct=6&ss=2&a...
I had added one additional TAG.
Suddenly it went from my # 1 shot to #153, and no longer shows up on the first page of appropriate tag searches.
I'm just curious how a photo with 80,000 views and 850 faves can change ranking so suddenly.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
How about if interestingness has as one of its values the relationship between the number of tags and views or whatever? Then adding an extra tag would significantly alter the numeric value of the interestingness. Just a thought.
I wonder if deleting it would put it back as it was or if the algorithm 'remembers' the change and refuses to revert?
Of course, it could be coincidental and that the moment you added the tag, things changed in the Interestingness Universe and your photo fell to #153 .
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Was the tag "dogs"? Ignoring that this is not, in fact, a picture of dogs, it's no secret that using unusual tags adds to the interestingness of a photo (which has been confirmed empirically) , so it shouldn't be surprising that adding a very common tag decreases interestingness.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I would just like to state that since being banned from explore, los and neglected in the Flickr desert, having gone through the initial depression, the skys have finally cleared and have reached a level of cosmic harmony with the Flickrverse.
Thank you Flickr. You really do love us.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@amsterdamned!
scan to change exif data: your'e good in that, no? changing data, so it looks like you shot with your own cam (if you even got one) scanning don't changes copyright of photos!!!!
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Wow, what a read, start to finish. I never started using flickr as part of some sort of contest, instead using it actually to show friends scattered around pictures easier than email. I got an award, an invite, joined some groups, and do the award groups for what I think are good shots, and the forced coments/score groups for photographic learning (I've learned a ton too). I never have looked at explore until today, and if this is what all the complaining is about??? I could care less. The higher level of the award groups are far, far greater quality than explore, if shot quality is what people are looking for, the algorithim is definitely not the way to go. I could care less about most of the comments and views I get, simply seeing great shots in the highly concentrated good groups or assisting others get better at photography is where i find the joy in Flickr to be found.
I do find it funny that there is a subculture within flickr obsessed with both sides of explore. One side tries to get their best shots on it to get the most views, the other tries to fool the algorithim as much as possible to see just how bad of a picture they can get up there, and give out the crap awards to the most god awful shots that succeed.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
Waldo#4 edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
|
@Waldo#4
"The higher level of the award groups are far, far greater quality than explore".
And, pray tell...whose opinion is that? Exactly what do you mean by 'the higher level of the award groups' anyway? Do you mean you value an award from some groups more than some others? Or, just that you value an award more than making Explore?Don't you realize the award from any one group is of no more value than any other. Do you think just because you get an award to a certain group your photograph has some intrinsic value? Wouldn't that depend on the person giving you the award....his/her knowledge, skill, etc. as a photographer?
My obsession is... some of my contacts have excellent photographs in their photostreams and have never ONCE made Explore. Why is that do you think? Aren't we all equal as members of Flickr? Who or what is discriminating against some of those members?Don't give me a crap answer about EXIF data... because they include it. Don't give me a crap answer about the quality or interestingness of their photos not being up to par... trust me...they are.
While I'm ranting....do you know that if you you complain on forums such as this, it appears as if you are penalized? Comments from your contacts have a way of being late or never appearing at all...pictures which make it to Explore when you check just after the 12pm change-over to the next day,l are never seen again in Explore after that...and Scout never picks them up because there is obviously some sort of a time delay there.
It's an indisputable fact...Flickr discriminates! In the real world this would be intolerable? Why not here? Well, we have a bunch of juveniles ( as someone has said...Harry Potter types) who talk of Magic Donkeys instead of being genuinely interested in the concerns of their members.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
zircon_215 edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
|
@EON
A very interesting comment...albeit a little cryptic. Could you elaborate?
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I just want to say that I have noticed the same thing. I have come to this discussion a little late, but I have been effectively banished from explore ever since June, after making it regularly. At first I found it hurtful, and also embarrassing that I found it hurtful... But I did begin to think about it, and why it may have happened. After perusing this and seeing some of your theories, I realized that since I shoot film, there is no camera information, although there is exif data.
The fact is that flickr makes money from camera advertising, and explore is the most effective way it has to showcase the most admired photos. Therefore it makes sense that cameras that make flickr no money (e.g. 50 year old cameras like I use) would be prohibited from using its most precious advertising resource. I think someone realizied that by increasing the proportion of "advertiseable" tphotos on explore to 100%, they would make a certain not insignificant amount of money. And, although I can admire the economic logic of this, it still makes me pissed.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
d.composed edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
wake up!
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
d.composed edited this topic 26 months ago.
|
|
|
@MichaelSmith
If it bores you so, why are you here reading this? Maybe because you've only had 14 of your 246 uploaded photos make it to Explore....and you wonder why you haven't had more... but can't really admit to that and so have to feign boredom by all this?
@d.composed
You may have come to the discussion late but it didn't affect your deductive powers any!
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Zircon, I had said something ruder to Michael but then perhaps wisely edited it... I really don't know how I could verify this theory, although a quick perusal of explore photos (maybe 20) reveals no photos without camera data included. Place this in the column, more research needed.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I got over Explore a few months ago. I've had some 14 photos (of about 1700) in Explore over the past two years.
They drop in and out. I don't care. If they're there, great. If not, that's okay, too. I refuse to get caught up in it, or to overanalyze it.
I really don't think that Flickr bases Explore on advertising, but hey, maybe I'm an idealist.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
While I'm ranting....do you know that if you you complain on forums such as this, it appears as if you are penalized? Comments from your contacts have a way of being late or never appearing at all...pictures which make it to Explore when you check just after the 12pm change-over to the next day,l are never seen again in Explore after that...and Scout never picks them up because there is obviously some sort of a time delay there.
It's an indisputable fact...
I have to agree on that statement fully. Normally i wake up to 2-3 pages of comments in the morning but if shooting mouth off about hypotheticialy sending donkey to the glue factory...ziltch, i got maybe 3 comments....This has been going on for so so long there is not a doubt comments are being sabatoged....its way way beyond chance.
And this ( preported) Orwelian comment denying process is surely hooked in with donkey mechanics cause its so so dumb even if you say Flickr is great!!!...it still penalizes you.
Its hard to believe such a repressive thing exists (if it does) on a web2 site....
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
My mom controls the Explore algorithms.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well your momma wears army boots for sure then.
Posted 26 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
