|
|
I have had many of my photos drop out of Explore and have not been able to get one in explore for about 2 weeks. I understand that algorithms change. But I just looked a couple of the current photos in Explore and clicked on one that was clearly just a snapshot with a building in the center of the shot and greenery around that wasn't even special and noticed that it had been posted to 12 groups and had only 4 comments, 2 of which from the same person (an invite to a group then a "sticker" for the group from the invitee). It had 4 faves and 18 views. Why would this photo be in Explore?
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Deb Snelson edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
Deb Snelson That's exactly what I was trying to point out, and why I mentioned earlier that some of these pics are being manually chosen by staff...either that or the algorithm has become so ridiculously complex that it's looping around itself and there is no definable logic to it anymore. Anything can get in at anytime, regardless of its numbers.
I too have seen many of these such photos in Explore, and I too have not had one make it for over a month.
That's why I adopted the same perspective as Its All About Mich!!! above.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There is no conspiracy.
Explore is chosen purely by an algorithm. It is designed to show you different images that may be of interest to others. There are simply images in there that you don't find of interest.
This is not any reason to start grabbing tin foil hats or claiming foul.
It is neither a flagship, or a 'skim off the top'. If you believe this to be so, then you are wrong. 100% and categorically wrong. It merely is a means of portraying images that may pique someone's interest, even if that interest happens to be:
"I wonder why on earth someone took this shot? I'll click through and find out".
It is a means of finding new things. Not better things. Not the best things. Just new things. It is not supposed to change teh world, or dictate it. Just show you something from it that you may not have seen.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Perhaps it would be nice to have a second Explore that is designed to show the best things rather than new things. I like seeing the photos that inspire me, that make me want to do better with my photography. A photo taken out of the window of a moving vehicle with power lines and garbage on the side of the road does not inspire me, or interest me.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@brock:
"It is a means of finding new things. Not better things. "
if this would be so , why is flickr itself using words like 'gorgeous', 'amazing' or 'striking' to describe what you can find on explore? Isn't that a little contradiction to 'not better things'?
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Not at all, seeing as they're not superlatives.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"You know what i´m going to do, I´m going to completely ignore explore and have FUN!"
Finally... someone understands!
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@brock
Sorry, my friend. What you're trying to point out has been said and repeated a thousand times, so you're preaching to the choir. Any photo could be considered interesting to someone, somewhere. If they just wanted to show any photo sampling from the site, they wouldn't need a complex, secret algorithm. They could just pick random shots from recent posts for the day and rotate now and then.
And I'll say it again...no matter how much we take it apart and put it back together, Explore pages are the flagship of the site. There's really no getting around it.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well since I posted yesterday and after 2 weeks of nothing on explore i find that the latest photo i uploaded, "coincidentally¨" yesterday, was on explore!! That photo was submitted to more than 10 groups ALL of them (except 365 days) are award groups... so where are we at? i´m starting to believe what was posted by Deb Snelson
And I´m doing what i said before forgetting about explore and forget about counting on how many roups you post a picture and have FUN!
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Just to put in my two cents:
I used to have 308 photos in Scout. I now have 56, with absolutely none of them from 2007, though I have posted almost daily.
I used to get in the Top 500 almost daily. I haven't since June 24.
I used to get on the main Explore page. I haven't since June 4.
The algorithm has apparently written me off its radar screen. Do I care? Sometimes. Sometimes it bothers me that I'm not being given the visibility I used to have and that I seem to have been targeted or blacklisted by the algorithm.
However, intellectually I know and as (inactive) admin of the Interestingness pool and (active) admin of the Explore Page pool, I tell people that far more important than a computer algorithm are the comments, faves and invitations to the 'quality' pools given by real live people. I treasure that part of the Flickr experience.
And if the Top 500 and the Explore Page no longer present the highest quality pictures, then I go to my favorite contacts and go to the pools such as Excellence in Floral Photography or The Best: Bravo or Magic Donkey to view what real live people consider outstanding photographs, which I admire and am inspired by. I treasure that part fo the Flickr experience, too.
But it would be nice to get on Explore again once in a while. :-)
EDIT: By "Explore" I mean the main Explore page.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
mimbrava edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
"But it would be nice to get on Explore again once in a while. :-) "
Haha mimbrava - well said! I - like many others here whose comments I've read - seem to have been sent to Siberia by explore. It's a bit pants really as I think the general quality of my photography has improved only to see its "interestingness" plummet. OK, it's just a computer algorithm but I tend to sit on shots for a while & I've got some beauties in the queue that aren't going to even equal the glory of some old shot I don't really rate any more.
The latest shot in my stream was posted yesterday, is in 8 groups (4 of these from invites) and currently has 8 faves and 29 comments from 65 views. Is it in explore? No. Loads of old ones are but my newer shots haven't had a sniff of explore as of June. Ha ha! Who cares?
Boo hoo! I do...no I don't...yes I do! Must try harder etc
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
For me the algorithm works still pretty well. Today I had, for very short time, even two pictures at the same time in the top 500, one of them on the explore front page. So I noticed no more difficulties to get my daily picture in explore. The only what seems to have changed, is that all 2007 pictures are moving completely out and after some days they came completely back. So the total number is always between 35 and 55, with a very regular frequency. For 2006 anything absolutely stable....
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I have (only) experience with Explore 2007.
So far I have uploaded in 2007 about 75 photos.
About 56 made it to Explore (13 in the top 10)
Three of these 56 photos made it to Explore after the recent algorithm change (one photo reached position #13)
I was getting used to have about daily between 30-35 photos in Scout/Explore.
After the recent algoritm change I see the following 2007 pattern....sometimes ZERO photos in Explore......sometimes at most 15.
Interesting (!) is the following pattern of 2 of my photos uploaded at the same day and in the top 10 of that same day:
- first of all they never show up together in the top 10
- if photo X is at position #7, photo Y is at position #483.
- the next day photo Y is at position #9, photo X at position #491
- the following day X at #8, Y at #489
- this pattern is going on allready for about 2 weeks...LOL !
I dont know anymore which one (of these 2 photos) is INTERESTING :)
And thats maybe the good thing about the recent algorithm change
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amsterdamned! edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
So I still don't get how some award groups are not affected by this recent change, mainly just one, A+++, but all the others were affected. I see things are changing a bit again---
Did we make you mad somehow Silent? Because rumor has it you are the brains behind the algorithm---- (kudos to you)-- how about a bribe :) chocolate? Brownies? cookies? margarita?? LOL
www.flickr.com/groups/interestingness500/discuss/72157600...
And the guy in control of the parameters (and seems to be lead Java developer) is Serguei Mourachov a.k.a. "Silent Observer". One quote I found on the web said "Interestingness Is to Flickr As PageRank Is to Google"
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Kathy~ edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
Just FYI, there is no any bias in the algorithm against "award groups" per se.
Adjustments are maid when we see certain viewing/commenting/favoriting patterns to make Explore selection more diverse.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thx SilentObserver !
Can you poke the Magic Donkey also a bit ?
Its terribly... slow.....I thought interestingness changes over time :)
Furthermore I see at the moment the following Explore pattern :
many contacts-no groups-no tags =
Top 500 (after 5favs/10comments/100views)
Hmmm...explore Flickr's Finest....really ?
Great adjustment.....
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amsterdamned! edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
For me, Explore used to be a source of inspiration or just a place were I could watch beautiful images for 30 minutes or so. There were more interesting shots than snapshots. When I currently look at Explore, I don’t get excited anymore ;-) Most seems to be snapshots. For example, the no 1 on Explore currently is a cloudshot with 7 comments, 5 faves and 110 views (those are probably because the photo is on Explore) and no groups. Although I’m happy for the photographer he made Explore, these images are not the reason I browse Explore. For me, the new changes took the fun out of it...
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Question for Silent Observer ..
I know you think we are beating an old tin can around but I have to mention something I seen last night on explore pages.
There was this picture on the explore pages last night that was all bloody - shot a woman and guy I believe.
I clicked on it to have a closer look..
Oh the shot was outside of my safe search (message on my screen told me) but yet I could see it sitting proudly on explore ..what gives with that . Not a good situation there!
What a nice shot for my kids to have seen if they were sitting over my shoulder...
Change is good ..but seriously perhaps a few more tweaks would be in order...
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Ms Ladyred
Interestingness algorithm should ignore all non-safe photos.
So far we didn't get any complains about non-safe content getting into Explore. Could you send me the photo URL by FlickrMail for the further investigation.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I will try and find it again ...
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Silent Observer I sent you the link to the shot I seen last night on explore. It was actually in the top 10 last night.I dont have a link or screenshot of that though
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I came across that too and it asked me if I wanted to click through...
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ms Ladyred & wish u were here
We've identified the problem and working to fix it, thank you for your help.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't know if its ever been brought up but I think if a photo ever gets put in "interestingness/Explorer" then something should be stamped with the date that it was added... So if later on it gets bounced out you still have a record that it was there at one time. I had a photo make it in and was so excited I about fell out of my chair then the next day it was bounced out. I was rather bummed over it but mainly because I really have no proof it was ever in there other then the Flickr toys screen shot. If there was something flagged on the photo record saying "Made Explorer on April DD, YYYY" would be cool.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Adam 'Rez'
The tool 'View my DNA' from group 'fd's Flickr Toys' shows records of your Explore photos...
I can see records of 4 of your Explore photos (including dropped)
So....U have 4 Explore photos..... !
Have a good day !
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amsterdamned! edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
Interesting... Maybe it was broke last time I checked that because nothing came up... Thank you =)
I still think a small time entry for the photo would be nice.. should be easy to I would think being a DB programmer myself.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Found a tool that lets you see all 500. flickrleech. You get a sense of the selection criteria when you see them all together.
My favorite of today - putting a whole new perspective on explore - is the little girl with the cardboard sign saying 'i fart'.
All of you admiring the old explore algorithms ..... you most likely have nothing like *that* in your photostream. Truely a photo to admire.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Silent Observer..
Too funny that new explore algorithm of yours..I have a shot that has been uploaded to flickr for 8 days now has lots of comments etc ..guess what it made front page explore tonite..LOL
If you want me to I can send you a link to the shot with the screenshot someone grabbed for it tonite..
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Aquestion for Silent Observer
My most recent photo - which I used as an example in an earlier post - is currently my most interesting according to flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/myxi/popular-interesting/
It has not appeared in the explore top 500 to the best of my knowledge. Yet 21 of my supposedly less interesting photos further down the list have made explore. Is this ranking that members see on their pages calculated using the same algorithm? If it is then it would appear to be contradicting itself.
Without giving away the secret formula, could you shed any light on this, please?
Edit: This shot is in explore, I just checked using flickrleech. And I'd tend to agree with a comment posted earlier... there's some odd stuff in there when you see it all in one place.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Myxi edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
@ Silent Observer..
You really do need to rethink and redo this new algorithm you have ..More nudity etc getting into explore .... Way to go!!!
I sent you a flickr mail with the link..And while you are there have a look at some of the rest on her stream...Not something for the explore pages ..More for triple XXXX ..
This makes me mad ....
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Ms Ladyred
Thank you for reporting this.
You've found a bug unrelated to the recent changes in the algorithm.
We are working to fix it.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Explore should show interesting pictures filtered through my SafeSearch settings...defaulting to Safe only completely ignores Flickr's noble filtering scheme...how odd...
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@joiseyshowaa
Flickr Leech is a handy tool but.....any "500 thumbnails" wll result in an "interesting" colorful mosaic.
The photos behind these thumbnails dont have to be per se interesting.
Of course there is some good stuff but I think U missed an essential point of the new selection criteria :
For example July 19th 2007 .
Check the amount of tags, groups, favs, views and count for each photo also in how many award groups they have been posted.
Dont worry......you don't need for the survey a computer :)
Any algorithm is based on X parameters.
These X parameters are choosen by human beings.
Human beings can make mistakes.
What I see is that quite many of these so called "interesting" photos have ZERO (or a few) tags or are in ZERO (or a few) groups.
Putting a photo in maybe 1 Award group look to be okay.
It almost looks as if LESS is a guarantee for EXPLORE.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amsterdamned! edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
What I find baffling about this whole "interestingness" concept is the strange oddity that puts a fairly recent picture of mine at no. 50 in my own allegedly "most interesting" despite the fact that it is no. 1 in views, comments, and favourites! But in truth, there are more things to worry about in life.......
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Ms Ladyred
Are U a censor not using SafeSearch ?
Or are you a member who had put her/his filter on safe ?
The 2 photos U mentioned are censor/filter issues.
Didn't U flag them ?
This topic is as far as I understood about Explore algorithm and not about censor/filter policies or how to adjust them.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amsterdamned! edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
@amsterdamned ..
My safe filter is on and yes I did flag them as I flag all photos I find inappropriate.
Even with the filters on if the shot is in explore you end up seeing it ..
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
all dropped !!!!
how it is funny !!!
my 2 cents.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I just had to come back for another ..Here is a prime example of our new wonderful algorithm .A picture of nothing .. One page 2 of explore!!
www.flickr.com/photos/ellenville/869593115/
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oddly enough, the algorithm still doesn't magically look at the image and decide if its content is "interesting".
I bet Seinfeld's high ratings really burned your biscuit.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@wooble..
Oddly enough before the latest changes there were not too many of these strange issues..
I also realize the "algortithm does not look at the image"
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ms Ladyred Repeat after me "Interestingness is interesting, not good". Three times before breakfast every day should do the trick.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, looks like you might have to start on a new algorithm down the road-- the people that want to get on explore will figure out how to do so, and they have already figured it out. So all the same faces (that still care) will appear on explore again. Which isn't a bad thing, so maybe their time on explore should be limited. Rotate more people in-- I am getting made a contact right and left now, people aren't posting their latest shots to any groups. People are building up their contacts, higher and higher and going that route. And giving out invite awards to their contacts.
So Silent when do you stop chasing the explore algorithm in hopes of changing it so the same people don't make it. You try to make it fair for everyone who want to be on explore, but you know it is important to many people and they will find a way to get on. Which they are doing right now.
Just say okay, everyone deserves to be there, no matter what group they hang out in -- whether it be scoring, awards, invites, or the sewing circle---- but lets rotate them through more, that way you get more people on explore, people can go to whatever groups they want and not get penalized in their explore interestingness.
I like to be on explore, won't deny that, it is a great feeling--- even though it means NOTHING, but still it is a nice feeling. This latest rounds of changes killed my fun for flickr, mine and many others. If I didn't have a group(s) that I still have fun managing, I don't really think I would stay around. Have I changed my ways for the new explore, no-- but many many others have
from another member in a discussion
for me the Flickr "Excitement Factor" is severely diminished. Flickr/Yahoo has done several things this year to diminish the flame but the last round is the killer.
Stop chasing us, and just make flickr fun-for everyone-- you will continue to get the great photos you need for the marketing of yahoo/flickr and people who want explore will get there without jumping through hoops and changing the way they "play" flickr every couple of months
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ignore--- I was going to say something else :)
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well for me fun is posting on groups ad viewing others´pictures, giving out awards, comments, etc. if that is keeping me out of explore lately, so be it!!
Its a shame there are no other sites like flickr so we are stuck with this! In the meantime f**k EXPLORE!
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I will no longer turn to Explore for inspiration. I will get it from my friends, contacts and groups that I respect.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
mikonT edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
Thought I would mention this ..Hope I dont get flogged for mentioning it ..
Point to Ponder ...
new algorithm ..picks interesting not good ...
Number 1 shot -
97 comments, 59 faves, 233 views and in 6 groups ... on explore front page
--------------------------------------
Number 2 shot -
111 comments, 67 faves, 213 views and in 3 groups .... no explore front page showing
---------------------------------------
Number 3 shot
59 comments, 59 faves,233 views and in 6 groups ... and on explore front page.
How come shot number 2 is not as interesting as 1 and 3?
What merits the interestingness here?
Does number 2 need 3 more groups to be deemed interesting?
found another
Number 4 shot - 32 comments,16 faves, 149 faves, in 4 groups and on front page explore
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Ms Ladyred edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
Wow I'm gone already, didn't even last 4 days..went from # 6 to gone, gone, gone, you probably won't even read this as it it so far down on the comments your probably tired of the topic..but this is my first Explore that I was aware of and don't know why it was dropped..can you give me an answer..this photo had 957 views..must count for something..
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
A lot of photos that recently got into explore drop out after a few days or weeks and get replaced by others that increased in interestingness or drop less than your photo. And I often had photos that oscillate in and out of explore frequently.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've had three in explore all within the last month, and not at the same time, the dropped after only a couple of days...
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for the memories...
Perhaps again one of these days..
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
New changes? Since two or three days my old 2006 pictures started to increase their ranks in explore and shots never before in explore are now in.
On the other hand the same slowly dropping out and coming back for the 2007 ones...
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've just visited this thread and got as far as halfway down the first page, to where the subject of icon groups comes up. All I can say is I hate icons and I hate the way comment threads are littered with them. I have been known to go back to a contact's photo and delete my comment so that the icons disappear from "comments you have made" threads.
So if the new algorithm means that icons disappear, then fantastic, is all I can say.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I didn't read this whole topic, but I see a lot of pictures that doesn't "belong" in the Explore page if you ask me.
I mean pictures of: What I wore today, Wardrobe remix, Food I ate today, What is in my bag, What items I carry, pregnancy status etc etc...
Some time ago I saw a lot of very pretty pictures in Explore but now I quit after max 10 times reloading the page.
Also I see many times the same pictures coming back within 1-3 times refreshing the page. How boring!
Please change it back!!!
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
 I agree. I have seen the same picture after reloading a couple of times.
To everyone else:
Be happy that you have actually made Explore. Your all complaining about how you only have 1 in there currently but you have had atleast 10 each overall.
My Explore stats? 1 at 461, ages ago.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i don't think it's wise to put any stock in explore. period. it's a false meter however you look at it.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Any true random sequence will develop what we perceive as an occasional pattern.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Helen.2007
icon groups, to each his own---- you hate them I love them, better than all the wow, amazing, awesome, wonderful, etc.... over and over, the icons mean the same thing to be as comments do-- I still comment on my contacts photos if I like them---
Silent - :) (good morning) Don't want to say I told you so.... .but guess what---- the same ole people have figured it out again and a bunch are in explore this am---
those people will always figure it out, which is why you should just let it go--- and don't try to stop it, Granted I totally understand what you are trying to do, more faces-- which you achieved-- but all groups should have equal weight--- wardrobe re mix LOL, should not weight higher than other groups--- well okay they probably like it,
How about doing away with explore--- take some left over fireworks ( you must have some, right) place the program in side of them, and boom--- blow it up and let it shower down on everyone..... but first make sure you tell us where you are lighting it off, so we can all show up with our cameras ( we are addicted to photos)
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
the icons mean the same thing to be as comments do
wrong. even a simple "wow!" is still just a personal comment--innocuous and unobtrusive. ;-)
not advertising spam for a group that relies on viral marketing schemes to promote itself (post one, give five hellokitty icons).
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
an icon means wow to me just as much as the words do
and the post one give 5 whatever is not marketing, it is to remind people that post they have to give out the icons, and if you don't have it on there, believe me, people say, Well I didn't know--- which we can say, well it is right in the name--- so it is not marketing--
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
substitute whatever word you like for 'marketing'.
the key word is 'viral' (self-replicating processes to increase brand awareness).
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I agree.....Explore is a self-replicating process to increase Flickr brand awareness :)
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Kathy~ If it means the same why do you need intrusive icons?
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
because I don't think they are intrusive, and people that want them join the group and people that don't want them don't join.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Kathy~ But they appear as invitations on photos that have not been added to the groups and they appear on photos on which I have added comments.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
iansand: If you don´t like the icons do not join the roups, PLUS you could (if its really bothering you) , place a note bellow the photo stating that you dislike icon invitations... i´ve seen people who do that and that is perfectly fair.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Its All About Mich!!! Did you read the post directly above yours?
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
the purpose of a service like flickr should be to get true critique and analysis of your work by other human beings. Getting 10 smiley face icons does NOTHING to further your goals as an artist, it just satisfies some childish inner desire to be approved of in any way possible.
but sadly these two will always be at odds with one another, because some people can't handle honest criticism, so the smily face is the only level of approval they will ever know
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
DSutherland - "The purpose of a service like flickr should be to get true critique and analysis of your work by other human beings."
Hmm, funny, I didn't read that in the description when I signed up for flickr. I would venture to say that most of the people on flickr (including myself) are not serious professional photographers. I think flickr should be whatever experience that the customer wants to make it for themselves. If that includes adding your photo to the award groups... so be it. It may not be your idea a good way of furthering our artistic goals, but we ARE paying for a service that we want to enjoy right?
Some enjoy flickr by getting awarded smiley face icons (in the process "satisfying their childish inner deisre to be approved of in any way possible" of course). I may not be a professional, but I CAN handle honest criticism even though I do enjoy the award groups. Honestly, does the fact that I add my photos to award groups make my photos any less artistic? ... (or yours any more because you don't?)
Oh, and if you DO get 10 smiley face icons... that's a GOOD photo! Still haven't gotten 10 yet ;-)
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think anyone who clicks the shutter button aspires to be a better photographer. If I make pictures and then all anyone says is "you are the BEST! wonderful!" then that ultimately works against me. As mentioned above, I would take a simple 'wow' or 'nice shot' over a flickr-smiley any day
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
... and that's your choice, but I really think there's no need to put down those of us who join those kinds of groups by calling us childish.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Villa Sams edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
btw recently I stopped doing all of the invite groups, and it seems to me I have had a higher than normal rate of photos that make a brief appearance on explore. Makes me wonder if they really DO factor the flickr-smileys into the explore algorithm.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Congratulations Doug. I personally think that they aren't factoring them in either. Just what I've seen happening lately. I guess no one can say that those of us posting to award groups are using them to make it into explore.
(P.S. - I'm really not big on the smiley group anyway. Lately I'm a bigger fan of global village 2, flickr hearts, and music to my eyes.)
(P.S.S - Still disagree with the "childish" comment. The point could be made that changing the groups you post to to try and figure out the explore algorithm could be considered a childish game... but that's not a point that I'm interested in trying to make, because we're really just here to get true critiques and analysis of our work by other human beings, right? ;-) .... )
.... (P.S.S.S - Sorry... maybe that was a little sarcastic - I guess I'm just trying to say that maybe it's not such a bad thing to want to get a little feedback on your photos whether it be in the form of a deep comment, a 'nice one' comment, an invite to a cool group, a brief apperance in explore, or even 10 flickr-smileys. I think in the end, it's all the same.)
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It is a fine line isn't it? I was just now looking at a great water picture, and one of the commenters said "It would be better without the out-of-focus rock in the very front." I have definitely seen some people on flickr that would take that as abusive, and uncalled for, and would immediately block the person. But I appreciate those types of comments on my own pictures, I try to remember them for next time :)
I agree, I have seen too many pictures on explore with lots of award group icons, there is definitely not some heavy weighting against them. But it may a part of the algorithm so that when you don't join any, your general percentages go up.
But yeah, thinking too much about the explore alogorithm could be considered childish as well ;)
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Interesting Explore statistics update :
www.flickr.com/groups/flickrtoys/discuss/72157600870895569/
10 million uploads per day now....
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amsterdamned! edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
Here are the actual factual statistics:
MAY 2007
Flickr users: probably over 8 million
Users in Explore: 87649
Photos in Explore: 508975
Average photos/user: 5.8
Users with exactly 1 photo: 36113 (41.20%)
Users with >1: 51536 (58.80%)
Users with >10: 11880 (13.55%)
Users with >25: 3852 (4.39%)
Users with >50: 1090 (1.24%)
Users with >75: 425 (0.48%)
Users with >100: 186 (0.21%)
Users with >250: 4 (0.00%)
Users with >500: 0 (0.00%)
Users with >750: 0 (0.00%)
Users with >1000: 0 (0.00%)
Posted 26 hours ago. ( permalink | edit | delete )
JULY 31, 2007:
Users in Explore: 141748
Average photos/user: 3.9
Users with exactly 1 photo: 65792 (46.41%)
Users with >1: 75956 (53.59%)
Users with >10: 11037 (7.79%)
Users with >25: 2234 (1.58%)
Users with >50: 325 (0.23%)
Users with >75: 117 (0.08%)
Users with >100: 56 (0.04%)
Users with >250: 4 (0.00%)
Users with >500: 0 (0.00%)
Posted 23 hours ago. ( permalink )
Statistics from fd's toys in hi group
www.flickr.com/groups/flickrtoys/discuss/7215760087089556...
The overall number of people who have photos in explore has gone up dramatically since the June change - from 88,000 to 142,000.
The number of people with over 75 photos has dropped from 425 to 117 in just two months.
"Share the wealth", and "more diversity" seem to be the order of the day.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So..... "Find photos from you and your contacts listed 501-1000 in Interestingness" :)
www.drewmyersphoto.net/cie/
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amsterdamned! edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a really neat link (though I was keeping it to myself so the server would not get overwhelmed).
Until I became aware of drewmyersphoto.net/cie a few days ago, I didn't even know there was a "sub 500" list.
The reason I didn't want to publicize it is that it just increases the likelyhood of "copy cat" favoriting, faving because it's already in Explore.
But the flipside is that it's an easy way to find photos from your contacts that might be pretty good.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I like those stats Creativity, thanks for putting on here.
and the drew myers site is great--- try it out
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"The number of people with over 75 photos has dropped from 425 to 117 in just two months. "
For me it's the other way round... before the last change I had something around 50 in explore, today for the first time 75 ;)
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Hi manganite,
Congratz.....U really deserve it !
All your photos ARE -imho- very interesting !
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
DSutherland: "Makes me wonder if they really DO factor the flickr-smileys into the explore algorithm."
me: I think it's highly unlikely that they specifically mark a photo down for joining a certain kind of group. For a start it seems like new awards groups are started every day and someone would have to be constantly updating the algorithm to see that they were all included.
The algorithm measures behaviour and it seems to me that certain behaviour might be typical of these groups. There are certain admins who like to encourage their group membership and so make a point of commenting/faveing (and who knows, possibly pointless-made-up-trophy-awarding) every photo that is in their group. It makes sense to me that these kind of habitual comments are somewhat less valued.
Maybe the algorithm measures the average response from a particular group. Maybe there are some groups where posting a photo will almost always yield 10 comments and 2 favourites... in which case, posting to the group and getting just that might not be particularly helpful to your ranking. Getting 3 comments and 1 fave from another group might count more.
I don't know and I don't want to know. My point is that I doubt very much that the algorithm works by simply saying that a photo that is in wowie-kazowie is marked down for being there.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
For those who are still hung up on Explore and fretting about whether they are in or out of it, I've just found a wonderfully unequivocal statement by Silent Observer, on another thread to do with this subject.
>>Trust me, 500 photos we show in the calendar view for the day are not any better than thousands and thousands of other photos we don't show in Explore ...
That 'interestingness' does not necessarily equate to quality - is something that has been stated many times over by many astute flickroonies here on the forum, but it certainly helps to have a member of staff - especially the one who is chiefly responsible for creating the Magic Donkey algorithm - state it so directly. So three cheers for Silent Observer.
How. ev. er. ... S.O. then goes on to say:
>>Other photos are not shown for multitude of reasons but the main one is low social activity of the authors...<<
Well, that may be true, but from what I'm seeing it's some of the most socially active Flickr members who are now being kept out of Explore - purely because of their high levels of social interaction. For example, I can think of at least five very good photographers - all contacts of mine - whose work is always of an excellent standard, but who now have only have a very small percentage of their shots in Explore. Considering how popular they are, it's hardly a problem for them, but it does seem odd that their sole crime (apart from being talented and popular) seems to be that they favour and comment TOO energetically. Indeed, if you check out the number of shots in their 'favourites' folders, the numbers are very, very high. Yet none of these very talented, very popular photographers have put their photos in many groups, and rarely, if ever, go near the obligatory comment ones, so it certainly isn't that aspect that's keeping them out of Explore. Given that they don't appear to have committed any other faux-pas to exclude them from the Explore pages, one can only conclude that being too active and too generous with your comments and faving can also keep you out of Explore.
But, if this is so, then might it be that receiving comments and faves from these commendably generous souls actually counts against your photo getting into Explore?
Edit:
Or, as I suspect, is it reciprocal commenting and faving between two contacts that scuppers the chances of their work being considered 'interesting'?
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
*Meredith edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
I think having your comments and favourites originating from a narrow set of possible sources is the criterion.
But I am just guessing.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The problem with the algorithm is, that it claimed to find interesting pictures, but if he found them he immediately start to punish them, cause they are now too interesting. So the algorithm always exchanges what he once found as interesting with something he claimed not interesting before...
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
About Interestingness (Silent Observer)
Besides being a five syllable word suitable for tongue twisters, it is also an amazing new Flickr Feature.
There are lots of things that make a photo 'interesting' (or not) in the Flickr. Where the clickthroughs are coming from; who comments on it and when; who marks it as a favorite; its tags and many more things which are constantly changing. Interestingness changes over time, as more and more fantastic photos and stories are added to Flickr.
We've added some pages (and changed some existing ones) to help you explore Flickr's most interesting photos. Before you start though, you might want to take your phone off the hook, send your boss to an executive training session and block off some time on your schedule, because we don't think you're going to be walking away from your screen any time soon. Beautiful, amazing, moving, striking - explore and discover some of Flickr's Finest.
Trust us, the 500 photos we show in the calendar view for the day are not any better than thousands and thousands of other photos we don't show in Explore.
Explore will always be Explore.
Trust us, the 500 photos in Explore are not Flickr's Finest.
Because they are not Flickr's Finest we call these photos interesting.
Our social donkey will choose each day the most interesting photo.
The mood of our donkey can change during time.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
Amsterdamned! edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
There certainly seems to be a strong prejudice in the algorithm towards people that have lots of images in explore from the past. imapix currently has 144 images in explore but none of them are from 2007. It's like 2007 has been lopped off for him since he has so many in previous years when flickr was young.
I looked at the 'last 7 days' in explore last night and wasn't impressed with many of the images I saw. It is becoming less and less of a showcase of interesting images and more of a place where everyone gets a few photos on display.
I used to find consistently great photographers on flickr through explore but I'm finding that is no longer the venue for doing that. I think at this point they should rename the algorithm the 'yawningness' engine.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
>>There certainly seems to be a strong prejudice in the algorithm towards people that have lots of images in explore from the past. imapix currently has 144 images in explore but none of them are from 2007. It's like 2007 has been lopped off for him since he has so many in previous years when flickr was young.<<
Yes, I'm wondering if the algorithm's recent tweaking has introduced a cap on the number of images (or percentage of images) a Flickr member can get into Explore - ie, no more than 15% (purely a random figure, before anyone hollers) of their total photostream, say. If that is so, then for people who have exceeded that figure in the past, like Imapix, they will have to wait until their percentage drops to come into line with the new ceiling. Of course, that won't be achieved until they've uploaded many more photos, so altering their current Explore to Photostream ratio.
Edited for clarity (though still not brilliantly put)
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
*Meredith edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
Back to icons: Isn't it just the pits when the "Comments You've Made" page is dominated so much by those icons that you can't see the photos any more? I've often gone back to a picture I've commented on to delete the comment, so that I don't have to look at those sickening flashing icons. If more people who don't like them did that, maybe flickr'ers would stop posting in those groups?
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Back to the algorithm :)
The subject in this thread is not about icon group awards.....
There have been in the past many Forum topics about this icon issue....
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It came up in the discussion about whether or not the algorithm counted icons.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I suspect that if 90% of comments and favourites are coming from a single source - for example from people who opened the the photo from an icon group - those views and favourites are discounted.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Meredith: I think the cap was put on (very suddenly) about a year ago when many of the people who had the largest number of pictures in the Interestingness list lost hundreds of them virtually overnight. While the new levels have fluctuated to some extent, I don't know of anyone whose numbers recovered to the previous levels.
Since other people saw a jump in their numbers, I assumed this was an attempt by Flickr to "spread the wealth." I think we're seeing more of this now as the people from Yahoo Photos are migrating over.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The primary change that occurred last year was in October when they started blacklisting groups that require comments. If your image was in any of those groups, it was kicked out of explore
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@iansand:
You might be right -it's certainly possible, but I do think there's also an 'anti-cronyism' element at work in the new algorithm. I say that because those who are very popular and regularly make a lot of effort to comment and fave their contacts' work, seem to be particularly badly hit by the new changes. Of course, such generous attention is usually repaid in kind. While mutual backscratching, however kindly meant, can create a false sense of a photo's 'interestingness', if you tweak the algorithm to penalise those who comment and favour on each other's photos, it also means those who help to make Flickr such a friendly, supportive experience, are sort of being punished by being excluded from Explore. On the other hand you can take the view that since they are very active, and in return, receive a lot of favourable attention, they are less in need of Explore to enjoy high visibility.
@dotlyc & 3rd Foundation:
You're both right, I think. The furore about the 'comment-on-the-two-photos-to-the-right-of-yours' groups - I remember that well enough. And I do recall a lot of stunned and rather unhappy folk wondering why their explore count suddenly skydived. The reason I'm wondering if yet another cap has been implemented is that I haven't had a new photo in Explore since June-the-somethingth - and, somewhat surprised, I checked with a contact of mine to see if he had been similarly affected. I use him as a benchmark, because he hardly ever comments, rarely faves , seldom puts his work in any group of any shape or form - in fact does precisely nothing to draw attention to himself or his photography - but is so darn good, and has a helpfully 'cool' image, that each new piece of work is greeted with fevered appreciation and a squillion faves within the first hour or two. In other words, he regularly gets all the right attention without falling foul of wrong group or cronyism accusations, and so should easily qualify for Explore - but he too hasn't had a thing in since June. His only 'crime' as it were, is that he already has a very enviable number of photos in Explore in ratio to his total photostream - nearly 39% - which is the highest ratio I've ever come across. Hence I wondered about yet another capping coming into force.
Phew - hope that's not too confused to follow. And sorry to be so long-winded!
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
*Meredith edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
FWIW, I never post to groups that require one to comment and/or fave, and I still have not made the Top 500 since June 24 or Explore since June 4.
EDIT: I comment less these days than in the past due to a heavy real-life workload, but I suppose many of those comments involving reciprocation, especially since people can no longer find me in the Top 500 or on Explore, though they're finding me somehow because every day more people add me as a contact.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
mimbrava edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
Seems there's a merry little band of us similarly affected then, Mim. Adds more weight to my capping theory, perhaps?
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Who knows? The vagaries of the algorithm are of intellectual interest only, though, since I've never "gamed the system" to try to get on the Top 500 or Explore. It's just that I used to get on regularly and now I don't at all.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh, the fickleness of Flickr, eh? :0)
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
*Meredith edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
|
3rd foundation, *Meredith, mimbrava:
add one more to the band.
none of them are from 2007. It's like 2007 has been lopped off for him
that's exactly what happened here--initially, all my explore pics were lopped from January 2007 on... although recently, the January pics reappeared, and now February pics are back in too. still, all my dozen or so pics from March, April, May, and June have been lopped.
and no new pics in Explore since the middle of June--first time I've ever gone more than about two weeks without getting something in.
no matter. explore should be tilted toward flickr newbies--they're the ones who need it the most. once you've been around for a while, not as much need for validation or promotion.
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The funny thing is there are still some 'old-timers' who are regularly getting new stuff into Explore and who still enjoy a very high Explore/Photostream ratio - like 25% - which means my capping theory could well be a load of tosh. Curiouser and curiouser ....
Posted 59 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads