Help / The Help Forum

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

Hot Topics

[Official Thread] Have an idea for Flickr? Share it here.
Latest: 43 minutes ago
[Official] We’re conducting a test on faves - updated with test results!
Latest: 4 weeks ago
Welcome to the Flickr Help Forum! Click here to get started and to read our Forum Guidelines.
Latest: 5 months ago
[Official] Flickr requesting that some Pro subscribers update their subscription information
Latest: 6 months ago

 

Current Discussion

No Paypal (not a new subscriber)
Latest: 32 minutes ago
Printer Repair Service | Cartridge For Printer Repair Services| Toner in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada | Altas Office Solution
Latest: 39 minutes ago
Facade of protection zoom
Latest: 67 minutes ago
[Investigating] Issues with Slow Commenting
Latest: 4 hours ago
problems invite members with a admin invite to the next level
Latest: 15 hours ago
How to share "larger" images
Latest: 18 hours ago
Fave Count Off In Notifications
Latest: 19 hours ago
[Investigating] And now more Pandas
Latest: 19 hours ago
[Resolved] One file is invalid and needs to be removed.
Latest: 21 hours ago
Notifications
Latest: 23 hours ago
Google "Licensable".
Latest: 34 hours ago
Pending Items for a Group's Pool
Latest: 36 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

Flickr auto-generates inappropriate (and invisible) tags for new photos

SyamAstro (750,000 views - thank you!) says:

Hello,

I have just discovered that Flickr automatically generates tags when I upload a new photo - presumably based on some image recognition software - which are not visible to me, and which at least sometimes are inaccurate or even inappropriate.

I just did a test: uploaded a studio photo of my 10-years old daughter (dressed in a kids dress), with no tags, title or description. Within 10 minutes the photo was viewed more than 10 times. As I am a Flickr Pro user, I could see the detailed stats. What I discovered was that the photo was found 5 times by searching for "bikini", and three times by searching for "swimsuit". (I even saw the "buthtub" search term when I uploaded the same photo two days ago, and then deleted it.) It is not just inaccurate, it is totally inappropriate to find my daughter's photo in the company of all those bikini wearing or topless young women (try searching for "bikini" to see my point).

I can see when such auto-generated tags can be beneficial, as it does some work for you, and increases the visibility of the photo. But the example with my daughter's photo shows that the process is far from perfect.

I believe what Flickr should do is to

(1) make these auto-generated tags visible to the photographer, with the ability to delete all the inaccurate and inappropriate ones;
(2) make a global setting which would allow me to opt out from this tag auto-generation feature.

Thank you.
Posted at 11:51AM, 4 September 2014 PDT ( permalink )

← prev 1 2
(1 to 100 of 166 replies in Flickr auto-generates inappropriate (and invisible) tags for new photos)
view photos

kmacgray says:

I believe what Flickr should do

Feature requests are best suited for the feedback forum:
yahoo.uservoice.com/forums/211185-us-flickr
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SyamAstro (750,000 views - thank you!) says:

Thanks you, but the thread you provided link for is specifically on the feedback for the new photo page. My complaint is not about the new interface, it's about the inner workings of Flickr (inaccurate image analyzing software) and Flickr policies (what should be shown to the photographer; they decided that auto-generated tags don't have to be shown; my example shows it should be the other way).
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

syamastro:

Then start a thread that is more specific to your issue.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FlyButtafly says:

That is pretty disturbing.

There have been threads previously about the "smart" *cough* image-recognition search finding irrelevant images but it was mostly comical.

I really think you should be able to opt out of this new search algorithm. I know it won't happen if they plan for anything to happen here like at Tumblr (scanning images for brand name items for big-name companies) but this is a clear case where it has unintended (and very negative) results.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

excellent start says:

syamastro:

You'd be pissing into the wind placing that on User Voice. UV requires others to be concerned about the issue and most people would not be aware and/or care.

As a dad I empathise with your concerns. The unusual search matches have been noted in the past, some are funny, but ones like this are not at all.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kmacgray says:

syamastro:

Thanks you, but the thread you provided link for is specifically on the feedback for the new photo page.

No, it isn't. They are merely promoting the photo page on the front page of the feedback forum.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SyamAstro (750,000 views - thank you!) says:

I don't think my complaint can be described as a "feature request" or an "idea", but I did post it on the feedback forum.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

FlyButtafly:

I really think you should be able to opt out of this new search algorithm.


I wonder if the normal 'hide from searches' does that.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SyamAstro (750,000 views - thank you!) says:

FlyButtafly:

Totally agree. What makes this problem bad is that most of Flickr users (those without Pro acccounts - who cannot see the detailed stats for their photos) won't even be aware of this issue.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SyamAstro (750,000 views - thank you!) says:

ColleenM:

Hiding from searches is an overkill. I do want my photos to be found, but I want them to be found based on accurate tags.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

amazingstoker says:

Given that Flickr's advice from: www.flickr.com/help/stats/#1867
is:

"If your photos turn up in a search for terms you'd rather not be associated with, you need to remove those terms from the content in your account, like photo titles and descriptions, tags, your screen name, or your Flickr profile page."

It would seem appropriate to be able to see and edit the search terms with which your images are associated.

.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )
amazingstoker edited this topic 75 months ago.

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro says:

i would not call that "hidden tags".

the issue is with flickr patter-matching search (the improved "full-text" search, which does not in fact uses the text in the photo title, description or tags, but rather some magic donkey image recognition software that is supposed to detect shapes etc.

if flickr provided a way to opt-out of this pattern-matching search feature, i would opt out of it because so far it has proven to be problematic. i do not view it as an improvement at this stage, especially since i tag and document all my photos properly.

the idea is that this new search algorithm could help find photos that were not tagged or properly described with words in their titles and description...

i had problems with that, e.g. www.flickr.com/help/forum/72157645828398702/
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SyamAstro (750,000 views - thank you!) says:

I am pretty sure the tagging is done only once, at the upload time. It'd be too resource intensive to do patterm-matching search on all Flickr photos every time someone is searching for say "bikini".

If so, the tags can and should be made visible and editable.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

loupiote (Old Skool) pro: According to staff, this image-recognition system does actually create secret tags and attaches them to that image. Running the image recognition system in real-time with 11 billion images would probably not be the speediest endeavor.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

excellent start says:

Perhaps an opt-out tag that a user adds at upload so the image matching service does not add any hidden tags (especially ones related to people).
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Giant_Schnauzer says:

I have the same problem with the hidden tags. (If you do not want to call them that, grant that it is an accurate description of their function.) Some are comical, such as identifying my dogs as horses. Others are not funny. I get views based on 20-50 improper hidden tags every day.

Not mentioned so far: A consequential side effect (adverse reaction?) of this faulty tagging system is that view counts are greatly inflated without any corresponding comments or faves given. That results in a very low, unfavorable ratio of faves / views which puts images much lower in search rankings. I have had this happen to the extreme in one case when 99% of all views of an image result from Google searches by non-members, and that is beyond Flickr's control. However, the present ill-reasoned scheme and its multitude of unwanted effects are Flickr's responsibility and should be dealt with by them.

Notifying the poster of these hidden tags with option to delete them via the (x) just like any other tag posted by user or another member on user's page seems reasonable and trivial to implement, in the event neither opting out nor discarding the system altogether is acceptable.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro says:

The Searcher:

According to staff, this image-recognition system does actually create secret tags and attaches them to that image.

where did they say that?
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

loupiote (Old Skool) pro: Oh man you're the details guy, I'm the good enough guy. So many threads on search in the last six months, who knows. I did find this:

www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157644057409341/7215764...

Which at least implies hidden tags because he refers to the "tags only" advanced search option as "manual tags". Pretty sure there's a staff comment somewhere saying the system applies search terms to our images via this image recognition system. In the new App thread they talked a little about how it was done in batches, and only with certain subjects to start. Which again suggests the data has to be stored somewhere, and is not actively trying to image recognize live as each search is started.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

An interesting experiment would be to upload an image with an obvious element that the system would recognize (dog, sheep, chicken, ladybug, etc). Don't tag it or title it or anything, and wait and see if it starts to show up with searches for "ladybug".

Once it does, replace the image with something else, like a black box. Then see if it still comes up in searches for "ladybug".

If it does, that's not an on-the-fly image recognition thing happening.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro says:

The Searcher:

If it does, that's not an on-the-fly image recognition thing happening.

no.

i would expect flickr to re-analyze the photo and update any hidden search metadata each time the image is "replaced".

not doing that would be very poor design on the part of flickr.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

loupiote (Old Skool) pro: So what's the difference between "hidden search metadata" and "hidden search tags." Aren't we just talking about semantics here?
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Buddha's Ghost says:

loupiote (Old Skool) pro:

not doing that would be very poor design on the part of flickr.


And that would surprise you? :^D.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Buddha's Ghost says:

The Searcher:

An interesting experiment would be to upload an image with an obvious element that the system would recognize (dog, sheep, chicken, ladybug, etc). Don't tag it or title it or anything, and wait and see if it starts to show up with searches for "ladybug".

Once it does, replace the image with something else, like a black box. Then see if it still comes up in searches for "ladybug".

If it does, that's not an on-the-fly image recognition thing happening.



I just uploaded a photo to one of my alternate accounts- no title, no tags- I'll see how it goes.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )
Buddha's Ghost edited this topic 75 months ago.

view photos

Buddha's Ghost says:

Okay, tagless and titleless it showed up immediately after upload in a recent search for the type of image it clearly was. Now, I'll replace it.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Buddha's Ghost says:

And after replacing it with a solid black image with no title or tags, it still shows under the search term that was originally relevant.

So we now know for certain every time a search is performed, the search engine doesn't scan individual photos; which never seemed very likely. And the invisible "tags" are added at upload.

We also know that the search engine does NOT automatically reevaluate a photo for image recognition if the image is changed.

The only question remaining is, does the search engine check photos from time to time to see if they need to modify their invisible "tags"?

I'll leave my black rectangle up and see how it goes.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Buddha's Ghost: neat!
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro says:

The Searcher:

So what's the difference between "hidden search metadata" and "hidden search tags." Aren't we just talking about semantics here?

same semantics, different words, yes.

as far as i know, they are not "tags" (with tags being defined and accessible via the API), and searchable with tag search.

i just say "hidden metadata" because it would describe better what it is. using the word "tags" can lead to more confusion.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro says:

Buddha's Ghost:

So we now know for certain every time a search is performed, the search engine doesn't scan individual photos; which never seemed very likely. And the invisible "tags" are added at upload.


if flickr does not re-scan the image when it is replaced, then it is a bug, and hopefully some day they will realize this and fix it. it could cause the flickr "smart search" results to be polluted. although i doubt this bug would be exploited. - so this search / replace bug would just be minor compared to other source of database pollution....

they already have a number of bugs causing pollution in their database. for example, they place on the maps (at completely wrong locations) photos that are taken by a camera that has not (yet) been able to acquire a GPS fix. so the geo-location database on flickr has probably about 5% of garbage location (based on my estimate, from my own photos). i can't believe they did not fix that one, years after it was reported...

so this smart search / replace bug would be minor compared to other source of pollution in their database.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

loupiote (Old Skool) pro: Weird choice of words then, as "hidden" I would think to describe an inability of the API to see them, and "metadata" is a word that encompasses data that the API can grab just fine. Why adding "hidden" to metadata makes it more accurate but applying to tags I cannot guess.

How about we call them "words". The system applies topical words to our images that we can't access, see or alter. Seems the least confusing of all.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro says:

The Searcher:

How about we call them "words". The system applies topical words to our images that we can't access, see or alter. Seems the least confusing of all

yeah, you could call them "hidden words" or "hidden concepts", i guess.

it is really annoying to not have a way to ignore them in full-text search (and with the API) , and it would be nice to have a way to disable them completely when we tag our images correctly and don't want our images to pop-up in search using inappropriate terms.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Buddha's Ghost says:

loupiote (Old Skool) pro:

it could cause the flickr "smart search" results to be polluted



Just from what I'm witnessing on my test, the search results are already polluted badly by "image recognition" results that have no identifying information add by the people who upload them.

Of the first 50 photos I went through, 23 (almost half) had nothing to do with the search term being searched for. Additionally, of those 23, 20 had absolutely no tags or titles at all. The remaining three did have tags, but none of those tags were the one being used in the search.

So, could searches be polluted with non-relevant images? It appears that ship has already sailed.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

The thing about non-relevant images getting caught up in the net, is the relevancy self-corrects as fewer people select sheep when they do searches for "dog". In fact that may be one way the new image recognition system improves itself, by revisiting images it's tagged/worded and seeing how often those images were actually viewed/fav'd from those searches, and then removing word/tags from the images.

But all of that is beside the point of the original post, which is to give us control of exactly what metadata we apply to our images, so they appear on this site at least in the context we expect/wish. It's no different than giving us the ability to remove our images from people's favorites if we see the other images they've fav'd are icky, so our image isn't displayed near them.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

photo_snaiper says:

And if anyone wants to vote against hidden tags the entry on UserVoice is here:
yahoo.uservoice.com/forums/211185-us-flickr/suggestions/6...
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson says:

I was against these hidden 'tags' back when they introduced them to make it "easier" to find things.

What annoys me are the date/season-related ones.

When I search my photostream for "winter", I don't want photos taken in the middle of summer (January or Christmastime) showing up in my results. I also don't want July photos showing up when I search for "summer" given that July is the middle of winter. grrr...

I wish there was a way to turn them off when I search.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro says:

Brenda Anderson:

yeah, clearly January is SUMMER and July is WINTER in the southern hemisphere.

and yes, there are flickr users in New Zealand, Australia, and South America... and even in Africa!

and under the tropics, January could me Monsoon season, depending on the region, but they don't really have winter there.

apparently the people who designed or implemented this "smart search" algorithm have poor education, since this is quite basic. i assume that you learn earth orbit and seasons in college?

at least they should look at the geo-location before associating a date with a season.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )
loupiote (Old Skool) pro edited this topic 75 months ago.

view photos

ausfi says:

I did not find any hidden tags while looking through the referrals of four days of stats, but if I search for 'glacier' in my photostream, I also get a photo of a row of of ice blocks and a photo of trees covered with white.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Giant_Schnauzer says:

The Searcher:

re: "The thing about non-relevant images getting caught up in the net, is the relevancy self-corrects as fewer people select sheep when they do searches for "dog". In fact that may be one way the new image recognition system improves itself, by revisiting images it's tagged/worded and seeing how often those images were actually viewed/fav'd from those searches, and then removing word/tags from the images."

I don't think this correction is happening at present and doubt the programming capability to do so exists at Flickr.

One specific example in my photos is seen by doing a "recent" search for "horse flying trot" which displays my Great Dane image front and center. (This example OK for family view; others definitely NOT!)
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )
Giant_Schnauzer edited this topic 75 months ago.

view photos

Ernest Brown Photography says:

Interesting. Onedrive adds image recognition tags all the time, but they are not hidden. They are also non-deletable, and sometimes funny. I've never seen one that is inappropriate.

Question here: If I can (and have had) my stream set to restricted by staff for inappropriate tagging, (using the f-bomb 18 times on an image of a camera that I dropped into the river) then what's to stop them from doing the same thing when I upload a picture of a hot-dog?
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Giant_Schnauzer says:

photo_snaiper:

And if anyone wants to vote against hidden tags the entry on UserVoice is here:

yahoo.uservoice.com/forums/211185-us-flickr/suggestions/6...

Thanks for that opportunity. I added my comment and "voted" the maximum of 3 votes which raised your entry from 211th to 179th place. It would seem that several more comments and votes would do a LOT of good.

[a while later] One more comment without voting got you up to 160th place.]
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )
Giant_Schnauzer edited this topic 75 months ago.

view photos

SyamAstro (750,000 views - thank you!) says:

photo_snaiper:

Thanks for posting the link for voting. I wasn't sure if it is appropriate to do it myself.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

excellent start says:

Buddha's Ghost:

And after replacing it with a solid black image with no title or tags, it still shows under the search term that was originally relevant.

So we now know for certain every time a search is performed, the search engine doesn't scan individual photos; which never seemed very likely. And the invisible "tags" are added at upload.

We also know that the search engine does NOT automatically reevaluate a photo for image recognition if the image is changed.

The only question remaining is, does the search engine check photos from time to time to see if they need to modify their invisible "tags"?



Just quoting this because it was a cool test that delivered interesting results. It's the kind of stuff I do with Explore and Search Ranking. Fun!
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

Saffron Blaze:

It's the kind of stuff I do with Explore and Search Ranking.

yawn . . .
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

excellent start says:

photo_snaiper:

And if anyone wants to vote against hidden tags the entry on UserVoice is here:
yahoo.uservoice.com/forums/211185-us-flickr/suggestions/6...


Voted.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Giant_Schnauzer says:

The additional comments (now 4 in total) and voting have helped the ranking of the OP's complaint move up to #75 now.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )
Giant_Schnauzer edited this topic 74 months ago.

view photos

excellent start says:

Giant_Schnauzer:

People lose faith Flickr's search is reliable and move on to other services?
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

MabelAmber️®***Pluto5339*** incognito says:

Voted
.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Giant_Schnauzer: Increasing aribtrary view "counts" has never been a measurement used for revenue, it's just been something bandied about as conspiracy theory by those who don't like the direction the site has taken.

ad buyers want eyeballs on the ads, and they want to know the volume of visitors that come to the site. More views on images while site visit volume is unchanged and site use stats (how many pages those visitors are clicking on) are unchanged are useless from revenue perspective. In fact anything "passive", ie something the site measures that doesn't involve actual human interaction, is largely ignored by ad buyers. Specifically because that sort of data can be gamed by sites.

Now, getting the users more interested in the site, getting them to interact more with the site, that's a conspiracy that could have some weight. One could even argue (and people have) that having more views is a way to get users to engage in the site more, which could translate into more actions that ad buyers are interested in. However creating a search system that's LESS reliable is probably not the best way to go about that.

Thus I don't think Flickr is purposely trying to make a less accurate search system. I think they're just trying to compensate for the way many people now use the site, ie by dumping large amounts of images or having their phones auto-sync and put every shot they take on the site. When that happens the users aren't tagging their own images, they're coming here blank and untitled and without descriptions or tags of any kind. Which makes them largely invisible to searches.

So I think it is certainly in Flickr's best interests to get those images in front of eyeballs, and get those eyeballs to click through to see adverts. Thus an automated system to auto-tag images and get them searchable and viewable.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

truculent slip says:

Good to see Flickr encourages searches for porn to result in images of children in swimwear. Their silence on this issue sums up how much they care.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

truculent slip says:

The Searcher:

*Waves
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

whichbrowserareyouusing: If you search "bikini" hoping for porn, you live a very boring life.

But then you spend all your time making fake sockpuppet accounts to comment on random web sites, so maybe that's self-evident.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

MabelAmber️®***Pluto5339*** incognito says:

whichbrowserareyouusing:

Fourteen minutes and you are still around, wow, what backbone!

.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nionyn_ says:

The Searcher:

The thing about non-relevant images getting caught up in the net, is the relevancy self-corrects as fewer people select sheep when they do searches for "dog".

Really? How do you know that this self-correcting happens at all?
Obviously, it would be good if it did, but do you have any evidence whatsoever that it is happening?
Remember that on Flickr these days a view is not necessarily an *actual* view. Staff have already confirmed that views can be counted without the image ever appearing on the viewer's monitor, so the method of self-correcting that you suggest doesn't sound too plausible or accurate under current circumstances.

The Searcher:
In fact that may be one way the new image recognition system improves itself, by revisiting images it's tagged/worded and seeing how often those images were actually viewed/fav'd from those searches, and then removing word/tags from the images.

Well yes, it might be. But then again it might not.
Again, I presume you have no evidence to back up your conjecture.
Lots of talk, little evidence, fewer facts. :-(
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

truculent slip says:

MabelAmber® ***Pluto5339*** Queen of Streetshots:

I'm on your side Mabel. Search is flawed if searches for porn brings up pictures of kids because of hidden tags. That is disgraceful. Again, nothing matters to Yahoo (noun; a rude, loud, unpleasant person, especially one who has little education) except ad revenue.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Nionyn_: That's how relevancy works. Images selected less are pushed down in the relevancy searches (the default search display). It's worked that way for ten years. That's what makes them "relevant". If people choose "recent" or "interesting" then it no longer helps. It's not rocket science, you want proof you can go through the search results and pick two images with near identical tags, one way up high on the search results and one way down low. The "relevancy" is not just based on the search terms, it's also how the image performs.

As for my "conjecture" on the hidden tag updating, yes that may be why I used the word "may" up there, not "is". It absolutely is conjecture, and basically just how I'd do it were I to control that system.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

whichbrowserareyouusing: If you look at a picture of a little kid and think it's porn, maybe the problem is with you. Perhaps that's why you keep getting deleted from Flickr and have to keep making new fake accounts to hide behind.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

truculent slip says:

The Searcher:

"Search is flawed if searches for porn brings up pictures of kids because of hidden tags. That is disgraceful."

Did you even read what I put?? ^^ Again, your love of Yahoo (noun; a rude, loud, unpleasant person, especially one who has little education) prevents you from even bothering from engaging sensibly in any conversations. I'm away now; more important things to do in my life than defend Flickr from the indefensible.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

whichbrowserareyouusing: I don't engage in conversations with fake invisible people who hide behind anonymity, it's true.

If you read what I wrote you'd see I pretty much agree with the OP, we should have control of our images metadata, and the context in which it is displayed on the site. My not agreeing with you, on anything, doesn't mean I agree with Yahoo. Bottom line Yahoo's often wrong, but you're always wrong.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Giant_Schnauzer says:

[deleted, error in original]
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )
Giant_Schnauzer edited this topic 74 months ago.

view photos

The Searcher says:

Giant_Schnauzer: Very good points, none of which I hae answers for. As for keeping all those "dumped" images invisible, I don't think you can assume those people want the images invisible, necessarily. Many just don't know how to use the site, at least judging by the many "why can't I find my images" posts in the Help Forum where it's shown they have no titles tags or descriptions and just expect Flickr to magically know what the photos are.

It is a new system, and while I think the aberrations discovered are less than the improvements, it clearly still needs work. And above all, like the other elements of their site, Flickr should give us ultimate control of these hidden tags one way or the other. In fact I think we need both: remove some or all of the hidden words/tags from our images, AND be able to perform searches with results NOT using this system. That right there would solve a lot of issues.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Giant_Schnauzer says:

The Searcher: Agree re control and choices.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Buddha's Ghost says:

Buddha's Ghost:

Just from what I'm witnessing on my test, the search results are already polluted badly by "image recognition" results that have no identifying information add by the people who upload them.

Of the first 50 photos I went through, 23 (almost half) had nothing to do with the search term being searched for. Additionally, of those 23, 20 had absolutely no tags or titles at all. The remaining three did have tags, but none of those tags were the one being used in the search.

So, could searches be polluted with non-relevant images? It appears that ship has already sailed.



Sixteen hours after replacing the original photo with a black rectangle (and still no tags or title), it continues to come up under an image search based solely on image recognition.

In those last 16 hours, it has gathered 146 views as a black rectangle by continuing to be represented in a search it logically shouldn't even be in. The account I have it posted in has no contacts and as a reference point, the other four images in that stream have a combined total of 50 views after being on the stream for a couple of years.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SyamAstro (750,000 views - thank you!) says:

That's an interesting data! It also shows that older photos haven't been processed with pattern recognition software by Flickr (yet). But perhaps they are doing it, slowly (it takes a lot of resources to analyze those billions of photos).
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

Buddha's Ghost:

In those last 16 hours, it has gathered 146 views as a black rectangle by continuing to be represented in a search it logically shouldn't even be in.

I wonder if you excluded this individual photo from search, would the numbers continue to go up? To say it another way, if your wish was for this image not to be returned by a search, will it still be returned by a search match of the hidden tags, are the flickr hidden tags exempt from the photo owners search wishes? My hope would be that the photo view count would stop going up.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

mcnod: The setting is provided by Flickr to hide our content from searches. Something would be very very broken if our images weren't actually hidden, no matter what method was used to serve them.

What I'd be interested in is if the "relevancy" plays out as expected, and the black box image slides down in the search results as time goes by (assuming most people searching for the item are interested in clicking on a black image).
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

The Searcher:

The setting is provided by Flickr to hide our content from searches. Something would be very very broken if our images weren't actually hidden

That is my point exactly . . .

Newer accounts (non-Pro) would not know how their public photos were actually getting the views, and were there not someones not in any groups private photos getting views somehow last week?
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Buddha's Ghost says:

mcnod:

I wonder if you excluded this individual photo from search, would the numbers continue to go up?



I'm not sure you can exclude just one photo from being searchable and still be a public photo.


On another note, I found out something else. When uploading the original test image again as a separate upload while still keeping the first upload in place, I could no longer get it to appear under the search term as it did originally.

When, however, I changed the color on part of it or mirror-imaged the original, then it would show up again in the search results, still with no tags or titles.

So apparently the search engine keeps track of images after they've been uploaded with some invisible fingerprint and prevents identical duplicates of the same image file from showing up again in the search results due to Flickr's "image recognition", even if the original image the software thinks it's keeping track of has been replaced by a different image (in this case a black square).
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

Buddha's Ghost:

I'm not sure you can exclude just one photo from being searchable and still be a public photo.

You can in the Organizer.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

Buddha's Ghost:

I'm not sure you can exclude just one photo from being searchable and still be a public photo.

Organize>Permissions>Hide/show in searches
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Michael Fleshman says:

syamastro:

I didn't know that. I agree that flickr shouldn't add tags, and if they do should indicate them. But I also didn't know it was possible to ID search terms used to find individual photos. I have a pro account too and see the numbers and sources, but not the search terms. How can I find those?

Thanks
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

excellent start says:

Michael Fleshman:

When I click on the flickr.com referrer I get things like this

flickr.com/search/?q=ottawa
flickr.com/search/?q=cotswolds
flickr.com/search/?q=england
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Buddha's Ghost says:

mcnod:

You can in the Organizer.



Okay, after changing the setting to exempt the photo from public searches, the image was removed from the search results. Upon changing permissions back to allow the image to be publicly searchable, it was reintroduced into the search results.

So the invisible "tags" have no ill effects on search permissions.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

Buddha's Ghost:

So the invisible "tags" have no ill effects on search permissions.

Thank you for checking that. It is good to completely understand what we are dealing with.

Of course, staff is welcome to weigh in here and give us their thoughts.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Michael Fleshman says:

Saffron Blaze:

Thanks Saffron. When i click on the referrer line nothing happens. I can see the number and percentage of flickr referrers but nothing about how they came to it.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

excellent start says:

Michael Fleshman:

What do you get when you click this link?

www.flickr.com/photos/fleshmanpix/stats/2014-09-05/refs/f...

This the few lines from mine. The last line is a search term for D810.

Referring domain: flickr.com

Linked from Views


1 /photos/saffron_blaze/ 3,486
2 A contact's home page 2,777
3 Searched for: d810 1,128

That last line is also clickable and shows the actual search result.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )
excellent start edited this topic 75 months ago.

view photos

Giant_Schnauzer says:

Saffron Blaze:

Your link yields a "private" message only, I presume to all but you.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Giant_Schnauzer says:

More interested parties adding their comments and voting the maximum 3 votes via link below may well get Flickr's attention to the hidden tag issue.

www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157647237916735/#reply7...
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

excellent start says:

Giant_Schnauzer:

Your link yields a "private" message only, I presume to all but you.


Private to all but the person to whom it was addressed.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Giant_Schnauzer says:

Saffron Blaze:

Ah, very interesting. Thanks. Sorry to have seemed to intrude!
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

David Hoffman '41 says:

voted
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Colonel Blink says:

voted
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SyamAstro (750,000 views - thank you!) says:

Buddha's Ghost:

Your experiment with a black image suggested a workaround for this problem. I did the opposite from what you did: first I posted a solid color image (no tags or title), and then right away replaced it with the photo of my daughter - the one which started this thread. 10 hours later, I still don't see any search based views. So it looks like it tried to generate the hidden tags only at the original upload, failed (no patterns = no hidden tags), and when I replaced it with an actual photo, it stayed clean of any hidden tags.

A bit cumbersome, but at least it seems to work.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Buddha's Ghost says:

syamastro:

Clever idea.

The test image I have up still shows in searches recognizing the "original" uploaded image even after three days.

I don't think the search engine will ever reevaluate it for a correct image recognition profile. The monstrous task to periodically recheck billions of Flickr uploads that have already been uploaded seems completely implausible. I could see the search engine reevaluating only if an image is changed, but that certainly isn't happening either.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

excellent start says:

Buddha's Ghost:

Clever idea.


Indeed. Not certain Flickr will think so :-)
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ckalimba says:

I voted.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson says:

Giant_Schnauzer:

up to 160th place.

I voted and it's up to 38th place now with all the other votes in the last few days.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SyamAstro (750,000 views - thank you!) says:

My trick seems to work - 24 hours later, 33 views, none came from the flickr search engine. Without the trick, my photo got 76 views in the first day, most of them had search terms (bikini, swimsuit, bathtub), all of them wrong/inappropriate.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

syamastro:

You should not have to go to this length to keep these unwanted "tags" off of your photographs. Hopefully Yahoo and flickr will recognize the user voice concern and respond by adding "gathering feedback" to the UV thread. That may be the way we initially understand they are going to look into this request. It would be nice if they would respond to you here as well.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

amazingstoker says:

Brenda Anderson:

I voted

and another three points here

.
Posted 75 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson says:

This has just been updated on UV:

Gathering Feedback → Planned

Thanks for your feedback on this important issue. We agree that Flickr members should have more control over autotags, and we’ll add this soon. Also, until we can handle cases like this better, autotags like “bikini” and “swimsuit” are not appropriate, so they have been removed.

Posted 74 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FlyButtafly says:

Brenda Anderson:

Thank you for that update Brenda. It's good news.
Posted 74 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Buddha's Ghost says:

Brenda Anderson:

. Also, until we can handle cases like this better, autotags like “bikini” and “swimsuit” are not appropriate, so they have been removed.



I checked on my test image, which is still up on my secondary account. When I posted it originally, it was autotagged with "bikini". I can confirm Flickr has at least pulled that specific tag from the autotagger, because the black rectangle I have posted that had been continuously coming up in "bikini" searches no longer shows in those searches.
Posted 74 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

amazingstoker says:

Brenda Anderson:
thanks for the update, and some good news.

.
Posted 74 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Giant_Schnauzer says:

Brenda Anderson:

Thanks for that. I had received an email directly from YAHOO also. This episode seems to show that going through their formal complaint and voting scheme can get attention and results. And now I know the proper terminology is not my "hidden tags" but "autotagging."

In my case, dogs are still autotagged as horses but that can be cleared up when we are given control.
Posted 74 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

MabelAmber️®***Pluto5339*** incognito says:

Link to the User voice thread in question:

yahoo.uservoice.com/forums/211185-us-flickr/suggestions/6...

.
Posted 74 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

mcnod says:

photo_snaiper:

And if anyone wants to vote against hidden tags the entry on UserVoice is here:

yahoo.uservoice.com/forums/211185-us-flickr/suggestions/6...

Thank you!!

Posted 74 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

SyamAstro (750,000 views - thank you!) says:

Yes, I am glad there was some progress in this direction. Let's hope this will not take forever to implement.
Posted 74 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

excellent start says:

Auto tags should only be added to images without any existing tags. Tag dilution affects certain aspects of search ranking. As a consequence if given the capability I will delete all auto tags, but I'd rather just be able to opt out.
Posted 74 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Giant_Schnauzer says:

[Deleted; error in original.]
Posted 74 months ago. ( permalink )
Giant_Schnauzer edited this topic 74 months ago.

view photos

Dorsetdunk says:

how low and downright offensive flickr
adding inappropriate tags to pictures of minors which users cannot see .i am sure yahoo would love to see that plastered across every news site on the net.
get rid of hidden auto tags pronto before more damage is done
Posted 74 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

excellent start says:

Dorsetdunk:

get rid of hidden auto tags pronto before more damage is done



www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157647237916735/7215764...
Posted 74 months ago. ( permalink )

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

← prev 1 2
(1 to 100 of 166 replies in Flickr auto-generates inappropriate (and invisible) tags for new photos)
Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads