Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Flickr: difference between "most relevant" and "most interesting"

Reply
Thread Tools

Flickr: difference between "most relevant" and "most interesting"

 
 
Max
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2007
Hi!
I'm starting using Flickr. I notice that in the search engine, photos
can be ordered with 2 criterions: "most relevant" and "most
interesting".
Which is the difference? In which way they are calculated?
Thank you! Bye, Max!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
(PeteCresswell)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2007
Per Max:
>Hi!
>I'm starting using Flickr. I notice that in the search engine, photos
>can be ordered with 2 criterions: "most relevant" and "most
>interesting".
>Which is the difference? In which way they are calculated?
>Thank you! Bye, Max!


Amen. I posed that question some months ago, but never heard an
answer.
--
PeteCresswell
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Barry L. Wallis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2007
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Max:
>> Hi!
>> I'm starting using Flickr. I notice that in the search engine, photos
>> can be ordered with 2 criterions: "most relevant" and "most
>> interesting".
>> Which is the difference? In which way they are calculated?
>> Thank you! Bye, Max!

>
> Amen. I posed that question some months ago, but never heard an
> answer.


I believe that "most relevant" orders it solely by the relevance of your
search criteria (similar to Google's order by relevance). "Most
interesting" uses a variation of the Flickr Interestingness algorithm
that is used to determine which photos make it into the Explore page.
The Interestingness algorithm is quite complex and includes the number
of groups the photo is in (over a certain threshold makes your photo
less interesting), the number of comments and favorites. It also takes
into account who has commented and favorited your photos (not sure how
it ranks accounts for determining their ability to influence
interestingness).

--
- Barry
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Bartram
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2007

> "Barry L. Wallis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote


> I believe that "most relevant" orders it solely by the relevance of your
> search criteria (similar to Google's order by relevance). "Most
> interesting" uses a variation of the Flickr Interestingness algorithm that
> is used to determine which photos make it into the Explore page. The
> Interestingness algorithm is quite complex and includes the number of
> groups the photo is in (over a certain threshold makes your photo less
> interesting), the number of comments and favorites. It also takes into
> account who has commented and favorited your photos (not sure how it ranks
> accounts for determining their ability to influence interestingness).


Is it that complicated, or is it simply the number of comments received?

All the 'Most Interesting' photos in any category have heaps of comments
(sometimes hundreds over a long period) which suggests (a) the photo is
exceptionally good and (b) it has attracted lots of views, therefore gaining
many invitations to join groups.

Nobody ever seems to comment on mine <sigh>...

Paul


 
Reply With Quote
 
Barry L. Wallis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2007
Paul Bartram wrote:
>> "Barry L. Wallis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

>
>> I believe that "most relevant" orders it solely by the relevance of your
>> search criteria (similar to Google's order by relevance). "Most
>> interesting" uses a variation of the Flickr Interestingness algorithm that
>> is used to determine which photos make it into the Explore page. The
>> Interestingness algorithm is quite complex and includes the number of
>> groups the photo is in (over a certain threshold makes your photo less
>> interesting), the number of comments and favorites. It also takes into
>> account who has commented and favorited your photos (not sure how it ranks
>> accounts for determining their ability to influence interestingness).

>
> Is it that complicated, or is it simply the number of comments received?
>
> All the 'Most Interesting' photos in any category have heaps of comments
> (sometimes hundreds over a long period) which suggests (a) the photo is
> exceptionally good and (b) it has attracted lots of views, therefore gaining
> many invitations to join groups.
>
> Nobody ever seems to comment on mine <sigh>...
>
> Paul
>
>


It is definitely more complicated than a simple count of comments
(although they do play a significant role). Flickr staff have confirmed
that the other items affect interestingess (e.g., having a photo in more
than 10 groups) affects you're photos rating. If you are really
interested, you can find the patent for interestingess here:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/uljes>


--
- Barry
 
Reply With Quote
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Hi!
> I'm starting using Flickr. I notice that in the search engine, photos
> can be ordered with 2 criterions: "most relevant" and "most
> interesting".
> Which is the difference? In which way they are calculated?


The "interestingness" algorithm on flickr is secret, and subject to
frequent tinkering, because they don't want people to game the system to
get their photos rated more interesting.

Among the factors that appear to be considered:

* number of views
* number of comments
* number of people who rate the photo a favorite
* whether the views, comments, favorites come from people in the
photographer's contacts list, or from strangers who happened to find the
photo noteworthy
* how many flickr groups the photo has been posted to, and what type of
groups they are

Looking at the "interestingness" of my own photos, one photo with 220
views, 1 favorite, 1 comment, is less "interesting" than one with only
136 views , 2 favorites, 1 comment. So a favorite is clearly worth
quite a few views.

If you want more information and gobs of speculation, search flickr
groups for "Magic Donkey." (Seriously, that's what people call the
interestingness algorithm, the Magic Donkey.)

--
(E-Mail Removed) is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>
 
Reply With Quote
 
theclyde
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2007
On Sep 23, 10:57 pm, <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> > Hi!
> > I'm starting using Flickr. I notice that in the search engine, photos
> > can be ordered with 2 criterions: "most relevant" and "most
> > interesting".
> > Which is the difference? In which way they are calculated?

>
> The "interestingness" algorithm on flickr is secret, and subject to
> frequent tinkering, because they don't want people to game the system to
> get their photos rated more interesting.
>
> Among the factors that appear to be considered:
>
> * number of views
> * number of comments
> * number of people who rate the photo a favorite
> * whether the views, comments, favorites come from people in the
> photographer's contacts list, or from strangers who happened to find the
> photo noteworthy
> * how many flickr groups the photo has been posted to, and what type of
> groups they are
>
> Looking at the "interestingness" of my own photos, one photo with 220
> views, 1 favorite, 1 comment, is less "interesting" than one with only
> 136 views , 2 favorites, 1 comment. So a favorite is clearly worth
> quite a few views.
>
> If you want more information and gobs of speculation, search flickr
> groups for "Magic Donkey." (Seriously, that's what people call the
> interestingness algorithm, the Magic Donkey.)
>
> --
> (E-Mail Removed) is Joshua Putnam
> <http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
> Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
> <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>


I will second that. My Flickr library is still fairly small. When
somebody marks a pic as a favorite it gets bumped right up to the top
of my most interesting pics.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2007


theclyde wrote:
> On Sep 23, 10:57 pm, <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>>> Hi!
>>> I'm starting using Flickr. I notice that in the search engine,
>>> photos can be ordered with 2 criterions: "most relevant" and "most
>>> interesting".
>>> Which is the difference? In which way they are calculated?

>>
>> The "interestingness" algorithm on flickr is secret, and subject to
>> frequent tinkering, because they don't want people to game the
>> system to get their photos rated more interesting.
>>
>> Among the factors that appear to be considered:
>>
>> * number of views
>> * number of comments
>> * number of people who rate the photo a favorite
>> * whether the views, comments, favorites come from people in the
>> photographer's contacts list, or from strangers who happened to
>> find the photo noteworthy
>> * how many flickr groups the photo has been posted to, and what
>> type of groups they are
>>
>> Looking at the "interestingness" of my own photos, one photo with
>> 220 views, 1 favorite, 1 comment, is less "interesting" than one
>> with only 136 views , 2 favorites, 1 comment. So a favorite is
>> clearly worth quite a few views.
>>
>> If you want more information and gobs of speculation, search flickr
>> groups for "Magic Donkey." (Seriously, that's what people call the
>> interestingness algorithm, the Magic Donkey.)
>>
>> --
>> (E-Mail Removed) is Joshua Putnam
>> <http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
>> Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
>> <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>

>
> I will second that. My Flickr library is still fairly small. When
> somebody marks a pic as a favorite it gets bumped right up to the
> top of my most interesting pics.


When someone comments or "favorites" one of mine it moves up on the
"Popular" list. Strange, but my brand of Flickr doesn't seem to have
an "Interesting" list - that I can find, anyway.

My most "Popular" image has 337 views, NO "Favorite" chooses, and five
Comments; just six slots down (out of 200 on the list) is an image
with just 25 views, two "Favorite" chooses, and one comment.

Some one must be looking at these things.

--
Frank ess

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FAQ 7.17 What's the difference between dynamic and lexical (static) scoping? Between local() and my()? PerlFAQ Server Perl Misc 0 04-15-2011 04:00 AM
FAQ 7.17 What's the difference between dynamic and lexical (static) scoping? Between local() and my()? PerlFAQ Server Perl Misc 0 01-06-2011 05:00 PM
difference between between these "char"s arnuld C++ 33 03-05-2007 03:11 PM
Difference between bin and obj directories and difference between project references and dll references jakk ASP .Net 4 03-22-2005 09:23 PM
Exact difference between 'const char *' and 'char *', also diff between 'const' and 'static' Santa C Programming 1 07-17-2003 02:10 PM



Advertisments