Comments on: Is Yahoo! Filling Flickr With Stock Photography? http://www.psfk.com/2006/08/is_yahoo_fillin.html Ideas & Trends Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:08:58 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: jon howard http://www.psfk.com/2006/08/is_yahoo_fillin.html/comment-page-1#comment-1611 jon howard Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1611 <p>This is going to make me look very sad…although it didn’t take that long to work out (I like an investigative challenge!). It’s the same search results in both instances. But if you look just above the first image you have the choice to view in 3 ways – most relevant, most recent or most interesting. On your later search, the images are ranked by ‘most relevant’, which I take to mean the normal shots by normal people we all expect. The earlier search was ranked by ‘most interesting’, which seems to mean more stock-shot-y. Flickr’s rationale for ‘interestingness’ is here: http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/</p> This is going to make me look very sad…although it didn’t take that long to work out (I like an investigative challenge!). It’s the same search results in both instances. But if you look just above the first image you have the choice to view in 3 ways – most relevant, most recent or most interesting. On your later search, the images are ranked by ‘most relevant’, which I take to mean the normal shots by normal people we all expect. The earlier search was ranked by ‘most interesting’, which seems to mean more stock-shot-y. Flickr’s rationale for ‘interestingness’ is here: http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/

]]> By: Lee http://www.psfk.com/2006/08/is_yahoo_fillin.html/comment-page-1#comment-1612 Lee Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1612 <p>As Jon points out, these aren't stock shots Piers. They are the pictures that rank highest on Flickr's quirky interestingness algorithm. Flickr's "Greatest Hits" if you will. Flickr's membership actually contains quite a few professional and semi-professional photographers who post their portfolios for people to see (not buy). They are proud of their work and they want people to see it.</p> As Jon points out, these aren’t stock shots Piers. They are the pictures that rank highest on Flickr’s quirky interestingness algorithm. Flickr’s “Greatest Hits” if you will. Flickr’s membership actually contains quite a few professional and semi-professional photographers who post their portfolios for people to see (not buy). They are proud of their work and they want people to see it.

]]> By: Piers Fawkes http://www.psfk.com/2006/08/is_yahoo_fillin.html/comment-page-1#comment-1613 Piers Fawkes Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1613 <p>thanks for your comments guys. ok... I know a lot of (great) photographers put their work up - but when we did the search it smacked of 'cheese-factor' - even if your case is true - someone at Flickr is ranking these shots deliberately and that person has awful taste...</p> thanks for your comments guys. ok… I know a lot of (great) photographers put their work up – but when we did the search it smacked of ‘cheese-factor’ – even if your case is true – someone at Flickr is ranking these shots deliberately and that person has awful taste…

]]> By: megan http://www.psfk.com/2006/08/is_yahoo_fillin.html/comment-page-1#comment-1614 megan Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1614 <p>Also, if you look at the URL there's the addition of "s=int&" at the beginning of the search string. Which, as everyone said above, includes interestingness.</p> Also, if you look at the URL there’s the addition of “s=int&” at the beginning of the search string. Which, as everyone said above, includes interestingness.

]]> By: David Tomic http://www.psfk.com/2006/08/is_yahoo_fillin.html/comment-page-1#comment-1615 David Tomic Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1615 <p>Piers Fawkes ...</p> <p>Frankly, what you're saying is complete rubbish.</p> <p>What you've done is effectively run two completely different searches [as others have already pointed out].</p> <p>Your first search [with all that 'cheese-factor'] was sorting the results by "interestingness", while the second was just your stock standard search - trying to return results based on the relavence to your search query.</p> <p>Beyond that, Flickr's "interestingness" is a completly automated process, effectively 'ranking'photographs based on a number of different algorithims.</p> <p>5 minutes research on what Flickr's "interestingness" was, and how it actually ranks photographs would have shown you these links:</p> <p>http://blog.flickr.com/flickrblog/2005/08/the_new_new_thi.html<br /> http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/</p> <p>NOTE:</p> <p>"interestingness is a ranking algorithm based on user behavior around the photos taking into account some obvious things like how many users add the photo to their favorites and some subtle things like the relationship between the person who uploaded the photo and the people who are commenting (plus a whole bunch of secret sauce)."</p> <p>AND</p> <p>"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."<br /> </p> Piers Fawkes …

Frankly, what you’re saying is complete rubbish.

What you’ve done is effectively run two completely different searches [as others have already pointed out].

Your first search [with all that 'cheese-factor'] was sorting the results by “interestingness”, while the second was just your stock standard search – trying to return results based on the relavence to your search query.

Beyond that, Flickr’s “interestingness” is a completly automated process, effectively ‘ranking’photographs based on a number of different algorithims.

5 minutes research on what Flickr’s “interestingness” was, and how it actually ranks photographs would have shown you these links:

http://blog.flickr.com/flickrblog/2005/08/the_new_new_thi.html
http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/

NOTE:

“interestingness is a ranking algorithm based on user behavior around the photos taking into account some obvious things like how many users add the photo to their favorites and some subtle things like the relationship between the person who uploaded the photo and the people who are commenting (plus a whole bunch of secret sauce).”

AND

“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.”

]]> By: David Tomic http://www.psfk.com/2006/08/is_yahoo_fillin.html/comment-page-1#comment-1616 David Tomic Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-1616 <p>Furthermore, in your article you're using a copyrighted image [bad enough] without providing any attributation/link to its original author [even worse].</p> <p>Did you gain permission from them before you used their work, or have you just "stolen" it instead?</p> Furthermore, in your article you’re using a copyrighted image [bad enough] without providing any attributation/link to its original author [even worse].

Did you gain permission from them before you used their work, or have you just “stolen” it instead?

]]>