An indication that I'm getting better?

[IABoomer]

Looking at my Flickr images, when ranking them by "interestingness" (whatever it is that Flickr uses to describe that), I'm finding that my newer pictures are showing up higher than my older pictures.

I'd still love to understand how that selection algorithm works, because it seems painfully arbitrary sometimes where some shots I've thought were interesting were lower ranked than ones I've considered more ordinary.

Does anyone else look over their photostream sorted by interestingness and find themselves disagreeing with Flickr?

[NicoleScraps]

Originally Posted by IABoomer

Looking at my Flickr images, when ranking them by "interestingness" (whatever it is that Flickr uses to describe that), I'm finding that my newer pictures are showing up higher than my older pictures.

I'd still love to understand how that selection algorithm works, because it seems painfully arbitrary sometimes where some shots I've thought were interesting were lower ranked than ones I've considered more ordinary.

Does anyone else look over their photostream sorted by interestingness and find themselves disagreeing with Flickr?

I didn't even know that you could sort them like that. I have to go check that out.

Okay, I checked it out and WOW! That appears to be completely random. I thought at first it might have sorted them based on views and comments, but no. It does not appear so. I have no clue how they determine which images are more interesting than others.

[RLucas]

Their algorythm changes from time to time to keep people from abusing the system to make it to Explore. They call it the "Magic Donkey". It nods it's head "yay" or "nay". lol!

I did make an auto generated set, and for the most part, I disagree with flickr.

[Nicole]

The interestingness of a photo from what I understand is determined by a combination of things: views, comments, favs, number of groups the photo is in, number of comments / views / etc that come from outside of the group vs inside, and from what I've heard, also the number of views over time (so a photo that consistently gets 5 views a day is considered more interesting than one that gets 1 a week).

But that's all "stuff I've heard on the internet" so take it or leave it. Of course, you can always read the Interestingness Patent application.

[BCampbell]

Yes, if your newer photos are more "interesting" per flickr, you must be getting better. Flickr is the absolute arbiter of what is a good photo, just look at Explore; only the best photos, and all of the best photos on flickr make it to Explore. It's a perfect system, and you should absolutely judge your work by it.

[IABoomer]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

Yes, if your newer photos are more "interesting" per flickr, you must be getting better. Flickr is the absolute arbiter of what is a good photo, just look at Explore; only the best photos, and all of the best photos on flickr make it to Explore. It's a perfect system, and you should absolutely judge your work by it.

[sniff, sniff]

I think I smell sarcasm.

I figured it went without saying, but I'm in no way saying that the ranking algorithm on Flickr is the sole arbiter of my abilities. I just thought it was interesting that there's something to the newer pictures I've taken that seems to tickle the Flickr Donkey that my older pictures didn't tickle.

I will say that I've been happier with many of my more recent uploads and felt more like I got what I was expecting as opposed to being somewhat pleasantly surprised when I found a good image before.

[BCampbell]

[QUOTE=IABoomer;1090310I will say that I've been happier with many of my more recent uploads[/QUOTE]

This is a much better metric than flickr popularity.

[bigrobo89]

Hi I can't seem to see how you sort your photos by interestingness. How did you do it?

Thanks,

Paul

[RichardTaylor]

@ bigrobo89

Your Photostream/Popular/Interesting

[IABoomer]

Rather than start a new thread, I figured I'd just bump my older one.

The interesting rating got slaughtered once my photostream gained a short-lived hint of notoriety by being Flickr Blogged. The social aspects of the site have pretty much overridden any aesthetic judgments the AI was making.

However, I still feel like I'm improving when given the chance to compare my shots to others taken at the same event. Recently, a friend got married and my wife and I were invited guests. I took my D5000 + 35mm f/1.8 kit and shot some images of the ceremony (sans popup flash, obviously) and the reception.

This week, the bride got her images from the professional photographer and uploaded them to Facebook. I don't know what was presented pre-wedding, but I have to say I wouldn't hire this person having seen this wedding. The colors all seemed kind of flat and a little cold. A few shots are not straight and with horizontal masonry work it's painfully obvious. The reception shots have little ambient and a lot of on-axis flash.