|
j_ung
Apr 30, 2010, 12:48 AM
Post #1 of 10
(3537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I'm not seeing a whole lot of variety in the front-page featured photos these days. I can pretty much guarantee that, when I click onto the FP, it will one of maybe ten shots. I've tweaked my settings to allow as much as possible -- will that help? Is there an easy fix?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 4, 2010, 4:37 PM
Post #2 of 10
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
As an experiment, I just visited the the FP twenty times over the course of maybe five minutes and recorded the results. I saw a total of seven different photos. I'd love to up that to something more in the neighborhood of 15, if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 4, 2010, 8:02 PM
Post #3 of 10
(3486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Up to fifty times now. I'm ready to say that there are only 7 photos in the FP rotation. We definitely need more.
|
|
|
|
|
ddt
May 10, 2010, 8:43 AM
Post #4 of 10
(3452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 2304
|
Jay, I agree. I've tweaked the settings to base the calculation on photos from the last 90 days, with at least 4 votes and an average rating of at least 3.5. Note that this is something that we set globally and it cannot be changed by individual users. The new settings yield 15 featured photos. It is recalculated daily.
BTW, there is no need to load the front page over and over to see the featured photos. The advanced search function in photos has an option to search for photos that are front-page-featured. Here's a handy shortcut.
DDT
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 10, 2010, 5:30 PM
Post #5 of 10
(3443 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I just noticed. Thanks, Daniel!
J
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 13, 2010, 1:17 PM
Post #6 of 10
(3402 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
I just did a smaller version of j_ung's test. Findings:
4 photos of trad climbs, one repeated 3 times.
1 photo that might not be trad - silohuetted climber.
1 photo of a slackliner.
1 photo of 3 people hanging off a boulder.
Conclusions:
The variety is bad in two ways:
First, pics shouldn't be repeating as often.
Second, the FP seems to favor trad pics for whatever reason.
Perhaps more importantly, the quality is simply subpar. Some of the pics aren't even climbing related (although I didn't see it this time, I've seen the profile pic of the girl looking up at trees 100 times in the last two weeks).
It needs more than a little tweak.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 13, 2010, 1:21 PM
Post #7 of 10
(3398 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
Just did it again:
5 trad pics, this time one was new (for this test, again, all the pics are ones that have been in rotation far too long) and the same QC crack pic popped up 3 times again and another one was repeated.
The same slackline pic.
So, out of 10 pics, 9 were duplicates from the last test, 1 was duplicated multiple times (again!), and the only non-trad pic was a slack line pic.
Pretty lame.
Also, more lameness - why doesn't this thread post to the front page? I'm sure more people would respond to this if they saw it being discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 14, 2010, 11:20 PM
Post #8 of 10
(3388 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
Bump!
Shouldn't this really be a thread that appears on the front page or in a more trafficked forum? I'm sure there are more than two people that are a little frustrated/disappointed with this.
|
|
|
|
|
ddt
May 17, 2010, 9:16 PM
Post #9 of 10
(3335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 2304
|
The real question is not how we tweak the algorithm, but how we get more quality photos submitted and voted to the front page. I can tweak the code all I want, but unless we get some good photos there's nothing I can do, expect recycle old photos (of which we have a ton). Maybe that's not such a bad idea...
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 18, 2010, 7:22 PM
Post #10 of 10
(3318 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
I'd strongly prefer recycling old photos to the current lack of variety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
