|
roughster
Feb 16, 2004, 5:30 PM
Post #1 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
After the last change, we seemed to get a wider range of FP Photos for awhile, but now it seems like we are back to the same few photos over and over. I can get the same photo as often as 1 in 10 refreshes, sometims even more regular.
Anyone feel like jumping in and increasing the seletion base criteria? I would prefer to see more different photos (even if that inlcudes slightly less quality photos) than to see the same few pics over and over.
|
|
|
|
|
thinksinpictures
Feb 16, 2004, 5:33 PM
Post #2 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2003
Posts: 447
|
I was under the impression that it was random amont the top however many photos, but I too find that lately I've been seeing the same few over and over. If I go into the "top photos" section, I find many photos that I've never seen on the FP among the few that are up there repeatedly.
What are the selection criteria?
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Feb 16, 2004, 5:38 PM
Post #3 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: I was under the impression that it was random amont the top however many photos, but I too find that lately I've been seeing the same few over and over. If I go into the "top photos" section, I find many photos that I've never seen on the FP among the few that are up there repeatedly. What are the selection criteria?
Yup I see a lot of top photos, even ones that have been approved and in the top "tier" for several days that never make it to the FP. And I refresh alot :)
Hopefully Biff, Tim, or Eric can jump in and give it a quick tweak :)
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Feb 17, 2004, 8:00 AM
Post #4 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
We've been through this before but nobody ever commented on the criteria.
Indeed the number of photos that meets the criteria we currently have has dropped. It used to be around 100 but now it's only 65.
The criteria is:
- maximum of 30 days since photo was first posted
- minimum rating of 8
- minimum of 5 votes
To give you an idea of how changing the values increases the pool:
- max days to 45 -> 110 photos
- 30 days, min rating of 7.5 -> 178 photos
- 30 days, min rating of 8, but min votes 3 -> 87
I would suggest 30 days, min rating of 7.5, and min votes 4, which yields 228 photos. I aimed for a pool of ~100-120 when I set up the criteria (as I recall) but I think 200 might be a bit better.
How do people feel about this criteria? If you want to try something else I can run the query to let you know the pool size.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Feb 17, 2004, 8:05 AM
Post #5 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Eric,
I think we have been playing the too conservative number game for too long when it comes to FP Photos. I like your lower criteria which will yield more photos. I think the 240 ish number would be fine.
I personally rather would see a "new" photo of slightly lesser quality, than the same high quality ones over and over. Plus it may also help expose some of the hidden gems in the gallery that otherwise would never see the FP.
Its good to see it wasn't just my imagination that was telling me I was seeing the same one more so than usual.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Feb 17, 2004, 12:05 PM
Post #6 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
30 days seems a maximum maximum for me, 3 weeks would be OK ;
7.5 is good because I rate many good photos between 7 and 8, not often 9 and 10, so I would like to still see them even if I rated them 7 in the first days ;
a minimum of 3 or 4 is a maximum, as many ppl don't vote, so the pics won't disappear too fast.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Mar 1, 2004, 8:50 AM
Post #7 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Just wondering if anyone had a chance at looking at this yet?
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Mar 1, 2004, 4:53 PM
Post #8 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
Apparently nobody much cares given the lack of comments. Maybe we should experiment with the change anyway and people can complain later.
|
|
|
|
|
brittamac
Mar 1, 2004, 5:11 PM
Post #9 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2003
Posts: 246
|
In reply to: Apparently nobody much cares given the lack of comments. Maybe we should experiment with the change anyway and people can complain later.
Eric - I think a slight modification to the rating system would be a good idea - there are a lot of people who spend a lot of time on the site that don't submit photos, and therefore can't vote on them. Many folks probably don't even realize that, and wonder why the same ones cycle through so often.
Maybe another solution is to figure out a system that gets more voting to occur, although I'm not sure how you'd do that! (Its kind of like getting us all to vote in the general election... :wink: )
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Mar 1, 2004, 5:20 PM
Post #10 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
In reply to: In reply to: Apparently nobody much cares given the lack of comments. Maybe we should experiment with the change anyway and people can complain later. Eric - I think a slight modification to the rating system would be a good idea - there are a lot of people who spend a lot of time on the site that don't submit photos, and therefore can't vote on them. Many folks probably don't even realize that, and wonder why the same ones cycle through so often.
I actually agree with that, but it's kind of a larger issue. There is that restriction because of earlier incidents of vote-bombing. Personally I feel that a time restriction is sufficient. There are many many people who will never submit a photo for any number of reasons, but who still have valid opinions on other photos. They should be allowed to vote. But I'd guess that many would not agree with that.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Mar 1, 2004, 5:33 PM
Post #11 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
How about an option for voting on NEW photos with very FEW votes?? It would concentrate the voting to the place that would result in more photos being available for the front page. There are a lot of good photos hidden out there that never get the votes to appear.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Mar 1, 2004, 10:27 PM
Post #12 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
I like the idea of increasing the pool of photos. How about the 240 pics suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Mar 1, 2004, 11:26 PM
Post #13 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
240 ish sounds good to me. The more pics that rotate through the better. Again, slightly less quality would not bother me, the same pics over and over gets old.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Mar 2, 2004, 6:28 AM
Post #15 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: 240 ish sounds good to me.
what about a rteverse problem? You relax the constraints to include 200 images, and a couple of months later the relaxed constraints grow to 600 images, and some of the best ones never get a chanche to the front page.
How about a dynamic constraint scheme, relaxing if the image base drops some threshold, or tightening if the base grows too large?
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Mar 2, 2004, 6:53 AM
Post #16 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
sure, we accept patches :-)
let us know when you have something to implement.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Mar 2, 2004, 7:39 AM
Post #17 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Thanks guys, noticed the difference already :)
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Mar 2, 2004, 9:25 AM
Post #18 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
In reply to: what about a rteverse problem? You relax the constraints to include 200 images, and a couple of months later the relaxed constraints grow to 600 images, and some of the best ones never get a chanche to the front page. How about a dynamic constraint scheme, relaxing if the image base drops some threshold, or tightening if the base grows too large?
In the absence of time to code that up, the dynamic system is someone like me changing the settings. That was how it was intended to work. And yes, I thought of setting it up so that we say we always want N photos in the pool with certain minimums, but that is not only more time than I have right now but also requires at least one extra database query. I'd rather have users complain and prompt an adjustment :)
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Mar 2, 2004, 9:26 AM
Post #19 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: In reply to: what about a rteverse problem? You relax the constraints to include 200 images, and a couple of months later the relaxed constraints grow to 600 images, and some of the best ones never get a chanche to the front page. How about a dynamic constraint scheme, relaxing if the image base drops some threshold, or tightening if the base grows too large? In the absence of time to code that up, the dynamic system is someone like me changing the settings. That was how it was intended to work. And yes, I thought of setting it up so that we say we always want N photos in the pool with certain minimums, but that is not only more time than I have right now but also requires at least one extra database query. I'd rather have users complain and prompt an adjustment :)
Hey Eric, big thansks for changing this. I have been enjoying the new photos all night!!
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Mar 2, 2004, 9:33 AM
Post #20 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
A big thanks. It is nice to see greater variety.
I would rather have a wide disparity of photo quality coupled with great variety rather than the same types (and themes) over and over again.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Mar 2, 2004, 2:22 PM
Post #21 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: In the absence of time to code that up, the dynamic system is someone like me changing the settings.
that is still dynamic, :lol:
thanks for your efforts guys
|
|
|
|
|
brittamac
Mar 2, 2004, 2:29 PM
Post #22 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2003
Posts: 246
|
Thanks for making the change happen! I've noticed the cool new pics already - :)
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Mar 2, 2004, 6:41 PM
Post #23 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
I wanted to be the first to thank for the job, but others already did it... GOOD JOB! I saw a nice pic of a Village People climbing a steep route! Only rated 7.67 with 4 votes, but nice enough ti be onthe FP. :)
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Mar 4, 2004, 9:34 PM
Post #24 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
can I say I really love this new FP pictures protocole. Many pics may not deserve a 10, 9, or 8, but the diversity is interesting and eye-taking! Great!!! :D
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Mar 9, 2004, 7:09 PM
Post #25 of 34
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Now that this has been in place for a while, I don't like it. :? I prefer quality over quantity myself. I keep seeing average and even sucky pics on the front page, and it annoys me. :(
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
