Patent on Media Interestingness - A new class of metrics !

Interingness on flickr is a joke. It is not a pure algorithm, and is tinkered with by humans for commercial purposes.
--
Seen in ojisanjake home page (?)

I don't like ranking anyhow ;)

Actually Jerry this is interesting because these are the same issues being grappled with to supply metrics to any objects being distributed to the public. Secrect, algorithm whatever it is at bottom a popularity meter just like the nielson ratings for television shows. Think about it, it mixes reactions to an image from various sources and mixes them up to give you some kind of metric. Like all these metrics it suffers from an uncertaintiy factor. If we the content suppliers were being paid based on these like charging time for a commercial this metric would be constantly monitored. TV watching and viewing habits are subject to countless measurements and reflect advertising costs. I will say this for flickr, they avoid the simple metric of views and do try to be more balanced. Does it work, am I impressed by the images on explore, well some of them do impress me, many seem to fit a pattern of very good technical shots or kids or flowers or puppies, pop culture images.

This is my question of does very good push out great and will the best truly rise to the surface of these web 2.0 pools. Some people do grab top rungs, it seems in some ways the mysterious mechanism of pop culture works at least bring some great stuff to the fore, but as with all the rest, most of it is very good which becomes banal and boring due to the sameness of content, style, quality and other more ephemeral factors.

Boy am I a wordy kind of guy.

Thanks for provoking me today Jerry.

I really dont like "ranking" system when it comes to information. Secrets systems that other people invents to rate my content?? No thank you. They keep it a secret to control and try to make some money.
Its the same with all the search engines.

"Interestingness" on any of the photo sites, is really a joke - and i try to stay clear of them.

I don't think we're better off without ranking systems. At least, I can't imagine searching the net without relying on an objective method to rank the content.

Problem is that the search engines are not "objective", its not like going to a library and finding a book under the 'L'. The search engines decides how they are ranking websites content, but they all do it differently. They all do it in a hidden manor and from time to time, they switch strategy on their indexing.

I guess most of that are just assumptions. Page rank was well known how it works and it was known how it can be exploited. It's true that there is no fair ranking system, but that's because there isn't a definition of what is fair anyway. Is the voice of Blogger John XY from Switzerland as important as that of Richard Stallmann when it comes to the future of the GPL? If we don't know anything about the subject or these persons we can't really decide, right? We can look at what other people think though.

I think these ranking systems are quite objective with regard to popularity.

If I was to research for a place to visit and ends with results ranked according to flickr interestingness, I doubt it'll be of any use in terms of travel information, I guess the "interestingness" has value in cyber business if equated into server-hits and eyeballings, certainly it wasnt invented for sake of photography.

That's elitist thinking.

When it comes to finding information on the internet there has to be some system to rank the value of the source or if the field is flat we would have a hard time to find relevant and useful information. At first the Google system really made a difference which is why they took over the world. Search is hard and complicated but the interestingness meter is something totally different. There is no inherent value for one picture over another unless you make the valuation based on "taste" or critical value. There is a reason that some pictures have ended up in the Museum of Modern Art and others haven't. Some art is for the ages and other pieces are not. There is some commonality in our critical thinking on this subject. But even then there is a huge subjective element involved and art from a period is not always appreciated until the period is over for some time.

Interestingness is not based on critical thinking but a mathematical model derived from various factors that from what I can tell reflects the popularity of an image. The sources of variables include faves, views, comments and moderated by the spread or number of pools this picture is showing. From what I can tell, no matter how you slice or dice it, the number is a popularity rating. I don't fault the flickr people from doing this as trying to set up a human based rating system considering the number of pictures being posted would be humanly impossible. But I would also contend that the interestingness feature is like faves, views, comments, and those goofy ratings, awards, debates of keep or dispose of a picture that goes on, it is all about the "Social" aspect of this whole business.

So this is not about finding higher quality information or some true rating of the artistic value of a piece of art, it is about keeping people involved and nothing more.

"There is a reason that some pictures have ended up in the Museum of Modern Art and others haven't. Some art is for the ages and other pieces are not."

Even though the "reason" sometimes calls for the same criticism these ranking systems do. In the end museum directors decide what to exhibit and they're as objective as humans are. Museums are exactly the same ranking systems that interestingness is. Their selection is highly biased as well.

"So this is not about finding higher quality information or some true rating of the artistic value of a piece of art, it is about keeping people involved and nothing more."

Absolutely!
(I'd even argue if there ever can be a "true rating of the artistic value of a piece of art")

I also think you need to look at quality from a lot of different perspectives. I'm sure that if I ask 100 people to show me a high quality photo, several will pick a technically perfect shot, others will pick a photo with a high grade of symbolism, some will pick a WOW-like picture and several will probably go and ask someone else to tell them what a high quality picture is.

Good post Larryosan

Interestingness = domino effect

thats about it, ain't it? Even its museums, google, flickr or hot page....

I am not as smart as you all. When I am looking for something, I just type it into Google and hope that whart comes up is useful. I really don't know or caree how it works.
Regarding interestingness or Explore: I think that their system of ranking interstingness is just so much horseshit. What has passed as art in one period is ridiculed later-Large eyed Keene paintings, etc were popular and all over the place at one time. Were they great art because they were embraced and popularized by everyone. Van Gough could not give his artwork away when he was alive. Would have his work made the Explore page on Flickr?
I have one and only one criteria for judging photography: Does the picture reach out and grab me by the balls and squeeze? I have seen many beautiful sunsets, etc on Flickr that don't meet this criteria and I have seen some technically flawed but emotionally powerful shots that do.
thats my 2 cents for what its worth.

Identifying art or knowing what grabs you by the balls is not something computers can do. It has been said that what is on Explore/Hot is what is popular and not what is "art". If you want to see more of the stuff you like, you've got to make it popular. And you can do that! Promote the good works on your blog so that more people can find it.

let me make it 4¢ tom. flickr might have a secret and/or complicated algorithm for interestingness, but , imo, it comes down to these two factors: (1) is there something colorful/flashy/intriguing about the thumbnail? (2) are there breasts or other female body parts identifiable in the thumbnail?

Computer search engines are designed to profile the user in order to push-serve the relevant advertising messages, and its a fact that websites pay money to have their URL promoted on search engines. I can't remember the original quote ...

... "everything makes sense, when expressed in dollars and cents!" (must be American?)

*this blog ranked at 30 cents worth of commenting? ( 2 cents x 15 comments )

Well let me up the ante, first let us pray that computers never get the ability to reach out grab us by the balls and squeeze. Second on popularity, there is now a website that pays people to use the web 2.0 sites to garner traffic and exposure by having people hit those sites and raise their profile on these links and popularity sites like digg. You have a blog, you pay these guys, they have lots of people "digg" the site or perhaps go to your image on flickr and fave your pic and leave comments real fast and view it a lot. The people behind this business have figured out how to game the system and the underlying weakness of "groupthink" or the "mass mind" or the "collective wisdom" model and expoit it like every other advertiser who has successfuly used word of mouth to push some junk.

Larryosan wrote:

"So this is not about finding higher quality information or some true rating of the artistic value of a piece of art, it is about keeping people involved and nothing more"

"The people behind this business have figured out how to game the system and exploit it..."

You are so right. The key thing is to be aware of this and let the people awareness grow. This is nothing less than mass manipulation through the media or "propaganda". Let´s know how dangerous this wave can be, and let´s go and ride it.

Jerry Lee wrote:
"may be (some day) infringing on a flickr patent"
Why is France a good host place for Ipernity? Because there is no such kind of patent in France, at least until the EC breaks under the pressure of the USA.

Thanks to Ron, Larry, amiko, Don and Annjin, Tomusan and Bo, and Ojisan

for generating "interestingness™" for this thread ...