Jump to content

Photo Ratings


Jeremy

Recommended Posts

We now have over 700,000 photos on Geocaching.com - The problem is how to find the really interesting and unique photos in there?

 

My proposal:

 

1. Have a 1-10 general rating system

 

Don't worry, if there is a low rating on them we won't insult users by showing their rating. Ratings will only show up for images after say, 3-5 people have rated them, and it will be a statistical average.

 

2. Have an adjective rating system.

 

have a dropdown or radio button list to select what you feel when you see the image. For example.

 

Scenic

Funny

Cute

Weird

Cool

Amazing

 

Both rating systems will be combined, so if you rate an image as Weird and rate the photo as 5, it will be Weird (5)

 

Thoughts? Like the log photo for Rasberry Delight would either be Cute (10) or Funny (10).

Or the log for Canyon Lake Tortilla Flats would be Cool (10) or Scenic (10)

 

One vote per account per image.

Link to comment

Cool(7) <_<

 

Only one adjetive per vote?

 

I would assume you can't rate your own?

 

I can envision cliques of users all "loving" each other's photos, thus rendering the "top photos" useless.

 

You may want to try a smaller voting range. 1-10 makes it difficult to discern the difference between a 6 and a 7, for example. We have a 1-5 rating on caches, now; that should seem applicable here too.

Link to comment

I think the idea of rating photos would be fun and would like to see those super cool photos, but I don't think that would add to the value of geocaching as a game or to the web site, so I would think this would be a low priority thing to do. If we have to rate something I think that rating caches (although I am not necessarily in favour of that) would add more value. Or more importantly add the new Locationless section that we have been hearing about since last year or add stats...both of which there seems to be enough demand for to make it a priority.

Link to comment

I like this idea... and may I suggest tongue-in-cheek that it could be set up much like hotornot.com.

 

Photocomments might be cool, too.

 

[edit]

 

I've had a minute more to think about it, and the similarity to hotornot.com. Mostly I don't put much stock into the rankings on that site, or many other ranked things on the internet.

 

Pics usually get ranked a 1 or a 10. Not much in between. Might I suggest a smaller scale. Mabye just 3 or 4 levels. Seriously, what's the difference between ranking a photo a 6 or 7? A four level ranking system might have:

 

1. Not worth looking at

2. Worth taking a quick look

3. Great picture

4. Outstanding photograph

 

Or something better worded. Or maybe even just two levels of ranking,

 

Jamie

Edited by Jamie Z
Link to comment

1-5 sounds better, I agree.

 

I also agree that there are other projects, like rating caches, that may be more important. However this same idea could be applied to anything on the web site, including logs, caches, and benchmarks.

 

I also need the occasional side project that is more fun and less work. The "my cache page" is fun and all, but it isn't that fun to work on.

Link to comment

Sounds good to me <_< think 1-5 is enough as a marking score. What about the times photo is viewed? or marked with a score? so a photo would be higher if more than one person marked it as a 5.

 

I enjoy taking "snaps" when I am out caching. I better start taking

"PHOTOS" :D:o:blink:

Edited by Deego
Link to comment

I really like that idea....you should tell Jeremy about it.....oh, wait..... <_<

 

So, does this mean that maybe we'll have pictures in our galleries that aren't linked with a cache? I'd like that feature, but with over 700,000 cache-related pics already, I can see where that could be a problem.....oh,well.....keep having fun, Jeremy.....it can't be a bad thing! :blink:

Link to comment

How about being able to assign keywords to a photo as well? If you've ever looked at iPhoto before, you can create a list of keywords, then assign one or more of them to each of your photos. That way, if you're looking for pictures containing both Dick and Jane at a birthday party, you select all three of those keywords, then your 20,000 photo collection gets pared down to a dozen shots.

 

Geo-keywords would be preset. Things like landscape, pets, caches, people, kids, etc. would be the sorts of keywords I'd expect to see.

 

You could combine this with a ratings system so the pared-down list would then have something to sort by.

Link to comment

I also agree that there are other projects, like rating caches, that may be more important. However this same idea could be applied to anything on the web site, including logs, caches, and benchmarks.

Jeremy I'm not sure of the reasoning for rating caches. I did the keenpeople ratings on some of my caches and they had more ratings that logs. Think that's accurate?

Link to comment

I also agree that there are other projects, like rating caches, that may be more important. However this same idea could be applied to anything on the web site, including logs, caches, and benchmarks.

Jeremy I'm not sure of the reasoning for rating caches. I did the keenpeople ratings on some of my caches and they had more ratings that logs. Think that's accurate?

It may be accurate if the number of ratings only slightly exceeds the number of logs(given that there are some anonymous cachers about)

 

If there was a significantly higher number of ratings than logs,they would probably lose their meaning for me.

 

I know where you're coming from...

Link to comment

I also agree that there are other projects, like rating caches, that may be more important. However this same idea could be applied to anything on the web site, including logs, caches, and benchmarks.

Jeremy I'm not sure of the reasoning for rating caches. I did the keenpeople ratings on some of my caches and they had more ratings that logs. Think that's accurate?

It may be accurate if the number of ratings only slightly exceeds the number of logs(given that there are some anonymous cachers about)

 

If there was a significantly higher number of ratings than logs,they would probably lose their meaning for me.

 

I know where you're coming from...

If you set the ratings in the same step that you logged the cache, then you could never have more ratings than logs.

 

With keenpeople, it was independent and there was no way of enforcing that you had to log the site to rate it.

 

This is probably a moot point anyway, as I don't think we'll ever see ratings for caches.

 

--RuffRidr

Link to comment

I also agree that there are other projects, like rating caches, that may be more important. However this same idea could be applied to anything on the web site, including logs, caches, and benchmarks.

Jeremy I'm not sure of the reasoning for rating caches. I did the keenpeople ratings on some of my caches and they had more ratings that logs. Think that's accurate?

It may be accurate if the number of ratings only slightly exceeds the number of logs(given that there are some anonymous cachers about)

 

If there was a significantly higher number of ratings than logs,they would probably lose their meaning for me.

 

I know where you're coming from...

The day my cache came out I had one visitor and 5 ratings. I won't bother putting ratings on my caches again unless it's forced and then I'll whine like a stuck pig <_<

Link to comment
I also agree that there are other projects, like rating caches, that may be more important. However this same idea could be applied to anything on the web site, including logs, caches, and benchmarks.

OK sorry I didn't mean to be such a whiney boy already. I do agree that rating photos could be a lot of fun. My earlier point was just that ratings are always skewed, usually by another cachers like or dislike of a particular cacher. It's difficult to be impartial. But photos seem harmless enough and of course it would probably get cachers competing to send in great pics which could be a huge asset to the entire site. <_<

Edited by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite
Link to comment

It's true that most stats on the Internet are crap, but that's because they don't apply Statistics 101 and just go with the median. It creates skewed (and therefore worthless) ratings. A statistical average is like grading on a bell curve, so 1 negative rating won't crap out the overall rating if it is generally high.

Link to comment

Well if I know anything Jeremy I know if you put it in and it doesn't work, you'll take it out. So no worries.

 

One thing that has been discussed is rating terrain which I feel is a huge mistake as not everyone really knows what a handicapped cache should be. I had a brand new cacher tell me my 1.5 terrain should be a 1. What does he know? There was a curb to cross.

 

Anyway, I digress again. I look forward to the changes.

Link to comment

Wait a second...we're about to be given stats for our pictures, but not for our actual cachers?

 

<_<

 

I like a 1-10 system. While 1-5 is probably just as good, 1-10 is more normal to most people when rating something that is more discrete than 2 thumbs or 4 stars.

 

As for subjective labels to add, I'd be sure they don't overlap in subject. Another idea is a moderation system similar to slashdot, where you don't rate it 1-10. Instead, you start at 5 and votes increment or decrement your number. Each vote requires a justification/descriptor. "This picture is the best nature view I have ever seen... +1:Nature". Spoiler photos could be lowered this way..."I can't believe they show the cache in its hiding spot... -1:Spoiler".

 

Slashdot enables each user on a somewhat random basis to be a moderator, while instead here, maybe points are given to everyone on a more even basis (you get 5 points (up or down) to dole out to the photos per week...spend them all on Monday or don't use them and lose them on Sunday). The only -1 I could see here is "overrated" and "spoiler". The +1 would be things like "Nature" "Funny" "Family" and whatever else you want to come up with.

 

This way you could make 1 photo per week to be the highest rating (but someone else could use all their points to put it back to 5 as overrated) and as new pictures arrive, old pictures will settle into the score that best suits them because most points will be spent on newer pictures. A few week old picture may still be in flux, but the final score for a month old picture will be wherever it ends up. Maybe after X amount of time, the score is permantly set (so people can not go archive diving to ruin people's scores for fun).

 

Just a thought.

Link to comment

I also agree that there are other projects, like rating caches, that may be more important. However this same idea could be applied to anything on the web site, including logs, caches, and benchmarks.

Jeremy I'm not sure of the reasoning for rating caches. I did the keenpeople ratings on some of my caches and they had more ratings that logs. Think that's accurate?

It may be accurate if the number of ratings only slightly exceeds the number of logs(given that there are some anonymous cachers about)

 

If there was a significantly higher number of ratings than logs,they would probably lose their meaning for me.

 

I know where you're coming from...

If you set the ratings in the same step that you logged the cache, then you could never have more ratings than logs.

 

With keenpeople, it was independent and there was no way of enforcing that you had to log the site to rate it.

 

This is probably a moot point anyway, as I don't think we'll ever see ratings for caches.

 

--RuffRidr

Quote:It may be accurate if the number of ratings only slightly exceeds the number of logs(given that there are some anonymous cachers about)

 

To clarify the anonymous bit: i was talking about those that do not log their finds

 

Quote:If you set the ratings in the same step that you logged the cache, then you could never have more ratings than logs.

 

People may still want to rate a photo even if they don't log a cache

Edited by fivegallon
Link to comment
To clarify the anonymous bit: i was talking about those that do not log their finds

 

If you set the ratings in the same step that you logged the cache, then you could never have more ratings than logs.

 

People may still want to rate a photo even if they don't log a cache

That's not a bad plan, as long as the rating would only apply to those that actually found a cache. Those that don't find a very well hidden challenging cache may just rate it a 1 cause they're peeved.

Link to comment
How about being able to assign keywords to a photo as well? If you've ever looked at iPhoto before, you can create a list of keywords, then assign one or more of them to each of your photos. That way, if you're looking for pictures containing both Dick and Jane at a birthday party, you select all three of those keywords, then your 20,000 photo collection gets pared down to a dozen shots.

 

Geo-keywords would be preset. Things like landscape, pets, caches, people, kids, etc. would be the sorts of keywords I'd expect to see.

 

You could combine this with a ratings system so the pared-down list would then have something to sort by.

I really like this IDEA!!!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...