I've cracked the question about lots of 1-2 ratings. It's someone who would like to see all photos.*There's no "Skip to next photo" button.*
On first view, it took a while to find the voting buttons. If they're the primary action, maybe they could be more prominent, perhaps stronger colour? I didn't notice any guidelines on how to vote, i.e. not judge the photographer? If you want me to read that, put it nearby the voting buttons. Both my ratings were 3:s because using a laptop trackpad, and having seen 0 or 1 photos before, I couldn't really use the full scale. Neither would I feel very inclined to judge one such a fine scale as 10 steps. (I'm biased on this: At work, our questionnaires use 5-grade scale, and our respondents are both pushed by their bosses and sent reminders to make them fill in those questionnaires.) Also; Max Diff FTW! I'm very grateful to have learned about that today. Cheers /Simon B. On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Rowland Shaw <[email protected]> wrote: > Don't forget that "time of year when photo was taken" affects the > results -- snowy scenes taken might beat "photo of a road on a dull > drizzly day, taken only to fill up the Geograph grid", and whilst > there is guidance to not rate the photographer, a good composition > will enhance the view; > > As an example; two photographs taken at the same locale, by the same > person, within a few minutes of each other, pointing in different > directions: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ratarsed/3377071312/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ratarsed/3376131577/ > > Both photos have their artistic merits, but in my mind, one is a lot > more scenic than the other -- so how should this affect the ranking of > that area? > (For reference, if I saw these on ScenicOrNot, I'd rate one as a 3, > and the other as an 8) > > > 2009/4/8 Francis Davey <[email protected]>: > > 2009/4/8 Frankie Roberto <[email protected]>: > >> > >> I'd be fascinated to know how a factor analysis works (I tried looking > at > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_analysis, but it's not the most > >> accessible Wikipedia page). > > > > No, its awful. > > > > I'm using the term a bit generically but its quite simple. > > > > Eg, imagine there are N people who have voted on pictures. Now take an > > N dimensional graph and plot where they rate them all (or how they > > compare them all). Each picture is a point in this N-dimensional > > space. > > > > Now we have an utterly incomprehensible graph which is also hard to > > visualise to those of us who find thinking in more dimensions than we > > have toes difficult. > > > > So, what would be great is to somehow reduce that number of dimensions > > a bit, or even a lot. That amounts to finding a few factors that > > explain most of the data. > > > > How you do this, like much of stats, depends. There are lots and lots > > of algorithms for it. Some are easy - roughly corresponding to > > projecting the N-dimensional space down onto some subspace that's more > > manageable, so all you have to do is find the subspace. But there's no > > reason to assume that everything is linear, so you might do something > > more sophisticated. > > > >> > >> Another alternative might be to force people to make a binary choice > between > >> "scenic" and "not scenic", or perhaps a 4 way choice with 2 "very" > options. > >> Then you avoid all the indecisive 4-6 responses. > >> > > > > If what you want is a *lot* of data comparisons fast then use > > something like Maxdiff: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MaxDiff > > > > Show four photos and ask for best and worst. That's still amazingly > > easy (almost as easy as the kittenwar game) and you get a lot more > > ratings done. > > > > But, beware! In this case there's a whole nother issue. So far we have > > been considering: > > > > - finding scenic places on the basis of some mass voting (a million > > people can't be wrong) > > - finding places I'd like (needs a factor analysis or something similar) > > > > But the scenes have location data too. You might want to say here -> > > is an really good place to go because there is a cluster of scenically > > rated photos from there. That requires a whole lot more sophisticated > > analysis again. > > > > However I don't know what the use cases of this data might be, so > > can't comment. I'm not saying Tom et al. are wrong because they know > > what their constraints and aims are which I most emphatically do not. > > What's more they have almost certainly taken the advice of > > statisticians to get this just right, so my rather amateurish > > criticism is meant to be just that, my half pennyworth. > > > > When I get stuck, I tend to go off and talk to a fellow of the royal > > statistical society. It tends to unstick my mind, though I usually > > come away realising how much more problematic everything really is > > 8-). > > > > -- > > Francis Davey > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list [email protected] > > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > > > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
