Actually, it appears that refreshing the page will repeat your previous vote, but on the next picture -- even if the page failed to load because a proxy server timed out waiting for a response.
2009/4/8 Simon Bohlin <[email protected]>: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
