Would also be nice to have a list of the most voted on/highest/most interesting/some other kind of metric to make it feel less like "we're building a massive dataset, and want you to do the donkey work".
2009/4/8 Rowland Shaw <[email protected]>: > 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
