Flickr Explore

[Cmizzle]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a joke?

[jklewer]

I think it's totally silly, right up until one of my photos is deemed "interesting" by the magic flickr deity. After that, it's sweet

[blackcap]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a joke?

No, there have been lots of discussions on the FLickr groups about how ridiculous it is. Basically it's just a lottery where the more contacts you have that comment and fave your photos, the more chance you'll get on Explore. There's some randomness in there as well, so occasionally good photos make it. But typically it's crappy flower shots with bokeh that seem to dominate. Once I even saw a snapshot of a dead cat.

[nphsbuckeye]

Flickr is like many online photo galleries: many people's bar is pretty low for awesome work. Or you will find cliques where automatically ones work is all awesome, even if it's not.

You woulda thunk this picture is one of a kind: http://www.flickr.com/photos/souvikb/3587893969/.

[Cmizzle]

If I see one more picture of a flower and lego's i'll yell haha

[Thomas Hopkins]

Saw this thread and just had to chime in. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this... It's really a contest to see how many groups you can post your photos to so they'll be looked at and make it to explore. I don't get it.

[LeuceDeuce]

From what I can see it has less to do with your photos, and more to do with your contact list. The more contacts you have, the more people feel obligated to comment and favorite your work. These are the things that make your images "Interesting". Have a look around at the photostreams of those who have been explored and you'll see that they have more than one photo explored. If enough of your contacts comment on your OoF dog with red eye you'll get explored.

The idea of it is kind of cool. The execution of it is an epic failure.

[Holster]

yes the photos that usually make it are silly and really dont belong on a highlight board for photographers but it does give people a reason to check out the work of someone they havent seen before which i think is cool. and it does put people who could use help and tips in the light where they can get noticed. i love great photos as much as the next guy but id rather comment on someones photo if i can point something out that they missed. it helps everyone get better and learn.

but in the general idea of explore its kinda a failure.

[Karl Johnston]

Now that I know what it is...

explored 1 year from today:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tigerfeed/3033817083/

May whatever god you all believe in have mercy.

[Mark1]

Pesonally I love explore to find people worth watching. But I agree a lot of the images do not belong on a best of list. But then again, it is not meant to be a top image list. It is called Explore, not, The Best On Flickr. The idea is simple, the images with a lot of traffic must be interesting, so they show them off. It is totally populated because of views and favs. Not technical proficiency.

[LeuceDeuce]

A lot of traffic on flickr does not equate to an interesting image.

[Mark1]

A lot of traffic does not mean it sucks either. But that is the chance they are willing to make. Because on average a interesting picture will have more traffic than a uninteresting one. And the only way you can get a lot of traffic is to put out work at a quality level that people will come and see the new stuff when it is posted. That cant happen with a stream of poor images.

There are people that will make it on explore with every new image. If you dig into their stream they average 50,000 views. Not 50K on one image that happened to go big, or 50K for the whole profile combined. I mean the average view of the 500 images they have up are averaging like 50,000 views.

[shomat]

I've seen some decent stuff on there, but yes, overall there's a very narrow aesthetic that constantly shows up in Flickr's Explore.

They're careful to describe the system's results as the "most interesting" photos and not the "best" photos since the algorithm is entirely based upon activity around the photo and not its actual content.

[Thomas Hopkins]

From what I can see it has less to do with your photos, and more to do with your contact list. The more contacts you have, the more people feel obligated to comment and favorite your work. These are the things that make your images "Interesting". Have a look around at the photostreams of those who have been explored and you'll see that they have more than one photo explored. If enough of your contacts comment on your OoF dog with red eye you'll get explored.

The idea of it is kind of cool. The execution of it is an epic failure.


Thank you, you summed it up better than I...

[Thomas Hopkins]

A lot of traffic does not mean it sucks either. But that is the chance they are willing to make. Because on average a interesting picture will have more traffic than a uninteresting one. And the only way you can get a lot of traffic is to put out work at a quality level that people will come and see the new stuff when it is posted. That cant happen with a stream of poor images.

There are people that will make it on explore with every new image. If you dig into their stream they average 50,000 views. Not 50K on one image that happened to go big, or 50K for the whole profile combined. I mean the average view of the 500 images they have up are averaging like 50,000 views.

I disagree that the "on average an interesting picture will have more traffic than an uninteresting one." I would believe however that most likely an interesting picture from a person will have more traffic than that an uninteresting one from that same person. If you posted Ansel Adams work but did not send it to any groups, add a bunch of contacts, etc. I believe it would never make it to explore. But I do see your point that it's not about the best pictures on Flickr.

[JeffreyG]

I use flickr to share photographs with people that I know, and I don't care overwhelmingly whether strangers care to look at them or not.

But one thing I have noticed: When I post a photo of a woman in a bathing suit or female volleyball players in their somewhat short shorts, I get a lot of hits on those photos. More hits than I would expect from the people I know I was intending to share them with.

I think I have an idea what is the 'most' interesting topic for a lot of Flickr.

[MatthewK]

Now that I know what it is...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tigerfeed/3033817083/

May whatever god you all believe in have mercy.

What a hideous photo :shock:

I use flickr to share photographs with people that I know, and I don't care overwhelmingly whether strangers care to look at them or not.

But one thing I have noticed: When I post a photo of a woman in a bathing suit or female volleyball players in their somewhat short shorts, I get a lot of hits on those photos. More hits than I would expect from the people I know I was intending to share them with.

I think I have an idea what is the 'most' interesting topic for a lot of Flickr.

QFT, attached some evidence haha

[Travis Forsyth]

Another thing that seems to drive the gimmicky explore factor is the people who spam a photo with meaningless "awards" dressed up with a lame ass animated GIF of sorts with a lack of a real comment just so they can fill the quota set for them by the groups they belong to. And those people literally place those "awards" on ANYTHING.

[nphsbuckeye]

What a hideous photo :shock:



QFT, attached some evidence haha
Gorgeous picture. :lol:

[JeffreyG]

The bathing beauties don't even need to be adults. Eight year old's are plenty.

[Mark1]

I disagree that the "on average an interesting picture will have more traffic than an uninteresting one." I would believe however that most likely an interesting picture from a person will have more traffic than that an uninteresting one from that same person. If you posted Ansel Adams work but did not send it to any groups, add a bunch of contacts, etc. I believe it would never make it to explore. But I do see your point that it's not about the best pictures on Flickr.

Thats because his work is not really interesting. Well.... not to me anyway.

Another thing that seems to drive the gimmicky explore factor is the people who spam a photo with meaningless "awards" dressed up with a lame ass animated GIF of sorts with a lack of a real comment just so they can fill the quota set for them by the groups they belong to. And those people literally place those "awards" on ANYTHING.


I totally agree. I simply do not see the point of thies silly awards. If you like it, then say so. You dont have to make up some stupidly named award and litter my photo stream with them.

[Depth]

This got explored today.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alfiesbuses3/4112136020/

[Thomas Hopkins]

Thats because his work is not really interesting. Well.... not to me anyway.


Ok smart guy, pick someone you find interesting and insert name there...

[Thomas Hopkins]

This got explored today.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alfiesbuses3/4112136020/

As it should! Very interesting bus interior :lol:

[Mark1]

Ok smart guy, pick someone you find interesting and insert name there...


:D Just messing with you!

In short, what flickr has done is just A way to populate an "on the fly" overview of what is happening on flickr. Thats it. Nothing more. They came up with an algorithem and it seems to work for the most part. Wether the image has any merrit is too subjective, so they go by traffic/favs.

[Mike-DT6]

I know people on there whose photographs go straight into Explore very soon after they post them. It's as if they have got included in some sort of fast-track system, due to being a previous Explore-featured member.

Mike

[neilwood32]

I tend to think of flickr as purely a place to host my pics - not for feedback or anything else. Hence why i have a few hundred on it - not picked by quality anyway!

[Thomas Hopkins]

I don't get it but I guess that's why it's called art. http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnypatience/4114673542/

[TheReal7]

It's seems that most of the photos on flickr explore have this maganta/green cast/flat contrast thing going on. What is with that anyways? I mean it's sometimes nice to see but every other photo is this way.

[dcraven]

Now that I know what it is...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tigerfeed/3033817083/
May whatever god you all believe in have mercy.

This just made me spew! Boy, that's a lot of awards.

[Mike-DT6]

Flickr is quite handy for getting a good position in Google search results. I have found that a lot of my photographs are well indexed by Google and come up near the top of searches for the kinds of searches I want to be found with.

I've never had anything in Explore though.

Mike

:-)

[BobOh]

Bump:
Seems to be a lot of negative comments about Explore. I agree some of the photos on it are crap for one reason or another. But for any given photo that would just be my opinion. I don't enjoy photos of Phillipine tour buses or Lego miniature scenes and I don't know a whole lot about the "politics" of getting one's photo chosen to be Explored. What I do like is being able to get up in the morning, parking myself in front of my internet enabled HD TV with Flickr on it and view the photos while I'm having breakfast, etc. It is the highest quality (IQ) photo viewing opp on TV that I have found and there are some awesome pictures on there. And you don't even have to be a Flickr member to enjoy.

[District_History_Fan]

Now that I know what it is...

May whatever god you all believe in have mercy.

My eyes, my eyes....!!!

[Mark1]

I don't know a whole lot about the "politics" of getting one's photo chosen to be Explored.

No politics involved. It is a views/favorites/comments algorithm. It is basically a list of what image is having the most traffic at the moment. Why the traffic is occurring is not relevant to the way it works. It could be the worst image ever captured. And everybody is adding a "this sucks" comment and favoriting it as a way to link back to it to show other people later, how bad it really is. It will make it to the front page after enuf people do it. Explore is nothing more than a way to show what images are the most active. It has nothing to do with how good of a picture it is. But by default the good ones will mostly rise to the top with a few bad ones mixed in.

[djentley]

Quit yer whining. Of the photographs that wind up on explore, 90% easily deserve to be there and I often look through it to see interesting ways of doing things.

The thing that skews it is the existence of other non-photographic groups that use Flickr; I know all large Lego groups use it to host pictures and link on their forums or blogs, so the algorithm factors in that activity.

Though the algorithm does love a ton of bokeh;

http://www.flickr.com/photos/orbisphotography/5115056490/

[whuband]

I used to look at explore occasionally, but I got tired of looking at poodles and photos of lego toys.

[Mark1]

I am adicted to explore on the iPhone/pod. Being able to scan through 20 images at once is nice. I never got into Explore on the website.

[Helena]

It seems like you can get on some kind of "fast track" to Explore. Before I even knew what Explore was one of my photos ended up there (after only about 20 comments/favorites). I still don't know how that happened, but suspect that some of the people who commented were highly ranked by Flickr. The next time even fewer comments were needed and now some of my photos end up at Explore after only 5-6 comments/favorites.

Is there some way to stop photos from being included at Explore? It was fun in the beginning, but leads to lots of group invitations, awards and "nice shot" comments, which I don't really enjoy.

[BobOh]

Helena, why don't you restrict who can view your photos on Flickr. That way not so many people can comment and your photos will be less likely to make it to Explore, if indeed the number of comments is what determines that.

[Helena]

Helena, why don't you restrict who can view your photos on Flickr. That way not so many people can comment and your photos will be less likely to make it to Explore, if indeed the number of comments is what determines that.

The problem is that I want to get in contact with other photographers, especially here in Trondheim. If I make the photos private they won't be able to find me. I guess I can live with the situation as it is. I find the awards and group invitations annoying, but it's not more than I can handle if I have to. I'll just delete them when they pop up.

[Mark1]

Will have to look... But I think you can set it so only friends can make a comment. But anybody can see them.

[capri_stylee]

Now that I know what it is...

May whatever god you all believe in have mercy.

That actually hurt. Comments about it are great :lol:

[Thomas Hopkins]

It seems like you can get on some kind of "fast track" to Explore. Before I even knew what Explore was one of my photos ended up there (after only about 20 comments/favorites). I still don't know how that happened, but suspect that some of the people who commented were highly ranked by Flickr. The next time even fewer comments were needed and now some of my photos end up at Explore after only 5-6 comments/favorites.

Is there some way to stop photos from being included at Explore? It was fun in the beginning, but leads to lots of group invitations, awards and "nice shot" comments, which I don't really enjoy.

You're putting your photos in a lot of groups which will contribute to it. The more groups it's in, the more people will find it, the more it will end up in explore.

[TheReal7]

You're putting your photos in a lot of groups which will contribute to it. The more groups it's in, the more people will find it, the more it will end up in explore.

From all the research I've done on this, this is the opposite of the truth. Flickr's algorithm doesn't like groups with "awards" and "post 1 comment a million" and the likes. Nor does a hundred comments by "snapshot takers" help.

It's not just how many groups, comments and favorites you get. It's the caliber of those groups, comments and favorites. Don't post in "post 1 award 10" type groups. Keep the groups to a small number. Get high ranked flickr artists to comment on your photos and add them as favorites. The more 'quality' in the comments and views the better your chances of making explore.

[Helena]

Thank for trying to help! I guess I was unclear before. I do want strangers to be able to comment my photos. This is why I add them to groups, but only serious/relevant ones - never any "post one award one" groups.

It's just the crazyness about Explore I'd like to avoid. Once you have a photo there tons of people comment just to advertise their groups or photo streams. Also, I think that most of my photos don't deserve to be there. That is another reason to why I wish that I could block the Explore part.

Like The Real7 says it's the quality of the comments (and the rank of people writing them) that has the most effect, and the more photos you already have in Explore the easier it gets for your other photos to get there. Now my photos only need a few comments before they go to Explore, and then I get a stream of group invites etc.. If you'd look at one of my Explored photos now most of them don't have that many such comments, but that's because I have deleted lots already.

Anyway, this isn't a huge problem. I just wanted to know if there's some easy and clean way to prevent photos from being Explored, that's all. In a way it's fun too, of course, but it was more fun the first five times it happened. :)

[Mark1]

Found the setting... Go to "Your Account" in Flicker...Under "Defaults for new uploads" you can set it so everybody can see the images. But you can set the level of comments. You can also control the tags and notes there as well.

You just can't control what the comment is. And that is what you are looking for.

[Helena]

Thanks! Too bad one can't block comments with images, or just prevent people from posting images among the comments.

[TheReal7]

Thanks! Too bad one can't block comments with images, or just prevent people from posting images among the comments.

I agree. Here is what I do. I post in the first comment a request for no images/group invites.

See below for example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thereal7/5138935336/

It took a while and I had to block some people for not honoring my request but I now get next to no images/group invites.

[Thomas Hopkins]

From all the research I've done on this, this is the opposite of the truth. Flickr's algorithm doesn't like groups with "awards" and "post 1 comment a million" and the likes. Nor does a hundred comments by "snapshot takers" help.

It's not just how many groups, comments and favorites you get. It's the caliber of those groups, comments and favorites. Don't post in "post 1 award 10" type groups. Keep the groups to a small number. Get high ranked flickr artists to comment on your photos and add them as favorites. The more 'quality' in the comments and views the better your chances of making explore.

I don't believe it could be the "opposite of the truth" even if it's not exactly the truth. Since neither of us know what the truth is, I'll stand by my theory. I've seen too many awful pictures in a dozens of groups make it to explore that didn't meet any of your listed qualifications. And note I didn't say anything about "award" groups in my post.