joe_schmidt
Premium account
Joined: Dec 02
Points: 2664
Posts: 32
|
Posted: 2008-01-12 18:36:00
Dear all,
what do you think of the total ranking number displayed together with the foto? E.g. next to the vote average?
---
ciao, Joe
|
Reply
Reply with quote
Contact joe_schmidt
|
|
|
|
rangutan
Premium account
Joined: Aug 04
Points: 34752
Posts: 1044
|
Posted: 2008-01-12 21:35:00
This is a nice idea and I like such interesting stats but wouldn't it slow down the system as it continuously calculates the ranking? I hope Andy will find a solution because it would make GLOBO even uniquer. Till now I quite like the current overall "Picture Gallery" view and also the list for each individual country and city/place the pictures/reports are already shown in order of average rating.
"Vote average"? What is that! We "rate" (Ger: halten, bewerten) at GLOBO! There is no current "vote", "voting" or "voters" at GLOBO (Ger: stimmen), these words must be corrected in the German based design of this young website. There is a big difference between voting and rating which has caused a lot of confusion and arguement in the past. [ This Message was edited by: rangutan on 2008-01-12 21:44 ] ---
Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner
|
Reply
Reply with quote
Contact rangutan
|
|
|
|
joe_schmidt
Premium account
Joined: Dec 02
Points: 2664
Posts: 32
|
Posted: 2008-01-13 11:53:00
Rudi, you're right. Please replace "vote average" by "rating average". Then it should fit.
There should not be a significant delay due to the calculation because the number could be a simple database entry which I guess is also used to display the overall ranking. And that one is updated in miliseconds when you rate a photo found in the ranking list. Just update the view and it changes its position immendiately (in case of a changed result). For computers such few thousand numbers are not an issue. Just measure how fast a multimillion pixel photo is recalculated which is much more complex.
---
ciao, Joe
|
Reply
Reply with quote
Contact joe_schmidt
|
|
|
|
rangutan
Premium account
Joined: Aug 04
Points: 34752
Posts: 1044
|
Posted: 2008-01-14 09:42:00
Your idea is interesting because after 40000 uploaded images there are so many brilliant ones. Some members are against ranking but if this is easily possible in webdesign then I would be the first to appreciate it :-) Further, members cannot currently see the true exact average rating of their own pictures!!! Such a system will promote quality and motivate.
There is a problem with the current star system that would need to be fixed first though! Mathematically, 5* means greater than 4,5 but since there are only about 50 of these amongst 40000 images, we use a "rounding up" system (which I like) being defined as something like:
***** 4,01 to 5,0 excellent
**** 3,01 to 4,0 very good
*** 2,01 to 3,0 good
** 1,51 to 2,0 poor
* 1,00 to 1,5 spam
This "rounding-up" star system is already being used in the members personal gallery and in the overview in the main gallery. The problem is that the different "mathematical" system is shown (one star less) under the enlarged view of the same images and also for report! In the gallery about ~2800 pictures (140 pages) are shown rounded up to 5* (4,01 to 5,0) but opening those into "large" format only the first ~50 (3 pages) show 5*s (mathematically > 4,51). Staff should please choose only ONE of these systems above!
Alternative colourful additive:
we could label the images simply like:
best 100 - gold icon (neon yellow)
best 101 to 1001 - silver icon (light grey)
best 1001 to 10001 - bronze icon (light brown)
Another solution:
Why not just show the average in the gallery overview? For reports too? [ This Message was edited by: rangutan on 2008-01-14 17:07 ] ---
Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner
|
Reply
Reply with quote
Contact rangutan
|
|
|
|
mortimer
Premium account
Joined: Jun 04
Points: 15075
Posts: 528
|
Posted: 2008-01-14 14:11:00
Hi there
I like the idea
Rudi you are right the two systems are a bit confusing.
I like the Idea of bronze silver and gold icons.
Martin ---
Today is the first day of the rest of your life, enjoy it!
|
Reply
Reply with quote
Contact mortimer
|
|
|
|
rangutan
Premium account
Joined: Aug 04
Points: 34752
Posts: 1044
|
Posted: 2008-01-14 17:25:00
Joachim/Martin, we even have space for a new feature like this. I recommend we dump the useless "times viewed" statistic to make way for this idea and more transparency.
The "times viewed" statistic was never correct and many have reported this before. Examples:
www.globosapiens.net/wojtekd/picture-mu-pagoa-waterfalls-49924.html
Uploaded: Jan, 03 2008 | Taken: Mar, 30 2004| Viewed: 49 times | 9 votes
I am sure a top pic like this and the others on page-1 of the gallery have been viewed HUNDREDS of times. Does the stat perhaps mean "times enlarged" or "postcards sent"?
Sometimes (specially newer pictures), the amount of ratings exceeds the amount of times viewed! How can that be? My good friend Mike reports astonished:
www.globosapiens.net/rip_drifter/picture-the-partnach-river-49879.html
Uploaded: Jan, 02 2008 | Taken: Aug, 06 2006| Viewed: 2 times | 3 votes
Let us rather have for example:
Upload: Jan, 02 2008 | Shot: Aug, 06 2006| Rated: 3.6667 | Rank: 8765
Ideally, based on this, we could have like the movers and shakers for images a tab called "hidden gems" that will help promote the old good stuff that was only rated once or never rated at all? [ This Message was edited by: rangutan on 2008-01-14 18:05 ] ---
Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner
|
Reply
Reply with quote
Contact rangutan
|
|
|
|
joe_schmidt
Premium account
Joined: Dec 02
Points: 2664
Posts: 32
|
Posted: 2008-01-14 23:30:00
Rudi,
it seems to be normal that the number of ratings exceeds the number of times it has been viewed. I agree that this might be corrected or even dumped.
I like your example of the info line. This would do well.
Like Martin I also like the proposal of bronce, silver and gold range.
ciao, Joe
---
ciao, Joe
|
Reply
Reply with quote
Contact joe_schmidt
|
|
|
|
mortimer
Premium account
Joined: Jun 04
Points: 15075
Posts: 528
|
Posted: 2008-01-15 08:49:00
another good example of things that could be refined it is indeed confusing hot the time viewed is calculated at the moment. The time viewed is however an important figure as it shows the overall attraction of the picture. But it should count the numbers of time the picture is displayed and not only the numbers of time it is in a pop up window.
Martin ---
Today is the first day of the rest of your life, enjoy it!
|
Reply
Reply with quote
Contact mortimer
|
|
|
|
rangutan
Premium account
Joined: Aug 04
Points: 34752
Posts: 1044
|
Posted: 2008-01-15 09:53:00
Martin, no such counters or clocks are known in the photography section but I am sure regular statistics are recorded. A new discussion for that? [ This Message was edited by: rangutan on 2008-01-15 13:13 ] ---
Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner
|
Reply
Reply with quote
Contact rangutan
|
|
|
|
