Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Calculate your Image Quality!

Attention!

This topic is locked.

Reason : Probably for the best


celestun 11 29 14 United Kingdom
17 May 2005 7:35AM
OK here's one to get the hairs standing again on the back of everyone's neck!

There are many factors that make up the number of clicks that you get for a photo here on EPZ... apart from innate quality!

Among the many factors;

* time of day of submission
* forum participation
* friends (maybe from EPZ meets)
* respect (professional photographers)
* # of EC's HC's

etc...

most of these factors are very difficult to quantify...

however there is one factor that most would agree plays the most significant role... reciprocal clicking

THere is no way to remove this tendency as it is human nature... so;

If anyone is interested in leveling the playing field a little and getting a measure of the quality of their images compared to others on the site... here is some crude click logic...

Basic Image Quality = Clicks - Reciprocal Clicks (Index)

Where Reciprocal Clicks can be crudely defined by the following formula (open to amendments!);

3 times the square root of (C/P)

where;
P is total # of photos
C is the total # of comments
submitted by any one photographer

This would then give each photographer a basic reciprocal index which they would then need to subtract from their click totals in order to get a more realistic idea of quality compared to others on the site.

There now let the storm begin!

Can't wait!

Maybe some of the more technically minded people at EPZ headquarters might like to adjust/elaborate/incorporate this kind of formula to give an alternative figure for clicks which people could turn on or off in their e2 preferences.

Tim

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

digicammad e2
11 22.0k 37 United Kingdom
17 May 2005 7:37AM
Do you not mean 3x square root of (C/P)
keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
17 May 2005 7:39AM
I got lost at - 'Ok here's one to get the hairs standing again...'

Then I went catatonic.
Wink
u08mcb 10 5.8k
17 May 2005 7:40AM
Do you not have some proper maths to go and do?
answersonapostcard e2
10 12.7k 15 United Kingdom
17 May 2005 7:40AM
Run that one past me again? LOL
celestun 11 29 14 United Kingdom
17 May 2005 7:42AM
K, yes just corrected that! first I tried actually putting a square root symbol, not a chance!

Keith, catatonic, did anything change for you then? LOL

Malcolm, after the PhD, I like to turn to simpler things... and you?

Tim
u08mcb 10 5.8k
17 May 2005 7:44AM
√ there you go Smile
keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
17 May 2005 7:48AM
Not really, no
'bout time somebody did something to wake me up.
I won't hold my breath.
Wink
Pete e2
13 18.7k 96 England
17 May 2005 7:54AM
Almost a very good idea, but someone who comments to help people would be penalised the same as someone who comments for clicks. So those who comment to help who were looking for higher scores in ratings would reduce the number of comments to avoid penalisation. That wouldn't do the site any good either.
digicammad e2
11 22.0k 37 United Kingdom
17 May 2005 7:56AM

Quote:So those who comment to help who were looking for higher scores in ratings would reduce the number of comments to avoid penalisation


To be honest Pete, those who comment to help are probably not sufficiently bothered about click counts to stop commenting, especially if this was an additional system and not a replacement.
mark a. e2
10 920 United Kingdom
17 May 2005 7:57AM
You forgot to add your gran's birthday into the equation. Wink
ZenTog e2
12 7.9k 1 England
17 May 2005 7:58AM
but is anybody actually interested?????????????///
I am more interested in constructive comments than clicks, that some topics / photographers get clicks more than me I dont care!!!
now Ecs thats a different thing
celestun 11 29 14 United Kingdom
17 May 2005 8:04AM
Paul, it would seem a great deal of people are interested in getting an idea of the quality of their pictures and the click factor seems to bother a lot of people judging by the forums!

Pete, Ian has given the same response I think I would give. I had a feeling your logic here had been to encourage comments through the incentive factor... however what I am suggesting is not a penalisation as you put it but rather an alternative e2 option for measuring image quality which can be turned on or off.

As for 'almost a good idea' that could be said about the site also! LOL!

Mark, my Gran's age would stuff up the formula completely, what about the number of brain cells you have, that should fit nicely no? ;o)

Tim
philwig e2
9 817 1
17 May 2005 8:13AM

Quote:[...] those who comment to help are probably not sufficiently bothered about click counts to stop commenting


I think you're right. So just straight subtraction of any reciprocal activity would do the job. Or make it all anonymous. But I guess all that's been thought about before.

Me, I want to learn to take better pictures. Others want to collect little click things. It's only strange when you try to mix the two, at which point you get weird jutapositions. For example I point out that it's a blurred snapshot with the lamp-post sticking out of the bored subject's half-cropped head and everyone else says "excellent exhibition-quality photograph.
ZenTog e2
12 7.9k 1 England
17 May 2005 8:14AM
YOU CAN not calclate image quality by any numerical means the eye and brain tells you the quality not numbers, certain landscapes may get a 100 clicks but does that make it better than a sport shot that may only get 36 clicks but wins competition , ec and photo of the week, just means certain classes of pictures are favoured by certain areas of photozine population