# FlickR Explore/Interestingness



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 12, 2012)

I don't really use FlickR for much, except to host photos. I've had a handful of images lately that were put on this "explore" list. It's nice, because it funnels a lot of traffic to the image so people can see my work. But, I don't know much about Explore; the concept is kind of a fascinating thing to me. I only vaguely understand how it works. My web searches on this subject have yielded only a foggy understanding of how "interestingness" and Explore works. It appears FlickR has kept those secrets closely guarded. 

Flickr: Explore interesting photos from the last 7 days in FlickrLand...

FluidR is a nice presentation of explore:
Fluidr / Today's Explore

How can "interestingness" be figured out by an algorithm? 

I have a few guesses to share... I imagine it is a combination a lot of things. A big part must be favorites and comments on images relative to the number of views (high view to favorite/comment ratio= more interesting). I've wondered if FlickR records the amount of time someone spends viewing an image in browser? Perhaps the longer the images is "viewed" the more interesting it is. Also, the amount of times an image is opened large in lightbox for viewing, perhaps that is an indicator too.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 12, 2012)

No offense meant to you, and I don't mean to paint your "explored" images with too broad a brush, but: I find flickr's "explored" images to mostly be the most banal garbage ever. This leads me to suspect that, however it's calculated, it accurately reflects the average taste of the flickr community.


----------



## Overread (Oct 12, 2012)

Flickr keeps the "code" secret as much as they can and also change it around every so often. Basically the upshot is that you can network to boost the popularity of your photos and also enter into loads of the competition groups and "explore" groups with your photos and you might get into explore (at which point you generally get a boatload of new views and might get one or two more photos into it).

It can be a big thing for some people which is why all the codes and how its actually calculated are a bit hidden away.


----------



## panblue (Oct 12, 2012)

Flickr..."flickr" .. fl..i.ckRRR

It sounds so 2005 doesn't it. It helped change the world of photos didn't it. Like Brownie.."brownie"..bbbrowneee.
Which sounds sorta 1910. And wholeseome. Flickr doesn't sound wholesome. It sounds casual, ADD, like a bit of snot, on your finger. I loved Flickr whenever it was that it emerged (mainstream, not sharing screen captures of a game). There was a buzz amongst people 'like you' or 'like me' or 'like us'. It was creative. Now it's ubiquitous..and a lot of people don't post or post but don't monitor their stream daily..or respond to comments. Or use it just as an adjunct to some other social platform and only communicate 'in the now' via that other platform.

I have no idea how Explore functions. I think once, many moons ago, I made a snap on the street of a cat. Converted it to monochrome. A couple of days later, someone commented all happy-clappy like " hey you're on Explore!!"

Woohoo. I felt like one of the beautiful people for 15 minutes. It wasn't even a 'good' photo. I think my 'good' photos got, like 3 views. .


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 12, 2012)

amolitor said:


> No offense meant to you, and I don't mean to paint your "explored" images with too broad a brush, but: I find flickr's "explored" images to mostly be the most banal garbage ever. This leads me to suspect that, however it's calculated, it accurately reflects the average taste of the flickr community.



Hmm, that is a pretty harsh generalization. To some degree, I would agree, that frequently there is "not so great" stuff that ends up there. I would posit that there is also some really good stuff that shows up there. But, i'll concede, you do have to cherry pick to get to it. 



Overread said:


> Flickr keeps the "code" secret as much as they can and also change it around every so often. Basically the upshot is that you can network to boost the popularity of your photos and also enter into loads of the competition groups and "explore" groups with your photos and you might get into explore (at which point you generally get a boatload of new views and might get one or two more photos into it).
> 
> It can be a big thing for some people which is why all the codes and how its actually calculated are a bit hidden away.



I can see that. 



panblue said:


> Flickr..."flickr" .. fl..i.ckRRR
> 
> It sounds so 2005 doesn't it. It helped change the world of photos didn't it. Like Brownie.."brownie"..bbbrowneee.
> Which sounds sorta 1910. And wholeseome. Flickr doesn't sound wholesome. It sounds casual, ADD, like a bit of snot, on your finger. I loved Flickr whenever it was that it emerged (mainstream, not sharing screen captures of a game). There was a buzz amongst people 'like you' or 'like me' or 'like us'. It was creative. Now it's ubiquitous..and a lot of people don't post or post but don't monitor their stream daily..or respond to comments. Or use it just as an adjunct to some other social platform and only communicate 'in the now' via that other platform.
> ...



I agree. I've never been really social on FlickR. I hate to admit, but I don't even get around to responding to many comments... I don't know. The way I use FlickR is for hosting, not the social aspect.


----------



## Overread (Oct 12, 2012)

You know you can disable comments on your photos if you're really not into the social aspects 

Flickr is indeed what you make of it - you can go social mad with it if you want and there are some decent groups on there - most focused around specific topics/subjects/gear (so not as well rounded as a forum - but that is more due to the fact that good groups use their limited thread space to focus purely on their topic); or if you want you can go totally for the image hosting features offered.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 24, 2012)

amolitor said:


> No offense meant to you, and I don't mean to paint your "explored" images with too broad a brush, but: I find flickr's "explored" images to mostly be the most banal garbage ever. This leads me to suspect that, however it's calculated, it accurately reflects the average taste of the flickr community.



Until this very morning, I had never actually seen Flickr Explore, so I went there Flickr: Explore interesting photos from the last 7 days in FlickrLand...

I saw a bunch of well-exposed but exceedingly kitschy snapshot-type pictures. I looked at one page. Really low-brow stuff, with basically zero artistic merit. "Postcard" shots. All of them, except one.Nothing even remotely "challenging", but simply pure, utterly kitschy snaps. My fine arts and photography instructors would have railed against the stuff shown today. And I'm not trying to say this to be mean, and I think banal garbage is a bit of a harsh categorization...but banal kitsch would be a more-acceptable and critically more-appropriate and more-acceptable term to describe what is on there right now, today.

We have to keep in mind, the taste of the vast viewing public is not offended by a pseudo-artistic landscape of English boathouses with a 20-percent opacity black watermark that stretches across THE ENTIRE FRICKING SKY of a landscape shot...but lo and behold, there it is on FLickr Explore...two bright red boathouses, each on small rocky islands in the middle of a lake, with a MASSIVE, sky-wide watermark splayed across the blue sky...

Of course, I only looked at ONE page with like 16 photos on it. I then hit a second page when I went back after typing the above, and saw the cutest picture of somebody's pet pit bull looking at the lens, in backlight with lots of lens flare. Totes awesome! I loves me some pitbullz!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Oct 24, 2012)

Derrel, fluidr.com is the best way to look at Explore IMO. It's hit and miss in regards to the quality, some are really interesting.


----------



## McNugget801 (Oct 24, 2012)

I agree that there can be a lot of crap on explore but there can also be some really good shots.  The biggest problem with explore IMO is that once someone reaches a certain "status" of daily views, comment, contacts, ect. its nearly impossible to get an image up there.  Flickr has acknowledged a few things that will decrease the chances of an image being explored. Two that I recall are adding a photo to more than 5 groups and posting groups the require comments and favorites.



Rotanimod said:


> Derrel, fluidr.com is the best way to look at Explore IMO. It's hit and miss in regards to the quality, some are really interesting.



I prefer this http://barcinski-jeanjean.com/entries/endlessintrestingness/FlickrMain.swf


----------

