{"id":331,"date":"2008-10-16T06:02:07","date_gmt":"2008-10-16T11:02:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/crschmidt.net\/blog\/?p=331"},"modified":"2008-10-16T06:02:07","modified_gmt":"2008-10-16T11:02:07","slug":"flickrs-interestingness-patent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/crschmidt.net\/blog\/archives\/331\/flickrs-interestingness-patent\/","title":{"rendered":"Flickr&#8217;s Interestingness Patent"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"float:right; margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/crschmidt\/131385630\/\" title=\"Easter Sunday at First Parish by crschmidt, on Flickr\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/farm1.static.flickr.com\/45\/131385630_f7b670c115_m.jpg\" width=\"160\" height=\"240\" alt=\"Easter Sunday at First Parish\" \/><\/a><br \/>My most &#8216;interesting&#8217; photo<\/div>\n<p>One of the things that has always confused me is how Flickr&#8217;s &#8216;interestingness&#8217; score worked. It&#8217;s clearly not based directly on views &#8212; my most &#8216;interesting&#8217; photos have ~500 views, while my most popular ones have ~5000. The same is true of comments, tags, groups, etc: Some of my most interesting photos are, all in all, the least obviously &#8216;popular&#8217; ones. <\/p>\n<p>However, reading through the <a href=\"http:\/\/appft1.uspto.gov\/netacgi\/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&#038;Sect2=HITOFF&#038;d=PG01&#038;p=1&#038;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&#038;r=1&#038;f=G&#038;l=50&#038;s1=%2220060242139%22.PGNR.&#038;OS=DN\/20060242139&#038;RS=DN\/20060242139\">patent on Interestingness<\/a>, I see:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[0027] The statistics engine generates statistics and other metrics based upon aggregated metadata. In one embodiment, the statistics engine determines the popularity of metadata (e.g., tags) within a grouping of media objects over a predetermined time period. For example, the statistics engine may determine the number of different users that have assigned a particular tag to one or more media objects within all groups on the system, within a single group, or within a set of media objects, over the last 24 hours. The aggregation engine may determine (and display) a histogram of the tags, and may determine the most frequently assigned tags (at any point in time or over a predetermined time period) by determining those tags either having a frequency exceeding a minimum threshold frequency or belonging to a predetermined number of the most popular tags. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The patent application doesn&#8217;t directly claim that this is used in the interestingness calculation, but this type of time-period based tag aggregation\/valuation is clearly a non-obvious metric that can&#8217;t be calculated by looking directly at user-visible information on a single photo.<\/p>\n<p>Still, none of this really changes the fact that I wish that flickr had a per-person &#8216;most interesting this week&#8217; sort: my &#8216;eastern bunny&#8217; photo above has been at the top of the interesting list for ages, and I want new interesting photos, damnit! <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>My most &#8216;interesting&#8217; photo One of the things that has always confused me is how Flickr&#8217;s &#8216;interestingness&#8217; score worked. It&#8217;s clearly not based directly on views &#8212; my most &#8216;interesting&#8217; photos have ~500 views, while my most popular ones have ~5000. The same is true of comments, tags, groups, etc: Some of my most interesting [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,105],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-flickr","category-photography"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crschmidt.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/331","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crschmidt.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crschmidt.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crschmidt.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crschmidt.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=331"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/crschmidt.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/331\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crschmidt.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crschmidt.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crschmidt.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}