Comments on: interestingness

By: Ben Chun

Ben Chun — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:23:41 +0000

Check this one out:
http://flickr.com/photos/tags/twister/clusters/

By: Kenneth Rufo

Kenneth Rufo — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:03:57 +0000

Wow, it’s like a map of Barthe’s punctum, each one defined by aggregate viewing. This is fascinating.

By: Ben Chun

Ben Chun — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:25:35 +0000

I have been driving around looking for good clusters (ones that break up into interesting, very discrete, or surprising sets):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/cameraphone/clusters/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/reflection/clusters/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/abstract/clusters/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/open/clusters/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/food/clusters/

I’m sure there’s a billion, but I’m totally intrigued by the bottom-up formation of these sets. Actually, now that I keep saying sets, I suppose this is like the Google Labs sets.

By: shirazi

shirazi — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:13:50 +0000

You have an excellent blog here.

By: barb dybwad

barb dybwad — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:43:48 +0000

I’m not sure how an RSS feed would really work (though this somehow doesn’t abate my desire for one), because “interestingness” isn’t reverse chronological. The algorithm responds to inputs over time, so relative interestingness will change… I suppose you could generate a timestamp at the “moment of interestingness” and get an RSS feed from that, but it wouldn’t truly reflect how interacting with photos over time affects their interestingness.

By: c h a n d r a s u t r a

c h a n d r a s u t r a — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:11:03 +0000

Flickr’s Interestingness not very interesting

I just checked out Flickr’s brand new feature interestingness. So how do you define interesting? Especially in photography? According to

By: Ryan Shaw

Ryan Shaw — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:18:35 +0000

Have you found an RSS feed for interestingness yet?