10 | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 per page
Oldest First | Newest First

A questions on the "views" rating.

I had a random thought today.

Does the 'view' rating count for images that show up under the "Artists" listing? Even if they are themselves not clicked on (actually viewed)?

Yes. The view rating (G, PG, PG13) filter all images from the site, no matter where they might turn up. Recents, Artists list, searches, etc. It is if the images that are above your rating don't exist.

*chuckles* I apparently wasn't clear. *laughs at self* Silly me.

Good answer though to something I hadn't even thought abuot. Its good to know! :)

I didn't mean that view "rating". ;) That is kind of obvious. *chuckles*

What I meant to ask about was the "popularity" ratings (number of views) that you can see under the Gallery stats when one is logged in to one's "home page". The listing of numbers that suggest how many times the image has been seen (viewed), fave'd, and commented on.

Does that /also/ take into account those who load up the Artist-Listing page? (IE everytime the image is "loaded" versus actually clicked on.

I ask this because I have to wonder if the results I'm seeing are not entirely accurate? More in that, who is actually -looking- at the image itself (on its own page) versus browsing past it while looking for artists?

IE: Unique clicks, to put it a bit more technically.

Is that clearer? Cause I think I confused myself a bit. ;) *chuckles*

I'll be honest, and say this could use some work. Right now it's when someone clicks on the image it registers the view. The 'popularity' rating also takes into account those that have faved it. However, sadly, it is not unique, although it is not every single click either. (We have some conditions in place which prevent things like someone reloading a page to get views, etc.)

Now, I'll admit, we goofed on this. It's not entirely accurate. Part of this is my fault, because in the beginning we didn't even register views. I didn't consider them an important measure, and we were trying to be a different art site. We still act different from places like DA, which while we won't change, has caused people some confusion I think.

Anyway, it is possible for me to clear this up and make it dead-on accurate, views versus impressions (thumbnails), or any other such information you may want. The only question we have thought about occasionally here is: What do we do with all existing images? Reset their views? Figure out some calculation to better reflect their accuracy and then change them all? Not do anything with them? So, that is the puzzle we'd have to solve there. :)

Babbage C. Cheetah said: I'll be honest, and say this could use some work. Right now it's when someone clicks on the image it registers the view.

Okay, honestly THAT was what I was hoping for. It makes me feel a lot better to know people are actually making the -effort- to click-to-view my art work. Versus the count being skewed by people simply loading the page, and having the load itself count. :)

Babbage C. Cheetah said:The 'popularity' rating also takes into account those that have faved it.

Okay, that does make a lot of sense and I do support it. :) Viewing it is one thing, actually getting someone to like it enough to fave it is another. So that makes a lot more sense to have it add to the popularity rating. Same with peopel commenting on it as well. :) Thank you.

Babbage C. Cheetah said:However, sadly, it is not unique, although it is not every single click either. (We have some conditions in place which prevent things like someone reloading a page to get views, etc.)

Now, I'll admit, we goofed on this. It's not entirely accurate. Part of this is my fault, because in the beginning we didn't even register views. I didn't consider them an important measure, and we were trying to be a different art site. We still act different from places like DA, which while we won't change, has caused people some confusion I think.

Maybe you can then add this to the FAQ ;) *chuckles* I'm sure it would help some of the confusion. :)

Babbage C. Cheetah said:Anyway, it is possible for me to clear this up and make it dead-on accurate, views versus impressions (thumbnails), or any other such information you may want. The only question we have thought about occasionally here is: What do we do with all existing images? Reset their views? Figure out some calculation to better reflect their accuracy and then change them all? Not do anything with them? So, that is the puzzle we'd have to solve there. :)

Yeah, I can see the sticky situation you have here. Pieces that have been on artspots a while and have had alot of time to make up for if the counts were reset.

Crafting a calculations to try and better reflect their popularity sounds like a head ache and a half. You guys have so much on your plate right now. :)

I say, IMO, do what you can to make the counts a bit more accurate, as /you/ need them to be. But let the current count stand. It, itself, may not be entirely accurate but resetting it would not be "fair" to the images that have been on here for a while. :)

The only way to get "Accurate" would be to de-populate ALL the Galleries, after fixing the view code, and THAT would cause a lot of complaints. ;) *chuckles*

:) Thank you. Things are a much more clear now. ;)

One thing that really bugs me about the "popularity" is that a piece with say 5 views and 0 faves will be just as popular as a piece with 5 views and 1 fave. Or worse, a piece with 5 views with 1 fave being less popular than a piece with 6 views and no faves! It is obvious that for computational purposes the zeroes are counted as ones so it doesn't end up being 0, but I think that one needs to be held onto all the way though.

A bit back when I was bored was trying to think of an algorithm which would be more suitable for calculating popularity, which also included comments as well (as I take with the 2 cents store credit was a plea to get the community to get more involved and actually comment on people works as theres a severe lacking of that here) like a comment to view ratio, but I eventually gave up cause all my scenarios didn't seem to pan through fairly :)

But yes, this popularity thing is a complex thing. I don't think a piece with 25 views and 4 faves should be as popular as a piece with 100 views and no faves, but I suppose in the end it all boils down to a matter of opinion. Is the peice popular because more people have seen it? Or is it more popular because the few that have seen it liked it enough to give it a shot of being feature on their gallery with a fave?

Long story short, make it so that 0 faves and 1 fave are not treated the same :) I'll quit my rambling now.

I dun know. Maybe I'm just a simple type myself, but shouldn't faves be given a 3-for-one value, views a one for one value, and comments maybe a 2-for-one value?

*shrugs*

Both of you bring up some good points, and I will look into it. It's not that hard to change the "popularity" across the board. If I were to redo it chances are it would be similar to Drakenhart's suggestion of giving views x points and faves y points, etc. The only place it is used, however, is when viewing image stats. It is not used to rank anywhere else on the site, so it's not too high a priority at the moment. Perhaps after the redesign is done. :)