Squared Flower - A rant.

Yes, I refuse to use Kleenex until this mess is cleaned up.

Okay, okay. Another rant. Another small rant. Rants aren’t a common theme here but when they come they are hard to hold back. Kind of like the runs. Well now, THERE’S an analogy. But on to better things right now. Glass Ceiling originally uploaded by anyjazz65 This picture of Dale Chihuly's glass has been on Flickr since October 21, 2005. It was never a number one picture but it has ranked between number 111 and number 169 in Flickr’s Interestingness rating. It is still there. This Sunset photograph from November 21, 2005 has been as low as 387 and as high as 162. It's never been higher. Sky and Clouds originally uploaded by anyjazz65 George originally uploaded by anyjazz65 This Butterfly uploaded September 21, 2005, has varied from number 75 to as low as 149. It is still on the list in the top 500 Flickr photographs for that day. Squared Flower originally uploaded by anyjazz65 This picture, Squared Flower has been on Flickr since November 5, 2005. It was assembled from photographs from personal cameras taken over a period of a couple years in two or three countries. They are all flowers except for one, the center, which is a mushroom. But you knew all that. The frame was assembled in Photoshop (not FD's Flickr Toys) from carefully selected photographs from my own archive. After it was uploaded to Flickr, it enjoyed a number of comments from important Flickr members which was appreciated. Then Flickr member mimbrava commented: Congratulations! mimbrava says: Congratulations. This is currently number one in Interestingness! Posted 18 months ago. This was the SAME DAY it was uploaded. It was the number one picture in Flickr Explorer “Interestingness” for that day. Now for those of you who are recently arrived extra-terrestrials or have just been introduced to computers or have just awakened from a thirty year coma and/or reside beneath rocks, here is a bit of explanation. Explorer “Interestingness” is the best 500 pictures uploaded EACH DAY into Flickr’s vast collection of photographs. Their formula for measuring this is Flickr’s guarded secret but supposedly composed of view counts, favorite counts, comment counts, rapidity reckoned in relation to the uploaded moment and probably some other things, all compounded into an algorithm that calculates a kind of physical popularity of the photograph. This photograph was number one for November five, 2005. Number one. As time went on, this photograph settled down to number 160 out of Explorer 500. It fluttered between 167 and 158 for several months. This fluxuating phenomenon occurs when other photographs in that top 500 group get continued attention beyond their initial posting. This is due occasionally to shifting the photo around among photo subject groups or linking with other photographs or blogs. This will often net the photograph continued views and comments beyond its initial introduction. Some photographers are just plain good and their subsequent uploads encourage people to view their entire archived stream, netting even more views and comments on their popular postings. By August of 2006 this flower picture had drifted up and back between number158 and number 173 for its posting date of November 5, 2005. In October of 2006 it jumped up to number 122 for about a week and then dropped back again to a groove between 145 and 158. Then, on October 21, 2006, nearly a year after the original posting, it disappeared from Flickr Explorer completely. No downslide, no notice, just gone in one 24 hour period. It had started as a number one. It had maintained a position between 145 and 180 for nearly a year. Then it was gone. Okay. Explain that. Did about 350 OTHER photographs uploaded way back on that date, suddenly become more popular than this one? Did Flickr just lose it? Did it get some mysterious ‘negative’ votes? How is it possible that a photograph can suddenly drop from about 145 to a number greater than 501? It had not varied more than 20 points in ten months; now it drops more than 350 places in a one day? Take for instance the picture currently at Explorer position number 462 for the date November 5, 2005. It is a video capture NOT originally taken by the owner of the site; it has had two comments, has been elected as a “favorite” once and has been visited 225 times. It’s an interesting capture and deserves to be ranked highly. The Squared Flower has 39 comments (yes, including some of my own); has been favorited 50 times and has been visited 1,705 times. The picture ranked 240 is not even a photograph. It is a water color painting. So Squared Flower has been deleted from Explorer. Is it because it was assembled in Photoshop, a composite of several photographs? If it is suddenly unqualified for the top 500 of that day because it is not a presentation of a single photograph, or that it has been re-worked in Photoshop, then there are several Explorer submissions that should lose all ranking. Is it because Flickr’s toys were not used to assemble the composition? Or is it just because someone does not like flowers? Please understand, this is not a complaint. It is not expected or desired that Flickr DO anything about this. But, it would be nice to know WHY. How about a nice note to me explaining "We changed the rules..." “We shall be waiting for your answer.” - Klaatu

A minor rant

Cracked heart ..., originally uploaded by soozika anyjazz65 says: This one is good. (above) soozika says: Thanks! That leaf was lying around casually on my balcony, heart-shaped as is ... well, all ivy is, but this one stuck out :) matuko amini says: great composition and colors! soozika says: blogged anyjazz65 says:Good grief. How did I miss linking these two hearts to the blog collection? I better check the rest of them too. Thanks for the nudge. soozika says: ... ?? ... but you did, didn't you? That's where I found them! I just decided to today that I'd mark any (well, almost any) pictures of mine that have been blogged somewhere or other! anyjazz65 says: Hm. It's a mystery! Thing is, I missed ALL of the others too! Got that corrected this afternoon. Finding all your blogged pictures. Now that's a project. You can do that with technorati or something can't you? soozika says: Yes! There's a searcher called 'blogpulse' as well, but it's by far not as thorough as technorati which is always good for a surprize! ... I'm still not quite sure what you mean by "miss linking" pictures, since all the pictures in your blog are properly linked to their originators ...? :) anyjazz65 says: Oh I see. Yes, that is automatic. I also feel I should go back to the original posting and put a link TO the BLOG in the comments under the original. That links the photographer with how I've used the photo. Then I learn pretty quickly if they don’t want the picture used. (I rambled on about this all morning but after a little more coffee, I edited back to this.) soozika says: Oh I see ;) Think I'll have some coffee as well. Thanks soozika. Your comments have captured the morning. While it’s not exactly a major issue, maybe there should be some discussion to clear up some foggy areas or perhaps to confuse some areas that otherwise were rather clear. Mostly this blog has collected pictures of a similar theme and placed them together, their collective beauty producing a stunning effect. Other times only one picture with an interesting discussion is given its own page. Yes, Flickr automatically links a blogged picture back to the original Flickr photostream which is definitely as it should be. But also, when using a photograph from Flickr, it seems appropriate to go back to the original posting and put a link back TO THE BLOG in the comments section under the picture. That lets the photographer know the photo has been blogged. The photographer can respond pretty quickly if they don’t want the picture used in that venue. Most on Flickr are pleased or ambivalent about blogging but there is one now and then that gets all fussy about it. There were only two so far, actually. Since there are less than 200 photographs from friends on Flickr used in this blog, that’s about one in a hundred that was not comfortable with it. It’s difficult to understand their thinking, but their wishes must be respected. They DO have the option of turning off the blog button if they don’t want their photo blogged. They do have option controls if they don’t want larger sizes available and downloadable. They do have three levels of privacy controls if they want to limit viewing to a select few. They don’t have to post on Flickr at all, actually. There are about 450 million photographs on Flickr today. The hearts for the valentine page were collected mostly from the familiar circle of friends. Wandering about Flickr found the others. There are more than 58 thousand photographs tagged with “heart” and 150 thousand mention “valentine” somewhere in the text. There are thousands of photographs with an approving blog button and pleasant conversation in the comments. There are thousands without distracting borders and watermarks and signatures inside the frame. So considering all that, if someone doesn’t want a photo used, there is usually no trouble finding an alternate example. In reality, using a photograph on this blog is just an extension of the “photo-sharing” theme of Flickr. There are no ads on this blog and the pictures are not used to promote anything except the excellence of the photographer or to expand on an interesting discussion of either or both. Looking back, none of this is very interesting, is it? Oh well, I got out of mowing the back yard.

An old friend. originally uploaded by soozika. The compulsion of the key originally uploaded by Lucky Clov. winter garden 1 originally uploaded by xanderkoz. I just can't leave this thing alone .... originally uploaded by soozika. matilda originally uploaded by JKonig. transition originally uploaded by ed ed.