| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/24/2004 10:34:12 PM · #1 |
Can the voting process include the average time a voter spent viewing a photograph? Understandably the software can't determine if a person is actually viewing the photograph, but it should be able to capture both the time of url request for the photo and the time the vote was received.
I think it might be another guage of the sucess, or failure of a photograph. |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 10:39:18 PM · #2 |
Except for the times I vote and advance to the next photo, and meanwhile go make lunch while it loads. You'd also have to measure and compensate for each person's (current) connection speed.
Most often, I think you already get the stat you want in the number of comments garnered. |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 10:39:49 PM · #3 |
| How come drJOnes had more then 210 hour views while I had 20 seconds. Damn I suck :P |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 10:39:51 PM · #4 |
[personal opinion]
It would be fun to look at a histogram of "viewing times", I agree it would be a very interesting way to judge success. You'd have to throw out the outliers, where the voter went for a beer, LOL.
[/personal opinion]
It would probably be difficult or impossible to really implement this, since variability in server response and download times could introduce as much (or more?) variation than the actual voting patterns.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2004 10:40:35 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
How come drJOnes had more then 210 hour views while I had 20 seconds. Damn I suck :P |
ROTFLMAO!
|
|
|
|
05/24/2004 10:41:56 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
How come drJOnes had more then 210 hour views while I had 20 seconds. Damn I suck :P |
Just as long as the info doesnt go too indepth detail and actually tell us what they were doing while they were looking at the shots!
|
|
|
|
05/24/2004 10:46:22 PM · #7 |
| I hadn't thought about connection speeds... chalk this up as another silly idea. Thanks kindly for the response. |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 10:49:23 PM · #8 |
Oh wow. this is one statistic that would look awesome for me. It takes, on average, between 2 and 5 minutes per picture, just to download (depending on what speed my molasses.net dialup chooses to be), then look at it for a second or two (hahahaha), score, comment perhaps. Like kirbic mentioned, the outliers would have to be thrown out, but with dialup, the actual viewing time probably is an outlying number. if that makes any sense.
It is, in theory, a good idea. But it is one of those things that has so many variables that I don't know that it would be a particularly accurate stat. I think number of views and number of comments gives a better idea of how much the picture was looked at. |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 10:50:42 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Originally posted by faidoi:
How come drJOnes had more then 210 hour views while I had 20 seconds. Damn I suck :P |
Just as long as the info doesnt go too indepth detail and actually tell us what they were doing while they were looking at the shots! |
Ahh, yes, that would come under the heading of "TMI".
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 01:55:14 PM EDT.
