Slashdot Log In
Flickr Patenting "Interestingness"
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Nov 08, 2006 09:12 AM
from the yeah-thats-unique dept.
from the yeah-thats-unique dept.
tjcrowder noted that Boing Boing is reporting that Flickr has filed for a patent on a system for determining "interestingness". From the patent application abstract:
"Media objects, such as images or soundtracks, may be ranked according to a new class of metrics known as "interestingness." These rankings may be based at least in part on the quantity of user-entered metadata concerning the media object, the number of users who have assigned metadata to the media object, access patterns related to the media object, and/or a lapse of time related to the media object." So basically, nobody else can use tags to label files. Totally original thinking from the folks at flickr. *cough*
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
umm... no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
MOD PARENT INTERESTING (Score:2, Funny)
On second thought...
Re:umm... no? (Score:4, Insightful)
I really wish Slashdot would stop doing this. Taking a patent, making the most ludicrous assumptions about the scope, and then criticising these assumptions as ludicrous. It doesn't help. It undermines the anti-patent argument.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In any event, anyone who's used Flickr knows that interestingness has nearly nothing to do with tagging and is almost entirely influenced by how many views, comments, and adding to Favorites (which, I suppose, could be considered "tagging" in some sense, even though it's completely separate from the list of tags) by other users. And not getting added to the interestingness blacklist by posting to certain Groups that t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's an interesting hobby. maybe I should give it a go.
Edward Jenner invents vaccination, thus erradicating smallpox, and paving the way to the elimination of many other fatal diseases.. Slashdot commment: Well, any idiot knows you'll catch something if you touch diseased cows.
James Watt invents steam engine. Slashdot comment: My kettles been boiling over for decades!
Newton realises that gravity is responsi
Re: (Score:2)
I'll come in here and see "China and US about to wage war", only to RTFA and find out that some drunken Chinese diplomat said that he'd kick some guys ass if he didn't quit staring at him
Read the blasted CLAIMS of the patent, Taco... (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Specifically, they seem to read the abstract of the patent--or even a third-party summary of the abstract--and fixate on one or two words from it, and say, "OH NOES THEIR TRYING TO PATENT TAGGING!!11!!!" or, "I have prior art for that! I saw someone with a tagging system back in '95!" when the actual claims for the patent (you know, the part that says what's actually patented) say something quite different, very specific, and not particularly worrying at all. Or even when they say something quite different, overly broad, and somewhat worrying...it still doesn't help, because you're arguing a completely different issue.
I am as distressed with the real broken state of patent law in this country as most others here...but the way in which it is treated is, as you say, very counterproductive. It would be very nice if there were some kind of standards for acceptance of such articles--and, though I'm generally not too critical of the editors, it would be much nicer if they would pay enough attention so as to not make completely worthless and off-base comments when they post them. Commenting is fine, just make it an informed, useful, and correct comment.
And no, before you ask, I'm not new here, I'm just annoyed.
Dan Aris
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I'd settle for them being made down here with the rest of us commoners, where they can live or die on their own merits, rather than being made up there, in the lofty heights of The Summary, untouchable and unaccountable.
Commentary wrong ;) (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it just means you can't tag a file "interesting"
Re: (Score:2)
Yahoooooo. (Score:4, Informative)
Captain Obvious Strikes Again (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's an oversimplified summary. (Score:5, Informative)
Part of their patent has claims on methodology, and part on a computer program designed to make use of that methodology (to cover the implementation requirement, I'm sure). And as I was reading just the initial page, I could imagine a pseudoequation forming in my head using the variables of time, popularity, content, etc.
I'm no patent attorney, but this sure sounds like trying to patent an algorithm. Not tags.
Now, whether they should do this is a good topic for debate -- but let's make sure we at least know what they're doing before debating it.
Striking back at Flickr (Score:2)
Anyone who feels like sending a message to Flickr, join my new down with the interestingness patent [flickr.com] protest group.
(Not that anyone will listen, really, but...)
What an idiotic link! (Score:3, Informative)
That's it? WTF? Why not just directly link to the patent office and skip the ad-ridden Boing Boing link in the first place?
Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
Think of it, guys. Not only don't you have to read the article, but you don't need the
Parent
Shouldn't slashdot be patenting this, or atleast.. (Score:2, Funny)
Interestingness is ... interesting (Score:4, Informative)
As far as I understand, an "Interestingness" score is derived from hits, referrers, tags, pool membership, comments and where comments come from, "favourite" tags and other things. The weighting is constantly being tweaked, and Interestingness changes over time because (for example, and hypothetically) a recent comment is more valuable than an old comment.
A number of great photographers get upset because they take high quality photographs which get lower Interestingness scores than pictures they perceive as having less merit. But Interesting is not about quality or merit. That's why it's not called "quality" or "merit". It's called "interestingness", meaning "cool stuff you might not have seen before".
That's why (again, for example and hypothetically) the tags "cat" or "baby" or "flower" are likely to have a negative impact on Interestingness. You can take the greatest baby picture ever, it's still not going to be interesting to most people, because Flickr is flooded with baby pictures.
In summary - it's cool, it's clever, it's more than just tagging, and it's novel.
I'd rather it wasn't patented but, hey, that's life.
What's a patent about... (Score:2)
So when we check whether it makes sense, we check the claims.
1. An apparatus for determining an interestingness rank for at least one media object, comprising: logic for accepting at least one metadatum concerning the at least one media object from at least one user; and logic for ranking the at least one media object based at least in part on the quantity of user-entered metadata concerning the at least one media object.
Sure, my computer does not infringe as long as I don't have
Sour grapes... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What ?
You mean that the measuringness of the popularityness of the interestingness of a something has a truthiness value of accuracyness that's not relevantlynessy enough for you ?
Unless an asteroid hits. (Score:2)
It reminds me a little of another industry that was one the 'crown jewel' of the U.S. economy: the automobile industry. The unions and management never seemed to stop and take a look around, even as most of their jobs and business moved to non-union factories in Asia (which, in addition to being cheaper, produced an arguably superior p