Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2007/Archive

Back

Facebook

I guess we will put press and similar coverage here. So for now I will note that there is a Facebook event ;) -pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

when

>>You need more than 200 edits in a single Wikimedia account before the start of the competition.

I wonder when "the start of the competition" is. Isn't it clearer if it says "by the end of 2007" or "before 1 January 2008" ? --miya 00:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The start of the competition is January 10th. Originally I was thinking we would hold the competition in December, so this made sense. Sorry, I forgot to change it, so I guess it stays for now. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

--Kushan I.A.K.J 16:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wording of e-mailed voting token

Am I the only person who has difficulty working out what is meant by the wording "If you want to change your vote afterwards, you have to request a new invitation. This will not delete your old vote"? My old vote won't be still be counted will it? Is it just warning me that the record of my uncertainties and temporisations will be visible to core members of the committee? William Avery 19:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Round 1 votes

Any way to check the amount of votes the candidates are receiving? Or is this not public knowledge (yet)? Rocket000 05:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The list of voters is here. Vote totals are not likely to be public until the end of the round I think, although I'm not sure. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, but it's not very interesting unless we could see what they voted for. :) Even just a running total would be nice. Maybe it's better this way, but like Alvesgaspar mentioned, there may be less action because of it. Rocket000 09:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a polytical election where you vote in the morning and know the results by night. With no feedback to voters during the 7 days period, the contest will be boring and will have probably little participation -- Alvesgaspar 09:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, it seems we didn't discuss this beforehand.

Won't totals influence voters too much? I thought that was the concern last time.

I don't really mind either way but I don't want to make the wrong decision.. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We would put the totals right in the voting software, or we could just post daily totals to the wiki or commons-l. My feeling is that totals right in the software would be too influencing. What about daily totals, would that be OK? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• It never crossed my mind that a daily report, with a table of results and running totals of voters and votes were not published in the POTY 2007 page. As for attaching the actual votes to each picture, I like the idea but think it should be further discussed. I will not repeat my arguments of last year about the nature of this contest, but please remember that:
  • With more than 500 pictures, many users will do no better than looking at the thumbnails. This will cause an excessive dispersion of votes, unless some feedback mechanism is considered.
  • POTY 2007 is supposed to be fun, not only for the organizers, but also for voters and authors (who are BTW the main contributers). - Alvesgaspar 12:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean a total right in where you vote, I meant a link on the left hand side like the link to the voter record.

Look, we didn't discuss this. I made an assumption one way and you made an assumption the other way. I don't think it means either of us is especially trying to spoil the fun of others. So take it easy: I am not sure what to do, and I only know what you think when you say it.

IIRC you argued against running totals in the 2006 competition because you thought it would influence people too much. So I am confused. Do you want to publish vote totals for each image (or maybe the top 50?), or just "X people voted for Y images"? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • But I always defended running totals! In the last contest, I even maintained a up-to-date record in the contest page (later removed - by yourself? - against my will)!! What I think it should be done is a daily report, containing not only the big numbers (# of voters and # of votes) but also a table with the number of votes per picture. A small gallery with the most voted pictures so far would also be nice.-- Alvesgaspar 14:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What about doing both, at different times? The first, let's say, five days, we could have "X people voted for Y images"; the final two days, we could have totals for the top 50 images. The risk of biasing will be significantly lowered (I think) and it would provoke some excitement to see which images are going to the final or not at the last minute (or maybe not, what do I know :P). Patrícia ^msg 14:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Patricia, there is nothing wrong in influencing people in this kind of contest. This is not a polytical election where we have to chose one person among a few people (remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy!). Keeping the results hidden will cause the dispersion of votes, and passing to the second hand will depend very much on luck. Making the results known will allow interested users to adjust their votes and make them more effective. After all, that is the general culture in Wikipedia, where polls are always open and people can change their votes --Alvesgaspar 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alvesgaspar, because people have unlimited votes I don't think the risk of "dispersed votes" is so big. Nonetheless I think a daily summary like you suggest should be good. It's just that if you don't say from the start what will be public info, people assume everything will be private -- at least that's the assumption I made. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the norm on Wikimedia projects. Openness and transparency are key values. Still, sometimes there's good reason not to share information. I don't think mere numbers will skew the results that much (compared to votes accompanied by rationales à la FPC). Regardless, I think it would encourage more voting in general. And Alvesgaspar, this isn't just Wikipedia and since majority rules in this contest it is pretty democratic. ;) Rocket000 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Let's do it then? Last year it was used this kind of table, together with the total number of voters and votes, but I suppose something more sophisticated is now possible. -- Alvesgaspar 11:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• • OK, I posted this to the mailing list: POTY statistics update. Let me know if there are any other statistics that you think would be interesting and I can do them too. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you, it is nice to see the results. It would be even nicier if all users could see a table with the votes. To do that, it would be first necessary to attribute a number to each picture. I have already done a gallery of the best (here). Maybe it is possible to upgrade it automatically -- Alvesgaspar 16:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• POTY statistics update 12-01-2008. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this should be published in the Results section as it is. I don't have the time to make a table and a gallery everyday by hand and will be away from the web for the weekend -- Alvesgaspar 01:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • I thought that "Results" would be for the final overall results. We don't even have finalists, how can we have results? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• It should be obvious by now that I'm not insisting in publishing running results for my own fun. But if you really don't want to do it, please do as you wish. After all, you are the committee. -- Alvesgaspar 10:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• POTY statistics update 13-01-2008. Alvesgaspar do as you like, I won't revert you. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Rocket000 05:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Credits

In the voting software, this image is credited to the person who cropped it. While I don't deny that the artistic sense also comes in editing, I find that the credits are undue and should be rectified to represent the reality, ie. the author of that pic is someone else entirely, if anything those two are co-authors. Not so tragic, but for the sake of fairness, I think we should be very careful in crediting the images. Cheers notafish }<';> 09:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey notafish, that was a mistake and it's now corrected, thanks. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this into consideration :-) notafish }<';> 15:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I was just wondering about authorship of this image participating in POTY 2007 - i.e. "Broadway tower edit.jpg".

In the image page, I have now been mentioned in "Author"-section as cropper of the image. However, to be honest, I do not recall that I would have done the actual cropping.

When I checked the file logs, I believe that the user who actully cropped the image and uploaded the image which is now participating in POTY 2007 is Yummifruitbat.

True, as can be seen in the nomination page, I suggested cropping the image like it is by supporting it and saying:

"A good one. I just wonder if it would be even better with the man on the left removed. Perhaps it would create a composition where you have a single tower and single human, almost perfectly alligned for about the same distance from the images edges. In any case, deserves support. --Thermos 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"

If suggestion like the one above is considered as participating in creation process, by all means leave my name in the authorship section. However, if such suggestions should not be considered as participating in creation, I am now given credit where no credit is due. --Thermos 14:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Thermos, if you don't think you deserve any credit you are welcome to remove your name from the image page. In the voting software the author now correctly says Newton2. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While suffering from patchy internet connections, I had a time to think about this. If suggestions made within comments were to be considered as participating in creation process for the purposes of sharing credit, we would soon be on a very slippery slope. After all, it would be difficult - to say the least - to draw a line where credits should begin and where they should end. In accordance of this, I have now edited the image page under discussion and replaced my name with the name of Yummifruitbat who according to my understanding, did the actual editing. The funny thing is, that originally I did not even know that my name was on the credits nor how it did end up there...--Thermos 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Crash

For some reason, this pic Image:Asterias.svg kills my firefox every time I try to open it. Bug? notafish }<';> 10:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this the only SVG you have problems with? Works fine for me (Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows Vista). Patrícia ^msg 11:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

notafish, do you mean the image page or the file itself? Both work fine for me on FF 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is the only svg I have problems with. I am on Linux, Firefox 2.0.0.11. And the problem only occurs when I try to get to the end file (I have the display in the wiki window without any problem). notafish }<';> 15:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... works for me too (Firefox). The code looks good. Maybe it's something else. Does Image:Pyrenees topographic map-fr.svg or Image:Kingdom of scotland royal arms2.svg work for you? Rocket000 06:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do, that's the crazy part. Why this ONE svg crashes is beyond me. Oh well, I guess this is going to stay a lonely bug. notafish }<';> 22:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider license in vote

The title say it all. Do we need to consider the type of license in our vote ? Or is it only the aesthetics who matters ? (There is also the work done by a person but I think that the samples are not representatives.) Is it guidelines or is it "as we want" ?

Thanks

Jona 12:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are free to vote for whatever reason you feel like voting :). There are no guidelines. I guess most people will go for the aesthetics, cuteness, etc, but you can vote for any reason you feel it's good. Have fun! Patrícia ^msg 12:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting for own pictures

Just to note that that seems to be allowed this year. --MichaelMaggs 08:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there wasn't an easy way to disallow it and I think it has a minimal impact on the results. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

--Kushan I.A.K.J 16:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Miscategorisation

Probably it's too late, but Image:Bienenwabe mit Eiern und Brut 5.jpg should have been in one of Arthropods sections.

And, the images are so good I actually vote for most of them :/ Nikola 08:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, they are tiny! Thanks for the corrction, but as many people have already voted on the existing arrangement I think it is better to keep it consistent for all voters. And you could probably argue it's a photo of the honeycomb not the grubs... :) --pfctdayelise 00:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

--Kushan I.A.K.J 16:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews:Picture of the Year

Could we add a "See also" for the new Wikinews:Picture of the Year? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess(which you already have), theres no harm since its in WikiMedia!--Kushan I.A.K.J 16:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Registration

I have been an old Wikipedian in Chinese WikipediaReference. When I try to register in the voting, it goes:

Please select your wiki from the following list:

commons

incubator

meta

species

Which should I choose? It seems that those who take part in wikipedia cannot vote without being a member of the four categories, and nobody other than English wikipedians can vote: I found myself denied the right of voting.--Whhalbert 06:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no, you can vote. Just choose "wikipedia.org" first in the second box. Then you will be able to choose the language code "zh" from the first box. Sorry it is a bit confusing. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. I have chosen "wikipedia.org" but there are still the four choices.--Whhalbert 16:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Try again, in the first box the language prefixes should appear...--Kushan I.A.K.J 16:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ok now. Thanks.--Whhalbert 16:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

--Kushan I.A.K.J 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Results

When is there an update of the current results? There´s still 12.01? --217.250.136.164 19:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Daily results are sent to commons-l. You can view the January archive to find the latest. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How should Round 2 progressive results be published?

I propose that we publish results similar to what I have been doing for Round 1, but anonymised. So it would look something like this:

Image A - 50 votes, 5%
Image B - 100 votes, 10%
Image C - 70 votes, 7%

and so on. Each day we use the same letter to refer to the same image, but only once the competition is over do we reveal the link between the letter and the image's real name.

If we do this, then once it is over people can look back and see the progress, but also the surprise of who wins is not spoiled until voting is complete.

Other options:

• Publish nothing until the end
• Publish daily, same as now
• Publish same info as now but less often (eg only once, half way through)
• Something else?

Input is welcome. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the first option. I will not disclose results too early and thus will not bias voters yet will give the sense of the ongoing progress and some thrill. But then it only makes sense to show them in order:

Image B - 100 votes, 10%
Image C - 70 votes, 7%
Image A - 50 votes, 5%

mfx ^Q&A 12:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the order is not a major difference. I can publish both orders. :) pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this suggestion too - in order of % of votes. --MichaelMaggs 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too :). Patrícia ^msg 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

And what about the comments? I could automatically post them to the wiki for each image. One could probably see a little which image is more popular by the number of comments, but since not everybody leaves comments, I think we should not care about that. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha that will make things even more interesting... if people don't go and ruin the surprise telling which picture is which, in their comments... Patrícia ^msg 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the comments would be posted non-anonymised (ie, identified). It we would be too easy to guess which one was which otherwise! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

May we have results by category clearly accessible (round 1)

...that may be nice ;] 61.228.41.153 08:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I think I'll have time to to this this evening. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2007/Results/Round 1/Category totals -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)