 |
Hello Barbyr -
Your answer will likely come from Cyanocorax, one of the moderators. For now my understanding is that the photos will be reorganized beginning in January. The moderators will also arrange for authentication before images are placed with the information sheets.
Hope this helps and Happy Holidays,
Robertsphotos
Postato 3 settimane fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
i'm not sure I understand your issue with the images used barbyr? Are you saying the tree species photos are showing incorrect identifications or something else? the initial images will have come from one of eol's data partners (eg for fish, I think the images currently used are from fishbase).
Postato 3 settimane fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
Barbyr, you've asked a bunch of good questions.
First, we have seeded the pages with content from particular partners but there are hundreds more on our list (and undoubtedly others who haven't yet offered or been contacted yet). We're trying to set up the technology so that the process of partnering and sharing will be relatively easy, but we are quite serious about ensuring that our partners are aware of what we want to do with their content.
Second, the Flickr photos will begin to be displayed on EOL very soon (hint: weeks, not months). We've been completely re-doing the code underlying our site, and pulling from this Flickr group is part of that. However, as we've mentioned in the group description, the images have to be vetted by curators before they are considered "authenticated." I'll correct Robertsphotos a bit -- the images will be displayed before they are authenticated, but not by default. To see the Flickr images you'll have to set your EOL preferences to show ALL content, not just authenticated content.
Third, we will be testing out the curator functions starting next month but it will take a long time to sign up enough curators to get everything reviewed. In the meantime, we'll continue to gather together both vetted and unvetted content from as many sources as we can.
I'm not sure what you mean "with no regard for documentation." If you want to see the partners we've already signed agreements with, go to this page: eol.org/content/page/data_partners. There are a bunch of others I'm working with, and if you have suggestions, please Flickr mail me or suggest them in the EOL Forum. Keep in mind that there are some partners who would like to share content with us but need to use more restrictive licenses than we allow.
For more info on the plans for the future, see eol.org/content/page/plans_policies.
Postato 3 settimane fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
I'm wondering how the curators are going to be able to verify the identity of species via photographs only. As we all know, the vast majority of organisms must be examined first-hand, especially the arthropods. Should we begin collecting specimens to go along with our photographs?
What about plants? Are the experts going to be able to verify the identity of photographs taken at unknown times at unknown locations? I would assume the EOL will not fall into the Wikipedia trap of taking anyone's word as to identity or suitability. Will curators rule by consensus or by scientific oversight or both?
Will we (the general public) be privy to the curatorial criteria used to identify various species?
Imho, setting your EOL preference to "all content" defeats the whole purpose. "All content" already exists in the billions of web pages we can all wade through right now. If EOL becomes a giant repository of (duplicate) unverified Flickr junk, it will be an astounding waste of time. We don't need another Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons.
Postato 3 settimane fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
Bruce raises valid points but I presume the verification is going to be done by the curators and it will have to be by a demonstrated level of expertise. Entomologists know that there are photos of insects out there that cannot be identified even if one had the specimens because they have not been studied. I can provide such photos!
Postato 3 settimane fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
I think that if a species cannot be clearly identified by a photo, it should be placed in a more general classification like genus or family. Hopefully the contributors here on flickr will do that so the curators will not.
Postato 3 settimane fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
|
Iya, that makes sense. There will be some trial and error.
Bruce, you probably won't want to set your EOL preference to "all content." The Flickr images will at least be subject to two levels of review -- we can weed out some in this group through some moderation, and the curators at EOL will also be able to reject some, or perhaps (eventually) rate them low.
The better documented images should rise to the top. Will be interesting to see how many species end up with Flickr photos as the exemplar, and how many from scientific databases and literature.
Postato 3 settimane fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
Pictures are now Online at www.eol.org
www.eol.org/search?q=Cyanopica&search_image=&sear...
Postato 10 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
Does this apply to all images ? I searched mine and could not find them...
Postato 5 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
I found most of my pics!
Postato 5 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
I did a search for several of my images and none showed up, then, Aha!.
On the EOL site I used the slider bar on the lower left to show all information. Most of the images from Flickr are not reviewed, so do not show up at the default setting, which is "show authoritative information only". The "show authoritative only" appears to be the default setting.
Postato 5 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
|
The ones of mine I looked for are there!
Postato 4 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
|
Few things :
1. Is there a delay between posting here and appearing in EOL (ie is the Flickr database accessed in real time or harvested periodically ?)
2. I still cannot see any of mine, e.g. Coral crab :
3. Does has something to do with tags. I have only put the taxonomy.binomial tag as recommended : "taxonomy:binomial=Etisus spendidus".
4. In EOL, where does one have to click to go to the image. Clicking on the Flickr links goes to the group not to the image or to the author, but not to the image itself which would be nice.
Originariamente postato il 4 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
danielguip ha modificato questo topic 4 giorni fa.
|
 |
Hi danielguip,
Thanks for posting! I checked your coral crab photo and noticed that the current license does not allow derivative works. I believe that to be served on EOL, your photo must permit derivative works. There's a bit more about that here, in the Changing Licenses thread www.flickr.com/groups/encyclopedia_of_life/discuss/721576...
Currently, the Flickr database will be harvested periodically, rather than accessed in real time.
Postato 3 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
|
Thanks zoozyh
I changed the licence to derivatives (well hopefully, if you can check again) and will see how to goes...
Postato 3 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
|
Most of my few photos appear to be making it onto the main site. There are some I can't find though. If I only have a genus tag on the image it doesn't seem to be making it onto the site. For example, this image I only know the genus so only included that tag and I couldn't find it on the site: www.flickr.com/photos/24918962@N07/2856846681/in/pool-enc...
Maybe I am doing something wrong with my non-binomial tags?
Postato 3 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
Hi Folks,
1. The images are harvested on a periodic basis (we are still nailing down the timeframe), so it won't be instantaneous. The reasoning is that the script to determine what's new and what's changed and then pull everything down can take an hour or more, so we don't want to it run it too often. Perhaps in the future, we will strike up a formal relationship with Flickr to make this process instant and/or on-demand.
2. cotinis is correct about the slider-setting to view all images -- the default is "authoritative", which leaves off the unreviewed Flickr images. If you have an EOL account, you can set your default to "all" so when you log in, you will go back to the all setting.
3. We do our best to match to pages based on the machine tags provided, but it won't always be perfect.
Thanks for the interest and we're really happy to start the process of including all your great images. We'll improve the process as we along and learn what works and what doesn't.
Postato 2 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
About one quarter of the images in the group pool have problems that might result in EOL not being able to display them. Issues include licenses, no taxonomy machine tags, misspelled machine tags (there are 20 different misspellings of taxonomy and 10 different misspellings of binomial), and problems with quotation marks in machine tags. You can review potential problems with the tags associated with images that you have contributed to the group pool at http://www.aa3sd.net/qc_test/eol_contributors.php, (select QC Report for your Flickr username from the list there).
Postato 2 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
Paul
I am concerned with the QC of licences. All my pics (and it seems those of many other contributors) are rejected as All Rights Reserved and therefore unusable, but I am sure mine have been filed under "Creative Commons - Attribution" or am I misunderstanding the table?
John
Postato 2 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
|
John,
I'm seeing six john_amend_all2000 photos in the group pool, the QC tool is reporting all six as being "All Rights Reserved", and looking at each of these 6 images in Flickr, for example, Yellow Vented Bulbul, I am indeed seeing the license as some rights reserved, CC-By, so if you haven't changed the license of these images in the last couple of days, then there is indeed a bug in QC tool (if you have changed the licenses in the last couple of days, then, the changes won't have shown up yet, as I haven't run the tool to harvest the image metadata since Jan 10th, like EOL's own harvester, it takes more than an hour to run).
The cached database record from Jan 10th that the QC tool is reporting from has a value of "0"=all rights reserved for the license for this image, but the rest of the data look correct (the QC reporting tool is correctly reporting on what it thinks the license is). Today, the Flickr API is returning license="4" (=CC-By) for that image (meaning that either the license has changed, or the harvesting part of the tool has a problem, or the Flickr API isn't consistent in reporting the licenses). I'm re-harvesting the QC report data to see if it comes up with the correct values for your photos, and so far, it appears to have, marking this image as license="4" (=CC-By). If you haven't changed the licenses for your images since Jan 10th, let me know as there may be a problem related to harvesting lots of data through the Flickr API.
-Paul
Following up on this with John, we haven't got a good explanation for why the metadata were inconsistent. He was saving changes at around the time I was harvesting metadata, but doesn't think the changes involved the licenses at that point. If anyone else sees an inconsistency in their photo metadata in the quality control tool that isn't simply a reflection of when the quality control tool harvested the photo metadata, please let me know. It is possible that there is some kind of rare event with the Flickr API that would result in a harvester obtaining incorrect data (such as updating photos through an uploading tool at the same time as a harvester is collecting metadata about those photos).
Originariamente postato il 2 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
Paul J. Morris ha modificato questo topic 31 ore fa.
|
 |
Paul,
thanks for quality control. The report gave me 4 misspellings which are now corrected. Furthermore, I've now the assurance that my photos are found at least by EOL since they are not included in the Flickr Search database whatsoever the reason may be.
cheers, peter
Postato 2 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
 |
What is the logic for excluding "No derivatives"?
Postato 2 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
|
jansand:
The "no derivatives" issue was mentioned in a post somewhere by an admin. (cyanocorax, here). See comments:
[(CC-BY-NC-ND)]Good question. EOL's steering committee feels very strongly that this license is too restrictive. They want EOL to place as few conditions as possible on the information we serve.
Postato 2 giorni fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
|
Paul
Thanks for your trouble. It all looks fine now.
John
Postato 31 ore fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
|
This really works great now.... Congrats
(Hey Paddy, this Flickr idea was no too bad.... a bit early maybe...).
PS : The script is great. One useful addition maybe to spot mispelled species names that are not in the EOL list (I just spotted one by going to EOL).
Originariamente postato il 31 ore fa.
(
link permanente
)
danielguip ha modificato questo topic 31 ore fa.
|
 |
I don't see my name in the QC report (I only put up one test image). Does that mean it didn't find my image or that everything is fine with it?
Thanks,
tim
Postato 24 ore fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
|
I just looked at my photo again. I think I hadn't added it to the EOL group. (I think) I have now. When does the report get updated.
Sorry for the trouble ;)
--t
Postato 24 ore fa.
(
link permanente
)
|
Vorresti inserire un commento?
Registrati per un account gratuito oppure entra (se sei già utente).
|
Encyclopedia of Life Images /
Discuti
Feed – Partecipa ai thread di discussione di Encyclopedia of Life Images
Il blog di Flickr |
A proposito di Flickr |
Condizioni di utilizzo |
La tua privacy |
Proprietà Intellettuale | Segnala un abuso
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. Tutti i diritti riservati.
