Slashdot Mirror
Flickr Patenting "Interestingness"
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*
They're not patenting tagging, and there's no reason to think you can't use tags if the patent is accepted. The patent may be really stupid, but if we're going to get editorial comments, can they at least make sense?
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
So basically, nobody else can use tags to label files. Totally original thinking from the folks at flickr. *cough*
;)
No, it just means you can't tag a file "interesting"
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
For those unfamiliar with Flickr, it's owned by Yahoo, who just loves them some patents.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
*sees army of Flickr lawyers*
On second thought...
Don't you just love how many of these companies go about patenting an idea (or similar idea) that is already used by the masses. This is such a joke, next thing you know (providing the patent is upheld) Yahoo will start suing folks like Amazon and our beloved Slashdot for patent infringement. Most people wouldn't even consider patenting something that is already, to some degree, "common knowledge". I thought the whole purpose of patenting was to protect intellectual property that has yet to be implemented or conceived. Hmmmm...I guess I'm just totally wrong in that assumption.
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 ?
By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
Tags are only a part of the interestingness. They want to patent a method for looking at patterns of popularity over time.
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.
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?
Or at least mod points?
I'm not sure whether it's (or should be) patentable, but Flickr Intestingness is definitely a novel and, er, interesting concept. It's widely misunderstood even by hardcore Flickr-ites.
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.
At last we have the perfect /. article, since the vast majority of posters never RTFA anyway: an article that's completely summed up in the title of the /. post.
/. post, either! I'd call that real progress. Congrats, BoingBoing on a job well done!
Think of it, guys. Not only don't you have to read the article, but you don't need the
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
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
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Slshdot is kicking itself for not patenting its moderation system?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact