Okay, now I'm properly insulted . . .

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Troy, NY
this rated 99,6%...
View attachment 124747Evening entertainment by bartjeej, on Flickr

and this rated only 27,4%, even though I personally consider it one of my very best images...
View attachment 124748Mirage by bartjeej, on Flickr

but the choice of words is really rather good indeed. The only flaw is that it sometimes adds names of more-visited locations with similar landscape features (the Himalayas and Morocco, neither of which are correct)

Both these shots made my heart go pitty-pat, but for different reasons. The first, because of the grandeur of the sky and the mountains. The second got better as I zoomed in on it to discover that the right-most object at the top of the dune was a person leading the camels. Cool!

Then I discovered that both were taken with an X100. So now I have to get one of those so I can take good pictures too. :rofl:

Even though I am not a bot, I remain impressed.

Cheers, Jock


Their algorithm seems to be based on too many random factors, rather than a cohesive method for rating images as a viewer would judge them.

So it comes down to an algorithm that people like to throw stuff at, rather than use for its intended purpose.

The developers have a lot of work to do if this was a serious project. Most likely- was done more for fun, without a lot of in-depth analysis.

I can't help it- spent most of the 1980s developing pattern recognition programs for early digital sensors.


Top Veteran
Maritime Canada
Real Name
Thanks for posting this link. It was an interesting read, even if I think the whole premise of such an engine is misguided. I wouldn't trust a bot to recommend a wine, either....

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom