Title v.s. Description
|
February 20, 2006, 05:31 AM
|
|
So I uploaded a picture (cedervalePark.jpg) with a description (blah).
When I do a search I get back a hit with title=blah.
Did the original picture name disappear?
If it did (and I can't find it on the photo page) then I would prefer the search to return title="".
Maybe the description in upload should show up as a comment? This would seem more in line with the behaviour of the flickr API, despite the fact that 23/flickr use "description" to mean different things.
Adam
|
| |
|
Team 23
February 20, 2006, 07:10 AM
|
|
Yup, we do indeed use the description differently from flickr -- simply because we don't make the distinction between title and descripion: Either you add words/text to your photo or you don't. To us, the difference between title and desc is too blurry, and frankly it doesn't make much sense when organizing. So that's the background.
For the flickr api implementation though, we needed to include both title and desc parameter, and the description becomes "words" in our vocabulary, while titles are stored but not shown. Basically, titles can only be added through the api, and while they're searchable they never really shown.
About the "original filename": It's stored elsewhere but for some reason it wasn't included in the search algorithm. That's been changed now. Only new photos will be indexed like this, but you can trigger a new indexing of old photos but changing some of the words.
Hope that carifies matters,
Steffen
|
| |
|
|
February 20, 2006, 07:21 AM
|
|
The behaviour is clear, I'm just trying to convice you not to send me the description in the title field of a search result.
It seems I didn't succeed...
A
|
| |
|
Team 23
February 28, 2006, 02:28 PM
|
|
But if we didn't combine queries for titles and descriptions to "words" it would break text components in a lot of other situations.
Ideas for how to get the best of the two worlds.
|
| |
|
|
February 28, 2006, 06:46 PM
|
|
I'm not sure I understand what other things it would break.
Despite all the talk about words v.s. title v.s. description, the fact is that by flickr definitions, which seem appropriate as we are trying to duplicate thier api, 23 doesn't have a title. There is no short, concise string that I can easily label a thumbnail with.
That's fine. Your decision, not sure I agree, but hey.
But don't give me 10 paragraphs of description when I expect a title. I'm asking for a label I can use, not the words. I would be surprised if any users of the API (porting from flickr anyway) would be able to use the title in the form we're getting it.
Probably a moot point, as flickr's titles are generally meaningless for labelling thumbnails anyway.
Of topic, but to the list of things to change add:
- in the forum, when I reply, show me the message I'm replying to, not the first message. Currently, I get confused.
Adam
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
March 01, 2006, 01:22 PM
|
|
suggestion. we could put the first 30-50 characters from our "words" - ie. the description field in the flickr api and put that into the title field?
|
| |
|
|
March 01, 2006, 04:30 PM
|
|
I'm truncating the title value now anyway, as even flickr's titles are sometimes too long.
I'd say don't make any changes to this on my account, wait until you hear from some other developers.
I'd make a note of this on the "porting from flickr" page though...
A
|
| |
|
