Sort by number of responses?

[daveleo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think that there is a "sort by number of responses" or better yet a "response per viewers" option over in the photo forum.

 

Am I right?

[andybarton]

There is only one Forum. The software is the same wherever you are on it.

 

There is no means of determining a response per viewers ratio, apart from doing it manually. It doesn't actually tell you very much, to be honest. Some threads have multiple posts which just say "Thank you", for example.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[daveleo]

thanks, i figured that was the sad answer.

 

i wanted to dig through the past postings and admire what went on before i got here . . . i started to do that but the # of posted photos is killing . . . too bad . . . so much good stuff buried there.

 

 

 

addendum . . . i assume it's a tough job to write that algorythm (?) into the software . . . of course . . . nothing is easy (why should it be? )

Edited December 22, 2010 by daveleo

[pop]

There is a sorting option in each subforum. You will find it at the lower left hand side of each page within a subforum. You can, for instance, sort by number of replies.

 

Having said that, I fail to see how this aids you in wading through the treasures hidden in the old threads. The overwhelming number of pictures to look at will remain the same. Also, I'm not sure if the number of hits or replies is a useful measure to tell the threads with the good pictures from the bad ones.

[daveleo]

There is a sorting option in each subforum. You will find it at the lower left hand side of each page within a subforum. You can, for instance, sort by number of replies.

 

Having said that, I fail to see how this aids you in wading through the treasures hidden in the old threads. The overwhelming number of pictures to look at will remain the same. Also, I'm not sure if the number of hits or replies is a useful measure to tell the threads with the good pictures from the bad ones.

 

thanks for that Philipp.

 

Yeh . . . it's a "soft" corellation for sure (replies / view ratio) but it's better than nothing I guess. I sort by # of replies, do a mental check of replies/views as I scan down and open the higher "grades". It's working not too bad.

 

Can also sort by who posted the image, and that helps enormously !

Don't know what "thread rating" means.

 

 

There's some great bones buried in the archives.

Edited December 23, 2010 by daveleo

[pop]

Thread rating: You can "rate" each thread by giving "marks" or "scores".

 

The controls to do so are on top of each page showing the thread, mysteriously called "Rate Thread".

 

The average rating a thread received is shown in the subforum containing the thread and takes the form of a number of asterisks. More is better, as expected.

 

It's a very shaky "metric", particularly in the German language subforums.

[Marquinius]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I thought along that line as well for a while, but it leads you to nowhere. In fact I'm often turning it around now and go for the photos with just one or two (or best even zero) remarks. The other thing I do, is whenever I bump into a winner, I check the statistics under that persons name for threads started. That gives you an immediate entrance into all of the published photos.

 

Now what would in my opinion be a GREAT tool, is something that filters out all comments shorter than one sentence and leaves you the longer ones. That would at least give you some added value, as you may conclude that if someone's taking more time to write, it surely must be about something. In all honesty, I like it when people simply state that they like my photos, but I cherish the real comments. Even if they are critical: we are a little shy of that on this forum.