where do the big "Views" numbers come from?

once a picture is submitted for critique and receives a certain understandable

number of views and ratings/comments - then where do these other huge numbers

of views come from? i've been here a couple of months and have photos that

have been "viewed" going on 4000 times. generally these extra looks don't

result in many more comments or ratings. and since it would take a lot of work

to track down and actually look at my stuff i'm wondering how these extra

views get generated? i can't imagine people just digging around randomly

through photo.net photos could create such numbers and i know i don't have

that many fans here.

Every hit on the any of the three sizes of the image counts as a view. This includes the thumbnails. So, the view count increases if someone looks at a folder containing the photo, your portfolio, of if the photo is on a Top Photos page.

thanks. this method of counting "views" creates very big numbers and seems to me somewhat deceptive.

The definition we use is quite reasonable: it is the number of hits from our web logs on the image that you uploaded. You thought it was some other definition, although you didn't say what you thought it was. You asked what it did mean. We told you. Other people have asked the same question, and you could have searched the archives and found the same answer. Where is the deception?

i just think the first logical interpretation of "Views" would be to think that people had actually viewed the individual pictures that many times.

It's a deception, actually. Ask a person who is not familiar with photo.net what the number of views represents, and you most likely get the answer "it's the number of times people have looked at this photo". This does <em>not</em> imply the number of times the thumbnail has been displayed together with other thumbnails on the gallery pages, in a folder, portfolio, etc. The intuitive definition for the number of views is that of the number of views of the larger image, i.e. deliberate clicks on the thumbnail.

<p>

A definition of a displayed parameter should be intuitive. If it's not, it should be explained right after the number. It would be okay to list two numbers, one for larger images and another for all views including thumbnail views, e.g.: 31/863 <small>(medium and larger sizes/all including thumbnail).</small>

<p>

I'm surprised to see nobody has fixed this in all the years since photo.net started displaying the number of views.

Is it then not, IT-wise technically, possible to show the number of times people have actually open (clicked) on a specific photo to view the larger full photo? I think this is wat JPZ is asking, i.e. it seems rather logical that someone who has has posted photo A on p.n. would want to know how many people had enough interest in the particular photo to go through the trouble to actually click on it to have a larger view.

No ... it is not by far a difficult programming issue to list the number of hits per individual photo.

 

On the other hand ... in my case, it is opposite. I get ratings, but no views (: ... is this cool or what.

 

So ... when you view an image in the annonymous rating module, it doesn't seem to count in the views no.

The number of views, SHOULD be the number of times someone has looked at the full-sized version of the photo. Maybe PN can set it up that way.