sjmurray Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 <p>On the 15th of this month, four days ago I posted a snapshot of my daughter and granddaughter. I've posted numerous images of them individually before and usually over a month or so I might see 50 to 150 views of those images when I put them in the Photo Critique Forum. For some reason, this particular image now has generated over 7000 views! It had probably 2000 views by the second day. I'm not looking for more views here, or a critique, or praise, etc., just a possible explanation of why this image is clicked on by so many people. If you look at the Gallery under "Top Rated Photos" for the Past Month, sorted by "# of Photo Views" you will see this image and a variety of completely unrelated images from an amputee kicking a soccer ball to a photo of a rabbit. Interestingly, the next page is all nudes. My own theory is that when my daughter and granddaughter are together like this, candid, and showing a genuine connection, it strikes a chord in people. Individual shots are fine, but "connection" is something all people need. Interesting that another photo on this page is a mother holding her baby. I work in the field of mental health and addiction and there is more and more research and discussion about the basic need we all have for connection and "bonding" and the growing lack of genuine connection in our modern fast paced industrialized, computerized culture, resulting in growing rates of depression and addiction. Why do you think my photo has been viewed so much?</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJHingel Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 <p>Steve, you, yourself, formulate well the reasons behind those many clicks, as far as I can see.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williams_gallery Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 <p>Hard to say Steve, although I completely agree that people really need that connection to heal. I also work in D&A and feel that cognition really takes a back seat to stronger, mid-brain processes and instincts, which is why you can't talk someone out of addiction. Perhaps your photo is doing that for some people - they aren't sure why they like it but they like it. When viewing work people are constantly projecting onto an image and making their own meaning from it so you'll probably never know what "struck the chord," and it is probably not a singular reason to begin with. I would just be pleased so many people took the time to view the image! Keep up the good fight - most people don't need psych meds, they need connection, and photography can be part of that. </p> <p>Matt<br> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_s Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 <p>It's a good photo, although the background's a little busy. Lighting is nice and the color rendition looks like Portra-- was it shot on film?</p> <p>That said, with 7000 views, I suspect Steve is correct though. I wonder if many of those views were non-human accessions for some reason. I'm reminded of that bizarre Polish site that used to mirror photo.net word for word, including the ads-- I don't know if it's still around. It could be some remote computer is just accessing your photo repeatedly.</p> <p>If anyone has doubts about the ability of photo.net to be embarrassed by external spambots, there's over 100 Chinese spam messages in my 'unified view' this morning, and they continue to pour in.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 <p>A Google search for "Jennifer and Iris yoga" gets you on page two of the results. I didn't try variations on that combo to see if I could move you to page one.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted March 21, 2016 Author Share Posted March 21, 2016 <p>Thanks for the responses folks. Dave, I had thought that maybe this photo was in a forum that I was not aware of. As for non-human views, why? I have other photos of these two separately and together, with the usual number of views. Julie, you had to type in their names to get a google response, so I don' t believe people are just searching for that. Dave, the camera was a Nikon D7100, iso 3200 with a 28mm f 2.8 lens. Jenny was doing yoga stretches and Iris was on her back (I posted a couple of these in the Nikon forum Wednesday pics thread this week). Completely candid snapshots. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member69643 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 <p>There's no explanation. I suspect it's NOT actual views. Some robotic entity happened to pick your image. As far as high numbers of view, check this one out:</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/photo/637256</p> <p>5701477 "views". Yes, over 5 million. I rather think not, but only the computer knows for sure.</p> <p>7000? Bah! Come back when you're over the million mark.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 <p>My first month on PN, one of my photos (a mediocre one at best) received thousands of views, dozens of rates, and got an average of about 6.7 out of 7 on the rating scale, vaulting it to the top of the top-rated-photos page. I learned then to ignore the PN numbers systems. It was a good, early lesson to learn. </p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erwin_schaefer Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 <p>I firmly believe it's delicately mischievous look on your granddaughter that's making it happen. Many child photographers would stand on their head to achieve something like that. I have posted something similar of my daughter in the "I is for" No Words forum. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted March 21, 2016 Author Share Posted March 21, 2016 <p>Well, I am suspicious because another photo with over 7000 recent views is a rather average picture of a rabbit. Go figure. Maybe there are some robitics at play here. Fred, I was't actually gloating at all over the numbers, just wondering how or why so many people viewed it. I have many more photos I would rather people noticed, for sure! I usually don't pay much attention and I stopped asking for ratings years ago. Erwin, I have other very cute photos of Iris with more typical number of views, so I don't know what's going on. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 <p>Steve, I know you weren't gloating. I was merely answering your question and not suggesting you were gloating. Sorry if it came across differently to you.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted March 22, 2016 Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 <p>I still like my original idea, that it is "connection" that people are longing for and are drawn towards. But, realistically, its probably some "robotic entity" as Patrick mentions. After all, the picture of the rabbit now has over 8000 views! Fred, sorry about the misunderstanding. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supriyo Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 <p>It could be genuine, or a robot or a software flaw. For example, this image <a href="/photo/18189697">http://www.photo.net/photo/18189697</a> garnered 1000+ views within 2/3 hours, which is absurd of course. Then I realized I had kept the page open in iphone as a visitor (not logged in). Iphone probably refreshes the page or does 'something' which PN server registers as views. Closing the webpage in iphone stopped the mad views.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 <p>Interesting Supriyo. I don't have a smart phone so that wouldn't be the problem, but I believe it is some kind of software glitch. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 <p>Could it be that it was a computer Glitch ? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 <p>Well it took this thread to alert me there's an actual view count of one's photos in their PN gallery by clicking on the Details tab of the image in question. Sheesh! And after ten years as a paying member. When did they put a view count in the Detail panel? I don't ever remember seeing it, but then I don't often look at my own gallery photos.</p> <p>I just checked my numbers on a few of my gallery photos and they appear to be a normal between 50 and 200 views and I thank you for making me realize that, Steve.</p> <p>Been wanting to say this about your images of your daughter Jenny, Steve, but she just has a very interesting and unique face. I started out as a cartoonist/caricaturist in my youth so I studied a lot of people's faces in my years and still do.</p> <p>She looks like she walked out of a Vermeer painting. Like she came from another time in history. I have no idea if that had anything to do with the high view count though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted March 27, 2016 Author Share Posted March 27, 2016 <p>Thanks Tim. I've of course been photographing Jenny since she was a baby. I don't know what's going on with the inflated number of views this particular photo has though. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saadsalem Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Thank you Steve for this post.I have a similar high view on one of my images, 1422 views in two days,and the image wasn't even sent to critiques or rating,it just sit im its own folder in my portfolio in the 17th of this month,I checked it right now amd the views have increased to above 1700,I have posted it to another site and asked your same question here,I have got only two replys that is totally irrelevant. Now my mind was so opne to the possibilities, whic are totally irrelevant to me or to the image itself(The bulb and window). Thank you again for the relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 <p>A related issue I've observed on YouTube view counts is there seems to be an inconsistency within the same artist's work of certain '70's musical group's top 40 hits.</p> <p>For example I've rediscovered Electric Light Orchestra hits after being away from listening to my one Greatest Hits CD I bought 20 years ago. One hit will get a million YouTube views and the comments show most are of folks that were teens in the '70's while quite a few are new to this music. Another hit is posted and only gets less than 100,000 while most of the comments appear to be from folks new to the music and asking "How can this song only get 100K views". </p> <p>What I'm curious about is if there is a way by utilizing some type of image hosting site algorithm to find out if one's image is linked to another site and can be traced to that site without having to resort to a Google image search. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 <p>BTW, this image now has almost 13,000 views! </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saadsalem Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Steve,lucky the image and your daughter to viewed 13K, mine have stopped to be viewed after 1.4K.while every thing have been said, I am thinking of someone have linked the image to an article somewhere else,otherwise this phenomenon is unexplained by the current photo sites depression other than 500px and to a lesser extent 1x.com Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karljohnston Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 <p>Can you share some views with some of us who do not have any? ha </p> <p>I agree with the connection between mother and daughter aspect. It's also very candid, and very real. A lot of photography we see in social media is so polished, but this is like a regular snap that I had as a kid. That went in a family album, bought from a pharmacy. Nothing special but raw, and beautiful in that regard. Nostalgic. Not like now, everything is so well put together - family photographs are so polished, with low depth of field and intricate lighting. Even as amateurs, we tend to overgloss. I find this photograph more because it isn't all of that. It's natural</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now