Google Image LabelerThis is a decent game if you want to kill some time. Google pairs you up with a random person and has you both describe a picture. It then uses the list of words the two of you generate to make its image search work better, so you get to make the internet a better place.
Sometimes it will list things that it already knows is in the picture and those words are off limits as guesses. (Though guesses can contain those words.)
View External Link [images.google.com]
Back to Link List
|Jeremy - 8953 Posts|
|I have 18440 points.|
|Matt - Ombudsman|
|8440 so far, plus a current #1 spot on the Today's ranking board (score of 1890).|
|Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist|
|I saw you on there earlier, you were second but still impressive, I never topped the top 300 with anyone.|
|Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'|
If one were to label this picture how would you do it.
I apologize for the low quality, it was off my cell phone and through my office window. It would seem that someone needed to transport a large amount of wire and thought the best way would be to cut the roof halfway off a car and stuff the wire inside it.
|Carlos44ec - www.digi.com|
|Good thing I'm on lunch break, I tried that game and liked it|
|Carlos44ec - Tag This|
|redneck, wire, trailer, crash, car, truck, idiot, jackass, pile|
|Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret|
|Maybe it's because I have my resolution way jacked up, but I can't hardly discern any details of these mostly tiny pics.|
|Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future|
|Also what's with all the pics of random people? Am I supposed to try and guess their name or something? I'm not sure I'm finding these very worthwhile.|
|Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose|
|4010, I quit. I need like a 800 x 600 minimum and I'd rather improve upon pics from a general category than just get random stuff. Plus there was a pick of J-Lo and my partner wasn't all over that, which is unacceptable. I was just looking at the results page and some of these pics actually are a decent size, google must be shrinking them down so that I can't see them. I suppose it's marginally faster that way and gives a more consistent layout, but I say forget people who are on dialup or trying to do this from their cell phone and give me the full size pic if you want a decent description. If there was a link for feedback I might give Google some tips.|
|Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.|
I think it's just that they pull from google's image cache and google compresses the crap out of the pictures to save space. If you look closely when you do an image search on google the pics look fairly crummy too.
The "random" pictures is the whole point. If you do a search for J-Lo you're going to find plenty of options. It's the searches for "Grey car on a trailer with the roof half cut off with wire stuffed in it with 2 parking lots and a road in it," and "red headed mother with a child and a blue balloon" that they want the search improved for.
|Alex - 3618 Posts|
That's great I guess, but who searches for that stuff?
Anyway I don't think you're thinking about the randomness the same way that I was. There was a flower pic and I put "flower" and of course matched. Ok, that's mildly useful. But wouldn't it better if I was say a flower expert and I could chose to only see pics that someone else had previously tagged with the word "flower" and then I could maybe add in the actual type of flower or some other more detailed type flower specifications? Obviously someone still needs to point out the obvious but I'd rather let some 5 year old do that whilst I could concentrate on more detailed descriptions in areas I know more about.
|Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'|
|That would make sense but you need the double blind of a partner to make sure they aren't being mislabeled, plus someone would have to be willing to do "tier 1" tagging so they had any idea what was in the picture to begin with to give it to the "experts". Half the point of the game is that they have no idea what's in the pictures.|
|Jeremy perfected this at 10/09/2007 7:40:32 pm|
|Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear|
However, you do raise a good point...sort of...indirectly...well maybe you're just continuing your resent tear of poo-pooing anything and everything you see .
Like any game in the internet people learn tricks to try an get a high score. Any vertical gray object is the "Great Wall." Any picture involving outer space just gets tagged "space", "stars", or "universe"
It also falls prey to stupid people. My parter wasn't guessing "supernova" on a picture of a supernova so at the buzzer I typed "cell" to see if that's one of the things they put, and it was.
|Alex - 3618 Posts|
|I'm not sure I tried make that point here but I was thinking of making it and I certainly agree. I did it like 5 time and already picked up that if you can't think of anything else just put colors that are in the pic which really isn't too helpful. And the stupid people leads to my point of somehow having categories. Maybe the "stupid person" just doesn't know astronomy but is an expert in something else.|
|Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman|
I just found this while cleaning out my email. If I remember Jon had to answer a questionnaire when he started and they turned in into this paragraph for the intracompany website.
Hilarious, Financial Planner, Welcome Jonathon!, Blue, white, teal, words
|Jeremy perfected this at 10/12/2007 1:32:05 pm|
|Matt - Washington Bureau Chief|
|They spelled his name wrong.|