Synonyms have no effect on the number of labels anyway - but they indeed may affect the number of final keywords. As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to run a similar script on the number of final keywords in the metadata (which may be larger due to synonyms and to enabling "Include all parent level labels as keywords").Mike Buckley wrote:No. I also don't embed synonyms in the image file.Mike Buckley wrote:do you have the "Also assign its parents" option enabled in your labels?
You're correct that I use the David Reicks controlled vocabulary. The reason I'm so compulsive about assigning catalog labels is that I enjoy making theme-based slide shows.
That's a very good reason.
Actually, inviting family & friends to show them a circular-red-themed slideshow seems like a very cool (and artsy) idea. Believe me: I'm only half-joking here!As an example, If I want to show photos of circular red objects, I can easily make that happen, not that I've ever done that.
Hi Andrey, thanks for the invitation - but I'm going to decline for now, since my current results would not be useful (even to me):Andrey_Ra wrote:I'm still waiting for more reports. vlad, how about to participate in survey?
1) I have many imported images which are not yet cataloged at all.
2) I don't (extensively) label all the images that I import, review and archive - only certain selections (collections). (I know, that's weird.)
3) I'm considering some labelling strategy changes (aka: forever experimenting )
This said, let me tell you kudos for writing such a cool script and promptly updating the graphs, it's interesting to look at them! From what I gather, the label number distribution for most people is close to normal (gaussian) and peaking somewhere around 3 to 6 labels, followed by a long tail to the right. (Actually, I think that's called a log-normal distribution.) It's funny, because the only exception so far seems to be Hert, which has a completely different graph: it shows a logarithmic distribution, with a vast majority of single-label images and then exponentially decreasing percentages as the number of labels gets higher. Just wondering: is this a case in point of less is more? (I largely agree with this principle myself - I just find it hard to apply it in practice! )
A diagram with a single synthetic graph, displaying the overall label number distribution based on all the individual distributions (percentages), would be very useful too!