Survey: How many labels you usually assign to the photo?

[Mike Buckley]

Looking at the code of your v2 script (I didn't run it yet), I would say that that script gives a more reliable result than the first one. This because when people select versioned image with main images together (for the v1 script) then those labels will be counted double...main and every version. This v2 script on,y looks at main versions which is better.

I'm not sure, but I think I used the V1 script. Understanding the intent of the thread, I intentionally applied the script only to my Main versions, not all versions.

[Andrey_Ra]

This v2 script on,y looks at main versions which is better.

I have checked this now and you was right (surprise! ). It is funny because mainly it is the indirect result . I'm just looked the way of how to omit my requirement of selecting images and found some code in repository. But if you found this better - I will stay it without changes.

Ps. I think I see a bug in the v2 script when the progress is cancelled. Either just break and not free there or free and exit instead of break.

Corrected. Thanks. (But cancellation of the process is not works, somehow).

[Andrey_Ra]

The key indicates that the yellow line represents the "average." If you change the key, all will be well. Rather than use the term, "summarized," perhaps use the term, "total." However, I don't know anything about statistics so "summarized" technically might be more accurate.

Oh. My bad. (I missed this when copied diagrams). Now I've corrected this.
PS. Many thanks for compliments , I appreciate it.

[gcoupe]

Here are my numbers:

Info
----
Frequency of number of assigned Labels for selected 57709 images:
0 Labels: 3870 ( 7%)
1 Labels: 7880 (14%)
2 Labels: 16538 (29%)
3 Labels: 16332 (28%)
4 Labels: 8905 (15%)
5 Labels: 2847 ( 5%)
6 Labels: 873 ( 2%)
7 Labels: 300 ( 1%)
8 Labels: 99 ( 0%)
9 Labels: 38 ( 0%)
10 Labels: 23 ( 0%)
11 Labels: 0 ( 0%)
12 Labels: 0 ( 0%)
13 Labels: 3 ( 0%)
14 Labels: 1 ( 0%)
15 Labels: 0 ( 0%)
16+ Labels: 0 ( 0%)

The count of images with zero labels is skewed high mainly because of two factors:
- RAW images mostly don't get metadata added to them (the JPG version does)
- Photos taken on my smartphone are copied to a folder included in the folders tracked by the catalog. From there, photos are copied to my main folder hierarchy and metadata added to the JPG versions.

[Maxometr]

Вот мои результаты, только еще 446 необработанных фото. Всего фотографий 9621

Инфо
--------
Frequency of number of assigned Labels for selected 9558 images:
0 Labels: 446 ( 5%)
1 Labels: 170 ( 2%)
2 Labels: 1584 (17%)
3 Labels: 2723 (28%)
4 Labels: 2396 (25%)
5 Labels: 1437 (15%)
6 Labels: 513 ( 5%)
7 Labels: 186 ( 2%)
8 Labels: 59 ( 1%)
9 Labels: 27 ( 0%)
10 Labels: 15 ( 0%)
11 Labels: 2 ( 0%)
12 Labels: 0 ( 0%)
13 Labels: 0 ( 0%)
14 Labels: 0 ( 0%)
15 Labels: 0 ( 0%)
16+ Labels: 0 ( 0%)

[Andrey_Ra]

gcoupe and Maxometr I wish to thank you for your contribution!
Here are your personal graphs:

Gcoupe's Collection

Frequency_gcoupe.png (49.65 KiB) Viewed 12871 times

Maxometr's Collection

Frequency_Maxometr.png (50.53 KiB) Viewed 12871 times

PS. And I remind to all, that zeroes are not included in statistics.

[Mike Buckley]

Considering that I've still got the lead on the largest percentage of images assigned 8 or more labels, I can't wait to learn what the winning prize is.

[Hert]

You'd get the honours to also catalog all of our images with at least 8 labels

[vlad]

Considering that I've still got the lead on the largest percentage of images assigned 8 or more labels, I can't wait to learn what the winning prize is.

Hi Mike, congratulations for the 1st place (so far) - but beware of Hert's winning prize!

I'm just curious: do you have the "Also assign its parents" option enabled in your labels? That could explain your using more labels per image than other people. But, frankly, I don't consider 8 or even 12 labels that many. Still, my guess is that you're undertaking a much more thorough cataloging job than most photographers have the inclination or patience to do. (The fact that you're using a controlled vocabulary, IIRC, already says a lot! And the label sets you kindly shared with us suggest a predilection for extensive but well-thought cataloging as well.)

[Mike Buckley]

do you have the "Also assign its parents" option enabled in your labels?

No. I also don't embed synonyms in the image file.

But, frankly, I don't consider 8 or even 12 labels that many.

So long as I win an enjoyable prize, that's the only thing I care about.

Still, my guess is that you're undertaking a much more thorough cataloging job than most photographers have the inclination or patience to do. (The fact that you're using a controlled vocabulary, IIRC, already says a lot! And the label sets you kindly shared with us suggest a predilection for extensive but well-thought cataloging as well.)

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. 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.

[Andrey_Ra]

I'm still waiting for more reports. vlad, how about to participate in survey?

[HCS]

My details.

Info
----
Frequency of number of assigned Labels for selected 68436 images:
0 Labels: 3967 ( 6%)
1 Labels: 5929 ( 9%)
2 Labels: 6886 (10%)
3 Labels: 13117 (19%)
4 Labels: 13662 (20%)
5 Labels: 7350 (11%)
6 Labels: 5034 ( 7%)
7 Labels: 4156 ( 6%)
8 Labels: 2335 ( 3%)
9 Labels: 2754 ( 4%)
10 Labels: 820 ( 1%)
11 Labels: 840 ( 1%)
12 Labels: 366 ( 1%)
13 Labels: 338 ( 0%)
14 Labels: 231 ( 0%)
15 Labels: 122 ( 0%)
16+ Labels: 529 ( 1%)

[Andrey_Ra]

HCS, thank you!

HCS' Collection

Frequency_HCS.png (72.04 KiB) Viewed 12833 times

[lippe]

Mike,

I think the hight number of zero labels is due the RAW-JPG are not versioned and only the raw versions have labels.

For the data to be meaningful in that situation, my thinking is that you should exclude the JPG files. In other words, I believe the data should be image-specific rather than file-specific.

You are right, i should excluded the jpg's where a Raw version exist. I also have tif with psd and jpg derivates. Here i should exluded the jpg and psd's. But is have also some jpg's that do not have a derivate. It's a bit complicated because is do not version them in Photo Supreme.

[tstoddard]

Here are the results from running the v2 script on my catalog.

Info
----
Frequency of number of assigned Labels for selected 24294 images:
0 Labels: 130 ( 1%)
1 Labels: 1310 ( 5%)
2 Labels: 5588 (23%)
3 Labels: 12160 (50%)
4 Labels: 4411 (18%)
5 Labels: 506 ( 2%)
6 Labels: 102 ( 0%)
7 Labels: 36 ( 0%)
8 Labels: 24 ( 0%)
9 Labels: 8 ( 0%)
10 Labels: 11 ( 0%)
11 Labels: 2 ( 0%)
12 Labels: 2 ( 0%)
13 Labels: 3 ( 0%)
14 Labels: 1 ( 0%)
15 Labels: 0 ( 0%)
16+ Labels: 0 ( 0%)


[Yes] [No]