Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2006/gallery

Larger?

Is it possible to either make the images in this gallery larger, or create an alternate view of it with larger images? I have a 1600x1200 resolution monitor and I really would like to be able to at least trawl through these images looking for the good ones without having to click to expand each one to be able to see enough detail to really get a feel for how good it is. --Cyde Weys 05:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I made a larger version here, if someone wants to link to it from the gallery page that'd be nice. I can't because it's protected. --Cyde Weys 05:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Thats a big improvement in my view. I really like the 'tooltip' to get the numbers as well... I think it may make the voting more fair, since even if you've looked at the results thus far, which is which is not obvious. I think that we should consider making the large version the default. Anyone else have thoughts? --Gmaxwell 14:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would leave it as it is. The large gallery is extremely slow to load on my machine and really eats up bandwidth. Some users with slower connections will much prefer to load up the larger versions only on demand; otherwise we will discriminate against those users. --MichaelMaggs 14:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is ridiculously huge. Only load it on demand... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Order

This discussion has been moved: Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2006#Order__in_the_gallery -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed in the initial results a stark bias towards the images at the top of the gallery. To counter this, I have randomized the gallery order. In my first pass I split it into two groups around 130 and randomized the groups (using python random.shuffle). I then placed the below 130 group first. We can't easily make the gallery random on every load, but I can come by every few hours and reshuffle them. Future reorderings will be more random than this first top and bottom split.. I wanted to counter the initial bias some. --Gmaxwell 14:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. --MichaelMaggs 14:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But we still need a link to the original gallery. Please unlock the new page so I can do it myself. Alvesgaspar 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you have stated that your intention is to bias the results by encouraging new votes to vote for the same things as earlier voters[1]. I think it's a terrible idea. I think it's good that people can look at images that other people liked... but I don't think we should make it easiest for people to ignore all but the few images lucky enough to be selected by the first few voters. --Gmaxwell 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

While a theoretically random display may imbide some allusion to being unbias, I voted when the imagewerent does that make my choices invalid because I wont alter them if this is the case. Also I would like to be able to view the images that others are voting for to get some idea of they like, especially the the ones with high levels of votes. Can a link to a sorted set of images please be included to facilitate this as I suspect that many people would also like to be able to easily see what people are voting for. either that or a top 20 image gallery at the bottom of the page a originally proposed. Gnangarra 09:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see a benefit from periodically randomizing this gallery, though every few hours may be a bit much. I just rerandomized the page using a pseduradom seed. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)