Commons talk:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Quality images candidates.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
Older: 2007-01, 2007-02, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2011-01, 2012-01

Nominating and reviewing statistics[edit]

Prompted by the above, and because I've been thinking about doing so for a while, I've written a quick script that tries to count the number of nominations and reviews that users make. Caveats: it only looks through the current candidate page, so will undercount support/decline reviews that were already archived (maybe it should also count the last 7 archives?); and for consensual votes it counts each new line as a separate review, which may not be too accurate. I've put a sample table at User:Mike Peel/sandbox - what do you think? Worth working on further? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Peel
I really appreciate the concept of the script. It's worth exploring further for me. We should definitely ask the contributors to share their feedback. Thank you for investing your time in creating the script. Riad Salih (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mike! I also believe that it's definitely a plus. We could change the message to the top from "Please nominate no more than 5 images per day." to something like "Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here how you are doing)". That would be a first step. Not intrusive, but we achieve more transparency. I'd also check from time to time the stats and my behaviour would also change not reviewing images of nominators who don't review. --Poco a poco (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. It's now running daily, saving to Commons:Quality images candidates/statistics, let's see how that goes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Mike Peel, I really like it! The only issue is the missing archives, because promoted/declined nominations are archived earlier than others. So I might have promoted 20 pictures, 15 of which are already archived, while my nominations were not promoted and are still in the queue, then it looks like I would have nominated 20 but reviewed only 5. Including the last XX archives (at least 7, probably even more) would fix that. Plozessor (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Plozessor: I've updated the code today to include the last 7 days of archives, how does that look to you? It's easy to increase the number of days of archives it looks through. But as it stands, @Alexander-93, Nirmal Dulal, Grendelkhan, Sebring12Hrs, Another Believer, Nabin K. Sapkota, MB-one, and Llez: are in debt by 20 reviews or more. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always have one issue with these discussions - they assume every image should be reviewed. I believe it is totally okay for some images to just not get promoted without being demoted. Quite a few of my images in the past had this fate and I got the message. They are not horrible, but they are not good enough. I very rarely demote images, but there are also days, when I look at many images and think to myself - not really bad, but not good enough in my opinion. Others seem to agree as those are often the images that get filed away as not reviewed. For me this makes sense and is just the normal way of things. I would not want to change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kritzolina (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

I hold a different opinion. Sometimes, I nominate some images and they don't get a review. So what's the point of nominating them? I prefer to see a decline rather than having the images ignored, as this will not motivate contributors to nominate more images. Riad Salih (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that some people see this differently - but I also know there are more people who feel the way I do. For me the point of nominating images is to see, if they will pass the mark and get the QI status. If they don't, I don't need a decline. Sometimes a review is helpful, but not all reviews are. I prefer not to say anything, if I don't have anything useful to share. Kritzolina (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kritzolina: If any of my images don't get a review on the first time around, I renominate them again one more time. I find that about half get promoted on the second attempt, and the rest I view as being as declined. I think that the limitation here is getting someone to review an image, not that unreviewed images aren't QI. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel - I think we all know that the criteria for QI are not as hard as we like to think. Some images end up in the discussion section because of that. And some end up not reviewed, because no one feels confident to either promote or decline. I often look at pictures and think - "hmmmmmm, I'm not quite sure here, it is not bad, but it is also not up to the mark of some other images of similar subjects... and my screen is too small to show me all the details I would need to be sure this or that area is as it should be" and then I don't review. I think some of those images that did get promoted for you in the second round might be such images. With additional time, somone comes along who will have the right equipment and feel confident to promote - that is clearly more likely than someone coming along and rejecting. People who feel confident enough to make rejects are the kind of people who feel more confident to review in general. I will not re-nominate images from the "grey-range", as I would call it. They are not clear QIs, so be it. You think differently about this, which is also fine. Still, I don't think the real limitation is getting people to look at the images and form an opinion. But what would we win, if more people reviewed with statements like "This is not bad, but it is also not up to the mark of some other images of similar subjects" or "I am not really sure about this one"?
For me the real problem is that we have different wants or needs here by different users. The group of users who want every image reviewed is a lot more vocal then the group of users who is fine with images going unreviewed. Who actually prefer an unreviewed image to a rejection. That doesn't mean this second group is necesseraily smaller or less important. Kritzolina (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to give more visibility to Mike's stats, as mentioned above. Does anybody have a problem if we change the message in the orange banner from "Please nominate no more than 5 images per day." to something like "Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here how you are doing)"? Poco a poco (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO OK --XRay 💬 06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Sorry for this, but the link above is wrong and goes to Mike Peel's sandbox instead to Commons:Quality images candidates/statistics. And I do not really understand what Mike Peel's script does. For example, the version from yesterday [1] counted just two reviews for me. The version of the candidate list when the script ran, [2], shows five votes and one comment from me. There would be another vote archived on April 6. And I have severe doubts that there were 15 images nominated by me that were on the candidate list or in the latest 7 archives. My personal count is 10 nominations. Still more than my votes or comments for other images, but my monitor is substandard and that is not going to change any time soon. Anyway, the script should be corrected before it is made more public. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again, I corrected a sentence that was wrong because it was about images nominated by me instead of total images, of course. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because of the images you reviewed by 'Petr Chodura', who didn't sign their nominations with a link to their user page, causing the script to miscount. The code for the script is at [3] if you want to see what it does in detail. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand, even though I am not a Python script programmer. This is an unusual case. So I agree to the proposal by Poco a poco if the link is corrected. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Poco a poco (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tecina - Playa Santiago - La Gomera 01.jpg[edit]

This file, posted today, seems to have been supported 5 times so far, which implies there's a bug in the system somewhere. What's going on? @Johann Jaritz, MB-one, ArildV, and Ermell: . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but there seems to be some kind of QICVote malfunction. User:ArildV complained that he had the intention to promote a different image and he used QICVote. I only found some possibly problematic blanks after the nominator's signature which I removed. But this might be a problem for QICbot, if any. I am not sure about this either. The only obvious similarity between the two images in sequence is that the file name of the second one (File:Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg, no votes yet, possibly the image User:ArildV wanted to promote) is a part of the first one with the multiple votes (File:Tecina_-_Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg). I do not use QICVote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was trying to use QICVote and change the second photo to promote. The preview was fine but when I saved it my support vote was moved to the first photo. I realize now that the same thing happened yesterday (but I just assumed then that I had forgot to save my vote. Strange since I have been using QICVote all day,--ArildV (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the second image manually now.--ArildV (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is very simple. The filename "Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg" is a part of "Tecina_-_Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg". The QIC script matches with the first filename containing "Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg". (See Robert's remarks too.) I had the same problem some months ago. The script should be fixed. --XRay 💬 05:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding recently promoted quality images to the main page?[edit]

I've done a done a quick demo of potentially adding recent QI's (those promoted in the last day) at User:Mike Peel/Main Page, and started a discussion at Talk:Main_Page#Adding_recently_promoted_quality_images? - please have a look and leave any thoughts you have there, to keep discussions together. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Commons talk:Quality images redirect here?[edit]

I came across Commons talk:Quality images today - it gets way less traffic than this page, and has unanswered questions dating back over a year. Should it just be redirected here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Yes, sure! Yann (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QICBot malfunction[edit]

This morning I noticed that a QI that was promoted, archived and categorized yesterday was also archived today, i.e. File:Atriplex littoralis RF.jpg. In addition, QICBot told me about the promotion of the same image on my talk page and it was added to Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted again. There are quite a lot of duplicate entries on this page and some others that got added to the galleries already are about to be moved there again. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, same for File:Palm Springs, CA, 2024 - 119.jpg -Another Believer (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like someone edited the page at 04:58, so QICBot edit conflicted when saving the page after removing the files to process. I don't think there's any consequences apart from the duplicate entries on gallery pages? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Radomianin and I removed many of these duplicates. But this took some time. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wiki colleagues, I think it's best if we check the galleries for duplicates and remove them there. But first of all, the bot failure should be fixed. At the moment I'm on the road and can't make any edits. I will be able to resume maintenance next week. Many thanks to Robert for his active participation in the clean-up work after the QIC bot malfunction. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates&oldid=875597344"