[jpzk]

Just for the fun of it (I had time to waste today as I just came back from birding), I made a little compilation of the recent "Explore"'d photos on Flickr.

What I wanted to know is how many "followers" (how many are following him/her) vs. "following" (how many those "explored" members are following).

I couldn't calculate the number of "favorites" (faves) those "explored" members gave to other members but it seems that those who have the most "followers" have also an enormous amount of "faves" given, but do not follow many members, if any.

Seems like there is a strong relationship between the amount (number) of "favorites" and "followers" which result in being "Explored" ... something I had suspicion for a while but now I have a better idea of the "process".
Once in a while, a Flickr member will be "explored" without much else than just a great picture, which is what it should be anyway ... there are some good samples of that here:
Flickr Explored - Page 29 - PentaxForums.com and deservingly so !

As for me, I never "favorite" an image, as excellent as it can be, BUT I do leave comments on those worth it. If the photo is great, I'll take the time to post a comment. I don't have the time nor the intention to accumulate over tens of thousands of "favorites".
I use Flickr as a good place for storing and sharing.

So, here are a few findings:

Explore'd photos as of July 15, 2017
(first number: "followers" of a particular member)
(second number: how many members is this "followed" member "following")
8600 - 133
3300 - 144
10,600 - 175
6200 - 54
13,100 - 386
4400 - 98
1900 - 897
3700 - 224
5400 - 71
1900 - 577
108 - 104
2300 - 394
6500 - 200
5900 - 89
7300 - 649
1400 - 60
2800 - 124
3700 - 156
10,400 - 408
8600 - 753


And I also checked at Nat Geo "Your Shot", just to see how things are going there since they started the "followers" / "following" thing too.

Nat Geo "Your Shot" "Trending" (i.e. "Explored")
Examples:
One member has tagged 705,810 "favorites"; has 1719 "followers"; "follows" 0(zero) member(s)
" " " " 303,459 "favorites"; has 972 "followers"; "follows" 872 " "
and those huge numbers are seen all over the place in the "Trending" section.

Nat Geo "Your Shot" "Editor's favorites" (Photos picked by editor)
Now this is much different:
One member has: 107 "favorites"; has 5 "followers" and follows 2
" " " : 161 "favorites"; has 66 "followers" and follows 6
" " " : 52 "favorites"; has 200 "followers" and follows 0
" " " : 0 "favorites"; has 0 "followers" and follows 0 ... this photo was picked by the editors anyway (great shot - well deserved).

Editors don't really care if those who submitted their photos have thousands of "followers" or have tagged thousands of "favorites" ... they just pick what is good to them, period!

---

Last edited by jpzk; 07-15-2017 at 01:57 PM.

[stevebrot]

Editors don't really care if those who submitted their photos have thousands of "followers" or have tagged thousands of "favorites" ... they just pick what is good to them, period!

Discrete visits and favs per time, along with computer image interpretation, all factor into the Flickr Explore algorithm. One's social activity does not appear to be a factor with the exception of publishing to multiple groups. Depending on the group, that can be poison on a potential "Explore". FWIW, I have a sprinkling of explored images, but am not particularly generous with favs/comments, only follow a handful of people, belong to few groups, and have only a few followers. With only a few exceptions, I knew before I posted that an image would likely be explored.


Steve

[jpzk]

Discrete visits and favs per time, along with computer image interpretation, all factor into the Flickr Explore algorithm. One's social activity does not appear to be a factor with the exception of publishing to multiple groups. Depending on the group, that can be poison on a potential "Explore". FWIW, I have a sprinkling of explored images, but am not particularly generous with favs/comments, only follow a handful of people, belong to few groups, and have only a few followers. With only a few exceptions, I knew before I posted that an image would likely be explored.
Steve

I like it that way too as I comment only on photos which are "worth it".
I have a few "explored" images but then again, some of them are not top notch, for sure!
I am still amazed to see that some Flickr/YourShot members accumulate so many favorites ... in the tens of thousands! (in hope of being explored or "published").

[Rondec]

It is kind of neat when you have an image that is explored. I guess it is a weird sort of recognition of your amazing ability as a photographer, I guess. And then a little later, you realize that a lot of times your better photos aren't noticed and it is some odd image that hits. It's probably just better to take photos for yourself and not worry about it too much.

From my personal experience, the biggest thing that makes a difference on whether something gets explored is how quickly it gets likes. If you post really early in the morning and the image doesn't get any likes for an hour or two, it won't hit. If you post it to an active group and it gets ten likes in a half hour of posting, it is much more likely to get explored, even if the end total of likes on the image is the same.

[stevebrot]

I am still amazed to see that some Flickr/YourShot members accumulate so many favorites ... in the tens of thousands! (in hope of being explored or "published").

There are some types of photos that appeal to special interests (cats, toy trains, real trains, etc.) that have predictably high numbers of favs. There is a forum member who specializes in very excellent butterfly photos who is frequently explored at least partially due to choice in subject and quality, but also because of regular posts and having over 10K followers. He has about 2x my number of photos, gets about 10x my number of visits and about 10x my number of "explores" (We joined Flickr about the same time, though he has 50x more followers. I be more efficient...)

Steve