Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
How does it work?
You'll be randomly paired with a partner who's online and using the feature. Over a 90-second period, you and your partner will be shown the same set of images and asked to provide as many labels as possible to describe each image you see. When your label matches your partner's label, you'll earn some points and move on to the next image until time runs out. After time expires, you can explore the images you've seen and the websites where those images were found. And we'll show you the points you've earned throughout the session.
<edit reason: limit on length of quotes.
See Terms of Service [webmasterworld.com]
[edited by: tedster at 8:01 pm (utc) on Sep. 1, 2006]
Turing wins again .. or something to that effect ..
Interesting way of trying to build a lie detector ... wonder if that would be admissable in court. Theory .. two random people that meet do not lie if they describe the picture with same name.
No, you can't label a man a man because you have to match against an unknown partner, who might not be trying to game the system. And what do you gain even if you could?
If you label each photo of a man with "man", each photo of a woman "woman" and each photo of a bridge "bridge" it's not that useful.
It's very useful if someone later wants to search for images of a "man," a "woman," or a "bridge." The current method of keywording images is by inferring the image's content based on surrounding text.
The "off-limits" words are ones that have been chosen over and over again. So, the most common words will stop counting for points as time goes by, forcing the players to choose more specific keywords.
I actually hope Google offers this as a business service to companies with image collections that need to be keyworded.
I'm easily amused!
There should be more images to do though in a single game.
...and most of the images are too small for me to see clearly on my 12inch/1400x1050 tablet.
I assume that this is to get humans to correctly label things for the Google Images search - a brillant idea :)
Note: People will swear that they can tell the difference between a sunset and a sunrise in a picture. But, you can't. It's a classic example of why using un-expert observations to make a case is unwise.
two people are shown a website in a frame below an input field. they both must type in keywords to describe the page. if both keywords matches, it proves that both people work for the same SEO company and they want to stuff more keywords to their URLs :-)
Exellent suggestion on how to game it. People in India, Russia and the U.S. mid-west must be BS. Google figured out how to get quality control and data entry done for less than anybody would do it, (for free).
Unfortunately, people will play the game, and eventually only images that meet this 50/50 id test and have matching surrounding page content and/or alt tags will rank well.
I wonder if "get people to work for free" fits with the "Do no evil" mantra?
Thanks for your contribution. It will help us improve the relevance of image search results so that you and other Google users can quickly and easily find the results you're looking for.
-Google's "thank you" at end of game
Time to call legal:
1. Google showed my 10 year old porn, a nazi atrocity photo, and one of a republican senator knocking down an old lady to get into a cab ahead of her --- now I have to send her to therapy --- I want to sue!
2. Google showed one of my site's images to get this "contribution" from a third party, I want to sue.
3. Google is accepting contributions and not decalring it is as "unearned income" on their tax returns.
Seriously though, it's a brilliant way to get people to do Google's homework for them for free. Who said Sergey, Brin and Vinton were idiots?