![]() ![]() In an advertising context, advertisements may be associated with their own metadata/keywords, such as “Rome Italy hotels tourism travel” for an Italian hotel advertisement. ![]() The metadata processing logic 118 may assign to that image a score as an increasing function of the number of other images in the first and second users' albums that have been commonly designated as favorites or commonly tagged by the first and second users, under the theory that such shared behavior serves as a predictor that the second user may be especially interested in images in the first user's album that the second user has not yet “favorited” or tagged. The search engine 111 may return an image stored in the first user's album. The second user may search for images associated with a particular tag. For example, assume that a first user and a second user store in their on-line albums 100 and 200 photo images, respectively. The media object may be associated with the user by, for example, being assigned metadata by a user or posted by the user. In another embodiment, the personalized score for a media object associated with a user may be based upon the number of media objects assigned the same type of metadata (e.g., tags or favorites) by that user and the score requester. Conversely, certain sources of traffic, search terms, tag queries or other precursors to the display of thumbnail images may be determined to correlate with a motivation that is inconsistent with a high interestingness, and thus the system designer is likely to assign such access paths relatively low weighting coefficients. As perhaps a more illustrative example, if a user reaches and clicks upon a thumbnail image based upon paying $10.00 to access the image, then the system designer is likely to assign such an access path a higher weighting coefficient than a free access of an image. Based upon psychological insights, marketing research or other factors, the system designer may want to treat certain access patterns as indicating a higher degree of user interest than others, and assign such access patterns a higher weight in computing the interestingness score. Thus, it can be seen that the identical action of clicking on a thumbnail image may be treated as a “view” or a “click through” depending upon the path the user took to reach the image, i.e., the access pattern. The user may click on a thumbnail to “view” it. In another example, when a user accesses a group pool of images, the user's browser may present the images as thumbnails. In contrast, for example, an image emailed to a user from another user may be considered to be “viewed” by the user. ![]() Multiple comments from any permitted user may be made and displayed for a media object. ![]() 3, for example, the user may add an annotation near the seagull's wing such as “Note the sunlight coming through the wings.” A comment may be entered in a text input box similar to that used for entering comments on a message board. The annotation may be hidden from view until the user passes a cursor over the annotated section. An annotation is a descriptive note displayed directly over a section of the image being annotated. Other types of metadata include a title (e.g., “Last gull (for now)”), a description of the image, annotations, and comments. 2, the metadata may take the form of one or more tags for each image, such as four distinct tags entered as one space-delimited list “clouds seagull birds sky” for an image of a flying seagull. (As used herein, “metadata” may refer to one metadatum or plural metadata.) Referring to FIG. The metadata processing logic permits the user to enter metadata to describe each image. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |