Google Image Labeler launched today. It’s a game, based on Luis von Ahn’s ESP Game, that puts two random users together and asks them to label/tag an image. The idea is that if two people come up with the same label, it is probably a good one and will make Google’s image search better.
See Google Blogoscoped for the initial story and Danny Sullivan who found a ton of additional facts, including a video by Luis von Ahn stating that this game could effectively label all Google indexed images in two months.
I tried the game. It’s fun, in a why-am-I-doing-this kind of way. I focused on labeling everything I saw as “purple” and “Donald Trump”.
Google only save the results that match, so you’d have no luck whatsover… unless it was indeed a purple Donald Trump.
After about 2 days, when the novelty wears off, why would users do this? Especially enough users to label google’s entire image index of billions of images? No incentive.
Maybe google will allow people that have X points to buy something in its store… or a site that use google checkout….
Totally agree with Ryan. There is no feedback loop. Some images are just plain weird and give you a headache. You need to do it the Flickr way, where people who post images have a vested interest in labeling them.
Alex
I think Google are smart enough to know that they’ll need an incentive system to make it work.
I noticed if you get a couple matchs with someone, that you can start to guess what words the other will using, but words that skew the meaning, or a re just simple artifacts found in the image such as colour.
I would do this for hours if i could earn points towards Google Gear; or a T-shirt that says something funny; but I can think of anything funny…
I also wounder what physiological data Google can learn about you–adding to the value of your Gaccount–by the terms you use to rank images. Or the effect the terms you use to rate things to modify the personalised search behaviour Google uses to find stuff for you as an individual.
Ok, here’s an idea. How about contributors to the system earns credits that be used to buying content that’s on Google Video?
I think that would be a sustainable incentive system.
Ryan, It’s like asking why people writing in wikipedia, for example.
This is what we do when we spending so much hours on the Net,
we’re either consume or provide information and knowledge FOR FREE.
As if we didn’t all already work for Google already in one form or another . . . this is my new diversion while on a boring call . . .
Google blinks!
It was Yahoo that went down the McTagging route first, Google initially tried to crack it all via Big Algorithms.
Interesting…..
Interesting idea! Get the users to do the work for google for free!
Oh i like Andrew’s thought on google possibly using the data collected for personal search. I’m sure a lot could be deducted from the level of description that you use to help rate your search queries based around your potential IQ or knowledge in a particular area.
Too. Addictive. Must. Stop.
Brilliant.
Use Mechanical Turk … Use Mechanical Turk …
oh so bad for me.
why do we do anything for free? *duh*. because we like to share our knowledge. i use google image search a huge amount; i sure don’t mind helping improve it.
This is pretty good fun, the key to getting a high score is choosing simple words, for example in one round I matched 3 pictures with ‘people’
This will work fine and dandy for simple/generic stuff. What happens, though, when one is faced with tagging a picture of a Colaptes cafer
Interesting. I remember reading somewhere that Larry or Sergey thought that the best way to index was through computational means, not human… (including images).
it was fun for about 5 minutes, then I got a bit bored. I’d keep doing it if I could earn a free t-shirt or some other benefit.
It was no fun as the partner was dumb
I think the idea of contributing to the Google Machine
is kinda neat. My goodness, they have saved my
butt many times with their browser!!
Kudos to All Mighty Google!! (Hail, Hail).
Excelsior!
whis is, I think, where Riya will clearly out-shine google.
It sure sucks to be paired up with someone who passes on 90%!! GRrrr!
It is kinda fun… for about 2 minutes…. interesting way for Google to get some work done.
to those comparing this with wikipedia or other sites where users provide content for free, I’d say 2 things:
1. wikipedia is non-profit (although many other web 2.0 sites are not). as such, I think people feel a little better about contributing knowledge knowing that some giant corporation isn’t going to be profiting off their free labor.
2. writing a wikipedia article is, in my view, totally different than sitting and labeling an endless string of random images in the hopes that some other user will label them the same way and you’ll have contributed something useful. also, in many types of user generated content around the web, users are contributing primarily to benefit themselves (del.icio.us) and the secondary effect is the benefit to other users. it might be interesting for a few minutes, but without an incentive program, it’s not going to be incredibly useful (especially in terms of indexing billions of images in two months!). this is exactly like mechanical turk but without an incentive program…maybe amazon should start up a free mechanical turk program for those of you who (apparently) enjoy mindless repetitive tasks that ultimately pad someone else’s pockets.
However, if they added some great incentives, I think this is very viable. It’s definitely not revolutionary, as you can accomplish the same thing with mechanical turk, but it’s viable.
Is the Mechanical Turk heavily used…..payments don’t seem hugely enticing?
This is probably about collecting data for their machine learning algorithm. If they get good labels for a a few million images then they can use them to train their algorithm to correctly label the rest of the images in the index. They don’t have to get labels for all the images from the users/players. I believe that was the reason the original ESP Game was created. BTW, the other new game from the ESP guys, Phetch, is also partly about collecting data for machine vision type work.
This is the dumbest “game” ever. I have a similar game idea. How about two people compete against each other to assemble products at home. The winner gets to assemble an extra product.
I agree, useless – I tried that and I went through 5 pictures maybe – then I am gone. Another great example how not to launch a webservice.
You have to somewhat give props to Google for having a good idea to make people work for him. Although, I doubt I’d be a proud “top contributor.”
It’s like free slavery.
Idea is good, but we are helping to Google.
“I focused on labeling everything I saw as “purple” and “Donald Trump”.”
Umm. Not Funny Michael.
Here’s how to win: Everybody label everything asdf
Looks like Google bought the ESP Game from Carnegie Mellon. I played it a couple of years back already: http://www.futu...nsides_on_.html
All they did is a bit of Google look and feel around it. I think you could do so much more to make it fun and exciting.
Google where is your creativity?
Bummer, Mark.
This thing is adictive, I was swearing at the guy who couldnt see the obvious in the pictures…
there is a major flaw with this! How we see an image when trying to think of words is different to the content and context of the image. Just because two people see a tiny image snippet as a map, does not mean the image holds any value as a map; and certainly should not be the first value returned when you search google for a map.
C’mon there has to be a better way of Google getting some categorisation on images than this paired matching? Say there is 1 mil images in the database, each needs to be paired a few times to get a valid response, then that valid response needs to be weighted against other valid responses. Thats hundreds of millions of actions.
When today’s top contributor has the name ‘just_say_tits’ perhaps the results won’t be as good as everyone predicts.
The images are far too small! Surely anyone designing & testing this could realise that it makes it impossible to be able to see enough detail to provide decent tags.
Yes, the images need to be at least 300 pixels in size. Plus, why let people find matches simultaneously in pairs? Much easier would be assigning terms individually and automatically matching them up later.
Agree with Ryan, what’s the point. I also find the images too small to see easily, even with my reading glasses!
Penthouse has stunning models and hardcore action you don’t want to miss.
http://penthous....com/go/g985535
pinkteenseries.tk is way better than pinkteenseries.com pinkteenseries.net and pinkteenseries.org