Attaching Names to Photos with Confidence Factors?
Like many others, I have some great old photos but little to no knowledge as to their identifications? E.g names and dates. I can add photos to memories of individuals and identify them. I only do this when I'm certain of their ID.
But when I'm guessing it's this person but not certain - or maybe I can eliminate it down to 1 of a few siblings or something like this - I generally don't post or add the photo because of my lack of any real confidence as to who is in the photo.
But has it been considered adding names to photos with say a 'Confidence Factor'? Like say 25% (My best guess), 75% (I'm pretty sure but not certain). The default would be 100% (essentially that is what it is today). But maybe an *option* to associate a % or confidence factor as a qualifier when identifying people in photos.
I for one might be more willing to put some names to photos if I could also qualify them with a confidence factor. That way others wouldn't automatically assume that is correct. And maybe someone comes along and confirms or denies the name with the photo and adjusts the confidence factor according to their information.
Putting that out there as a feature to consider.
Thanks
Comments
-
Interesting idea - personally I am not sure how well it would work in practice. Worth posting this in the Suggest an Idea category where it is likely to get wider exposure.
0 -
yeh - a neat idea - but in the real world we work in I just dont think most people would use it to everyone advantage - and then it becomes a field no one can rely on.
just seems like a simple COMMENT below the item - would be the best way to point out uncertainties in identification.
2 -
Mod note - moved to Suggest an Idea
0 -
The default would be 100% CF for anyone uploading or adding photos. That's essentially how FamilySearch.org works TODAY.
Optionally you can modify the CF from 100% to 25%, 50% or 75%.
Or it could be a binary field like Certain (100%) or Not-Certain - again the default would be Certain (what it is today).
This would allow researchers to search & review photos that are certain vs not certain. If I were comparing some of my uncertain photos to others online - I would want to start by comparing/searching against photos that are 'certain' and then expand to 'uncertain' for example... Additionally it could add important data to facial recognition and machine learning algorithms either now or as such features become available to researchers in the future.
Having user entered confidence factors (again default would remain 100% as it essentially is today) associated with image records could over time become an algorithmic gold mine.
0 -
right but how do we differentiate between an item that defaulted to 100% simply because the person merely didnt want to bother with it - even though it had nothing to do with their real perception of the certainty of the identity of the person.
Or contrastingly an item that is marked 100% because someone really is certain?
if you cant tell the difference between those two different cases - then whats the point???
I just feel there is a hundred and one other bigger and more important "fish to fry" than an option that most people will just ignore
. . . Rather - if a person does not feel real confident about the identity of a person in a Memories item - they can add a comment that explains the background and why they feel the way they do - - Id value that 100 times more than just some percent flag . . .
and people can make such comments now - they dont need any change to the software.
2 -
I'm not suggesting either/or. I don't suggest removing comments - any comments can and should stay the same. I'm suggesting the addition of a *optional* confidence factor that may be ignored or used by a person contributing a photo. But to that point - if someone identified a less than 100% CF to an uploaded photo can and should include a comment as to why they are not 100% certain as to the identities in the photo. E.g. a CF set to less than 100% would be a strong clue to look at and read the comment.
Algorithms and search filters cannot readily read/understand free form text fields like a comment box.
0 -
0
-
but thats my point - yeh - they could create such a field - but that doesnt mean they would also create any algorithms/filters in FS to go against such a field and report against it and without the algorthim and search filters its not too useful.
and if you really expect them to do filters and reporting on such a field - even less likely that they would even consider this for the cost/benefit analsyis.
I just dont ever see this happening or even being considered for that matter - - way way too many other more critical items in their queue that people are actually clamoring for.
but thats just my 2 cents - take it with a grain of salt - or dont take it at all - just my personal thoughts and I am NOT a FS employee.
0 -
A comment added is often ignored even when it is quite a relevant comment. I have added comments to photos attached (very clearly) to ancestors in wrong generations. No response and no change, even when I provided the PIDs for everyone in the photo. I have also uploaded photos with unknown people asking for help identifying who they are. In both cases, crickets.
What help would it be to have someone's theory on how correct they are? Most will say 100% correct, even when legs are showing for a woman in a photo who supposedly died in 1841. (I wish I could find that photo so you could believe how off the poster was with identification.)
This suggestion does not seem to value added to me. However, I do agree that identification of people in photos should get way more attention than it does. However, I do not know of a way to get that done by clicking a new option.
1 -
Photos are what I call an attractive nuisance. People are so in love with the idea of finding a photo of an ancestor that they pay no attention to whether someone was confident, doubtful, or just plain wrong about it being their ancestor.
My 4th GGF was Guillaume Michel, from Brittany, France, born about 1720. Another descendant added a modern photo of artist William Michael Rosetti, 1829-1919, to his/her tree. Dozens of tree makers have copied that photo, without any realization that it couldn't possibly be the same person.
I would be very cautious about posting anything that was a guess in a collaborative tree.
0 -
Case in point is this photo linked to Phyllis Wheatley
https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/135154921?cid=mem_copy
She died in 1784 - about 50 years before Photography came into general usage
an yet someone thinks thats her . . . simply because they MINDLESSLY copied from someone else Im sure.
People just dont think . . .
0 -
Dennis J Yancey I found the image I was referring to. It, too, is way off. I thought I did a good job finding all the possible women who could be in the photo, as well as the man referred to as "grandpa", but, no changes.
https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/20281568?cid=mem_copy
0 -
wow - - what are they thinking!!!!???
so what do we do . . . when we notify the submitter - and they take no action to remove the links?
0 -
There is nothing to do but move on! You certainly have a lot more moving parts than I do! You are a busy man. I thought about adding the tags myself to that photo, but I am very reluctant to do edits to other people's work. It seems much more educational to add comments rather than destroy evidence. That's why I never remove ridiculous sources, I just add comments like "this man died before the Civil War began. This pension record cannot be his. " Maybe that will motivate someone to look up what years the Civil War was fought. LOL
0
