Photograph Identity Questions 4, 5 & 6 – ResultsPosted: 14 Aug 2014 Filed under: Genealogy issues, Photo analysis, Research strategy, Sue's family research | Tags: Allport, discrepancies, Face comparison, face recognition, family history, genealogy, identity, Photograph Identity, PIQ, poll result, University of Strathclyde, Uttoxeter Leave a comment
Thank you to the 21 people who responded to Photograph Identity Questions 4, 5 & 6. A couple of people did not answer all three questions, so each ended up with 20 answers as follows:
The no votes have it, to varying degrees, with 70% for photo pair 4, 60% for photo pair 5, and 90% for photo pair 6. From these results, pair 6 certainly seems to be different people, but it is hard to be so sure for pair 4 and pair 5.
In this series, I have now asked ‘Is this the same person?’ for 6 pairs of faces. Photo pair 1 was a control case where I knew the answer was ‘No’. Photo pairs 2 to 6 are all about comparing people in the group photo below with other photos in the same album.
To recap all 6 results:
|Photo pair||Result||Result%||Strathclyde result|
|1||No||76%||Human: Yes 69%; Picasa: Yes, threshold 65|
|2||Yes||94%||Human: Yes 94%; Picasa: Yes, threshold 75|
|5||No||60%||Human: Yes 82%; Picasa: Yes, threshold 65|
Three of the photo pairs were included in a project I undertook in 2010 for the Genealogical Studies postgraduate program at the University of Strathclyde. The methods were a little different as most respondents gave their answers offline and they were asked to give ‘instant’ answers rather than try to consciously analyse the photo pairs. In the Strathclyde study, 4 of the 5 control face pairs known to be the same person scored 70% or more ‘Yes’ votes, but only 1 of 4 the control face pairs known to be different people scored over 70% of ‘No’ votes. So I thought responses to face pairs of unknown identity with a substantial majority of ‘Yes’ votes, especially those over 80%, were likely the same people. I hoped for consistent results for the 3 pairs repeated in this series. Photo pair 2 delivered the same result, but photo pairs 1 and 5 did not.
Comments from respondents suggest that they spent time consciously analysing the photo pairs. If undecided did you vote ‘No’? Did you become less sure the longer you tried to analyse the photos? Are these potential reasons for the preponderance of ‘No’ votes? Could the 60-70% middle ground ‘No’ votes really indicate uncertainty? I welcome comments on these questions.
I admit that I hoped that pairs 2 – 6 would have decisive ‘Yes’ answers to support the conclusions summarised in Cartes de Visite album links to the Stanley family and Earls of Derby.
© Sue Adams 2014
Photograph Identity Questions 4, 5 & 6Posted: 06 Aug 2014 Filed under: Photo analysis, Research strategy, Sue's family research | Tags: Face comparison, identity, PIQ, poll, quiz Leave a comment
Continuing the series of photograph identity questions I posed in the last couple of weeks, here are 3 more. Please take a look at the paired faces and give you opinion on whether they are the same person, and submit your answers before reading any comments.
We often attribute identity by comparing photographs within a collection. I too have opinions about the identities of the people depicted in the photographs, but I am biased by the other information I have. I want to test my conclusions against your unbiased opinions.
I will post the results in a few days.
Photograph Identity Questions 2 & 3 – ResultsPosted: 01 Aug 2014 Filed under: Photo analysis, Research strategy, Sue's family research | Tags: Face comparison, Facebook, family history, genealogy, Google+, PIQ, poll result, Twitter, web metrics 2 Comments
Thank you to those who responded to Photograph Identity Questions 2 & 3. 17 responses were recorded as follows:
The 94% yes vote is a strong indication that photo pair 2 is the same young woman. The 65% no vote for the boy and young man in photo pair 3 is much less certain.
The blog post was promoted on twitter, Google+ and, to a lesser extent, Facebook. I disabled comments on the blog post and Google+, and only 2 people commented on Twitter. So I think the responses probably were not influenced by comments.
Compared to the 51 votes lodged for face pair 1 in Photograph Identity Question, 17 is a little disappointing, but may be due to less traffic to the blog. The responses in both cases dropped off within a couple of days of publication. Did asking one more question, or the appearance of the blog post affect the response rate? Had the novelty worn off and is the audience bored with the same question about different photo pairs?
As I have some more face comparisons to present, I would really like some insights on boosting the response rate. Please comment!
© Sue Adams 2014