Well, you can use this: http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/quick_intersection.php?lang=commons&project=wikimedia&cats=Red+flowers%0D%0ABicycles&ns=6&depth=5&max=30000&start=0&format=html&redirects=&norun
which will give you one image. It has a bicycle and red flowers. However, if you push the category depth past 7 you get false positives, because the category tree is horribly broken on Commons. Cheers, Magnus On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Lars Aronsson <l...@aronsson.se> wrote: > Why is it still, now in 2014, so hard to find images? > We have categories and descriptions, but we also know > they don't describe all that we want to find in an > image. If I need an image with a bicycle and some red > flowers, I can only go to the category:bicycles and > hope that I'm lucky when browsing through the first > 700 images there. Most likely, the category will be > subdivided by country or in some other useless way > that will make my search harder. > > Where is science? Google was created in 1998, based > on its Pagerank algorithm for web pages filled with > words and links. That was 14 years ago. But what > algorithms are there for finding images? > > > -- > Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) > Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- undefined _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
