[Kletiomdm]

They probably have some statistics in the background which tells them some form of Trustlevel.

You also need to assume that there are potentially control pictures in it as well.

I think this is a very liable approach.

[wfleming]

I think you meant "viable", not "liable". Given the discussion, your typo is ironically amusing, though.

[ncann]

Yeah, it's not like they will label something a train just because a single person says so. But if you have 10k responses with 95% confidence saying it's a train, it's very likely to be the case.

[organsnyder]

But GP is describing exactly the opposite: there might be a train that's not immediately visible at a glance, leading most people to not label it.

[rolph]

unless a properly obfusicated bot net has seeded the data set with -everything is a train- responses to the tune of >>10k responses with 95% confidence saying it's a train<<