 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
 orangeindiana
    
Noble Donor
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Meh.
 |  | DB picture limit
< on 6/11/2004 7:01 PM >
|  | | | How about limiting the amount of pictures that can be included in each gallery in the DB? We've all seen galleries that will have five or six good pictures stuck between fifty pictures of junk. Of course, a "good" picture is largely objective subjective, but it'd help some people understand the concept of trimming off the fat. Plus, I'm sure Av would appreciate saving space on the server. There's some problems with setting a limit that come to mind (such as areas that actually have a whole lot of really great pictures, or people just creating a ton of galleries), so I'd like to hear what people think about the benefits outweighing the drawbacks.
Comments, por favor.
EDIT: Fixed a word (thanks SK).
[last edit 6/14/2004 7:56 PM by orangeindiana - edited 1 times]
|
|
Avatar-X
   
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| |  | Re: DB picture limit
<Reply # 1 on 6/11/2004 7:04 PM >
| | | | unfortunatly i can't think of a way to limit the number of pictures that wouldn't be easy to get around, or wouldn't cause other problems.
suggestions are welcome.
huskies - such fluff. |
|
Servo
| | Re: DB picture limit
<Reply # 2 on 6/11/2004 10:10 PM >
| | | | It seems to me that since this a subjective problem ("bad" pictures), a subjective solution is best; namely, we already have a rating for "Photography". So if you feel a location includes too many pictures, or not enough good pictures, give it a bad rating. Then perhaps every now and then a mod can come by and check the locations with really really lousy ratings to see if they have "too many".
|
|
Bizzybear
Nobler Donor
Location: Lake George, New York
Gender: Female
Doesn't play well with others
| | Re: DB picture limit
<Reply # 3 on 6/12/2004 5:19 AM >
| | | | Of course, some locations have more than one person posting pictures. Some people upload all crappy pictures that look almost identical and then the next explorer takes awesome pictures. Whose pictures do you rate? Both combined? Then there is the problem when the first person to put up a location uploads great pictures and the next person uploads crap pictures. Do you change your vote to reflect the new junk pictures? Some people don't seem to understand that 200 blurry pictures doesn't make it a better location.
http://sybilsden.com/bizzybear/main.html[/ur |
|
manitou
Location: Mississauga/Toronto/Waterloo
Gender: Male
I was born with an inherent knowledge of every abandonment in the world!
| | Re: DB picture limit
<Reply # 4 on 6/13/2004 2:28 AM >
| | | | You can always just look at the thumbnails beforehand to avoid viewing any obviously poor quality pictures.
Perhaps it could be possible for a mod to remove any pictures that are of such poor quality that it is impossible to determine what has been photographed. Perhaps this could be taken even further and DB entries that have overly poor ratings in all categories could be removed.
I don't like it when I come across a blurred picture or a picture of the floor either, but in the end all it takes is one click to get it off my screen
www.dkphotogroup.com
|
|
Silent Knight
Location: Niagara region
Gender: Male
Kastle Archives Productions Inc. (since 1999)
| | | Re: DB picture limit
<Reply # 5 on 6/13/2004 4:50 PM >
| | | | Posted by orangeindiana
How about limiting the amount of pictures that can be included in each gallery in the DB? We've all seen galleries that will have five or six good pictures stuck between fifty pictures of junk. Of course, a "good" picture is largely objective, but it'd help some people understand the concept of trimming off the fat. Plus, I'm sure Av would appreciate saving space on the server. There's some problems with setting a limit that come to mind (such as areas that actually have a whole lot of really great pictures, or people just creating a ton of galleries), so I'd like to hear what people think about the benefits outweighing the drawbacks.
Comments, por favor.
|
I think you meant to say "a good picture is largely subjective" - not objective.
But anyways...
IMHO - good or bad photos are all in the eye of the beholder (where'd I hear that cliche before? heh). Obviously badly blurred, too dark or "look, an ant on the floor!" photos don't serve much purpose - but where does one draw the line?
I don't enjoy looking at bad photos just as much as the next person. But if I click on a gallery, check out a few thumbnails and discover they're generally poor quality or uninteresting...then I simply move on to something else (and sometimes make a mental note about that person generally being a lousy photographer).
Sometimes its not always possible to get great photos of a location, for one reason or another. Low lighting with no tripod, being rushed because of uncontrollable circumstances (security, nosy neighbours/tourists, etc.).
Remember too, that everyone takes photos for different reasons. Some are there to quickly document the place and their trip, others (like myself) use the photos for other purposes (I do a lot of photo compositing with the backgrounds). Not everyone is formally trained, skilled or experienced with cameras, but rather make-do to the best of their abilities. Some are just great explorers without a good eye for interesting photo composition or technique.
Then consider the occasions where someone says, "Hey, I was in that room too but didn't see _____________" - a bad photo can sometimes resolve a question about a certain item or scene.
Its all subjective...
Silent Knight
You can always tell when you're watching Canadian television - the actors in the show are the same ones doing the commercials. |
|
orangeindiana
Noble Donor
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Meh.
| | Re: DB picture limit
<Reply # 6 on 6/14/2004 7:58 PM >
| | | | Yeah, but I didn't really have the artistic worth of a picture in mind. I'm definitely one of the guys just taking pictures of stuff I find interesting without putting much into how to make it aesthetically pleasing, etc. What I mostly had in mind were blurry pictures, ones that are too dark to see anything, repeats and near-repeats -- thinks that are going to be generally accepted as worthless.
Like Av said, I still haven't thought of a way to limit them that doesn't have ways around it (or is overrestrictive). Rating galleries individually would be a step in the right direction.
|
|
Bizzybear
Nobler Donor
Location: Lake George, New York
Gender: Female
Doesn't play well with others
| | Re: DB picture limit
<Reply # 7 on 6/14/2004 8:20 PM >
| | | | Rating picture galleries individually may work. Also, if there were someway to anonamously (sp?) post comments about the quality of the pictures, or what you think would give them a higher rating? Like too many blurry pictures, too many pictures that are all similar (I hate seeing 100-200 pictures when they are all virtually the same pictures), ect.
http://sybilsden.com/bizzybear/main.html[/ur |
|
LongHorn
Location: Alabama
Gender: Male
"Clever got me this far, and tricky got me in."
| |  | Re: DB picture limit
<Reply # 8 on 6/17/2004 11:41 PM >
| | | | Posted by manitou
Perhaps this could be taken even further and DB entries that have overly poor ratings in all categories could be removed.
|
i dont think thats a good idea, even if the pictures arent great there is probably someone who would enjoy them. or the entry may spark interest for a nearby explorer to go check the place out. i do wish there was maybe a picture limit per gallery, of course then people would just make more galleries of worthless stuff. maybe a picture limit per person for every location? like I could only post 20 pictures for a location but if someone else was to explore it they could post up to 20 pics for it too. doesnt necessarily mean theyll be good pictures but it might make the poster decide which pics they wanna put up instead of just putting up everyone of them they took. <> EDIT: so i thought about that and there would still be problems. like with the pictures from Iraq im definately glad there was more than just 20 pictures. i guess the only solution is to have people use their head more, which will probably never happen. maybe they could go over their 20 picture limit if they specifically ask an admin or Av and get the pics approved. that still has problems but its the best i could come up with.
[last edit 6/17/2004 11:44 PM by LongHorn - edited 1 times]
"Mass genocide is the most exhausting activity one can engage in, next to soccer." |
|
tbone
Gender: Male
| | Re: DB picture limit
<Reply # 9 on 6/25/2004 7:40 PM >
| | | | how about some kind of "flag for moderation" check box that could be used to mark pictures that entirely blurry or nearly completely black...
|
|
Chainsaw
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Underground, Colorado
Gender: Male
| | | Re: DB picture limit
<Reply # 10 on 6/25/2004 9:34 PM >
| | | | Maybe it would be easier to score each picture in the gallery - then display the highest scored pictures first to get them the attention they deserve?
Quid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
|
|
Mike Dijital
   
UEDB Moderator
Location: Boston MA.
Gender: Male
UE ver. 1.0
| | | Re: DB picture limit
<Reply # 11 on 6/25/2004 9:41 PM >
| | | | Posted by Chainsaw
Maybe it would be easier to score each picture in the gallery - then display the highest scored pictures first to get them the attention they deserve?
|
A picture rating system isn't a bad idea. you could offer the LDB rater star for rating 300+ pics or something in lue of the 50 location rating
www.deggi5.com / www.mikedijital.com |
|
Chainsaw
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Underground, Colorado
Gender: Male
| | | Re: DB picture limit
<Reply # 12 on 6/25/2004 9:50 PM >
| | | | Or get a "Photog" star for having a certain percentage of your pictures rated 10 out of 10 with a minimum of 25 or 50 pictures to be eligible.
Of course - there are a lot of pictures - but it could encourage people to not load crap - especially if he makes a "Craptographer" star for people that have a low rating.
[last edit 6/25/2004 9:52 PM by Chainsaw - edited 2 times]
Quid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
|
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 234 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739817978 pages have been generated.
|
|
