A few thoughts on approving photos

[oldboots]

It's been a few months since Dave spread the load and let a few of us approve photos, this has certainly made a difference to the speed they are approved at but other than that how do we feel about how well it is working?

Personally I have applied the general rules that picture quality or pictures very like another existing shot aren't something to worry about and just approve them, that internal or garden shots should be "don't show on main page", and that we don't need umpteen pictures of shops that used to be pubs or buildings on the site of a pub - one will do. Any shots that are obviously a duplication by the person submitting I "refer to admin" (as with the "more old shops" pictures and duplicate photos of new buildings on the site of a pub). Needless to say anything with questionable content would be "referred" although I haven't seen anything like that yet.

I'm not asking for strict guidelines here, just an idea whither the system is working or if contributors feel their photo's are being unfairly left off.

[Rex_Rattus]

As far as I'm aware none of mine have been refused, but I don't keep track of when and if photos I've submitted are approved. I've certainly never been told mine have been refused - would you envisage a contributor being told that his/her photos have been refused? So as far as I can see the system is working well.

Shots of shops, etc, that used to be pubs. Personally I don't think there is a need for any photos of buildings (flats, etc,) built on sites on which a pub used to stand. But I suppose one such shot can't hurt, but I wouldn't submit such a photo. I feel differently about photos of buildings that were built as pubs, but now house a different business. Many such buildings (and obviously there are too many of them!) can still retain architectural merit and are worthy of inclusion.

Don't show on main page. I thought this process had been discontinued - except that individual contributors can decide that their own photos don't show on the front page. Do you have this admin power? I know that at one time Conrad said that he didn't want to be bothered deciding whether individual photos should show on the front page. I still believe that some photos shouldn't show on the front page - mainly those where the pub can't be seen for scaffolding, and I often "relegate" my own shots of the interiors of pubs (when I remember to do so).

Questionable photos. Not an issue it seems, but I did wonder if the shot I took in the gents loo here (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/56552/) in Sep 2013 might get the thumbs down!

Duplicate photos. Where someone has submitted a duplicate (and here I take you to mean where said contributor has previously submitted that very same picture) then presumably it's a mistake, so is there a need to bother Santa? Or can his helpers simply make that call for themselves? Seems a no-brainer to me. But of course this is a call for Santa himself.

Picture quality. I agree. I wouldn't want to get into the business of deciding which photos were good enough either.

[Aqualung]

When I went to the new One Inn The Wood the whole block was covered in saffolding so I couldn't get a worthwhile external shot. As it's a shop conversion micropub it's probably not that important.
Some of the new microbrewery taps are not exactly photogenic, the Wild Card one being a good example. In a case like that surely an internal shot says as much as an external one?

[Quinno]

I've been giving "don't show" to ones where the quality is clearly poor (relatively - blurry, long-distance, dark) compared to others also subbed. But if it is one of only a couple available, I tend to leave it.

I also apply no-show to most internals and gardens but tend to leave pub signs so long as they aren't just a corporate Greene King 'name only' type.

Am also 'no showing' older photos when the pub has had a name change or a fairly obvious external refurb.

Closed pubs-wise, I 'no show' pics of modern use when a pic of the pub actually open/boarded up is available. Otherwise I leave. - better something than nothing IMO

[Lady Grey]

The system is generally working very well, but I do have a quibble about the quality of some of the photos that have been approved. I'll not mention names or locations, but there are some photos that have obviously been taken in a moving vehicle, thus producing blurred and dull photos. Sometimes this works, and may be the only opportunity to photograph a pub. But recently, I have seen some very poor quality photos on the main site. They are neither a good advertisement for the pub, nor indeed for Pubs Galore.
I hope I haven't offended anyone

[sheffield hatter]

The system is generally working very well, but I do have a quibble about the quality of some of the photos that have been approved. I'll not mention names or locations, but there are some photos that have obviously been taken in a moving vehicle, thus producing blurred and dull photos. Sometimes this works, and may be the only opportunity to photograph a pub. But recently, I have seen some very poor quality photos on the main site. They are not a good advertisement for the pub, or indeed for Pubs Galore.
I hope I haven't offended anyone

I hope so too!

I too have had my doubts about some of the "moving vehicle" shots, but when I queried this with "Santa", he replied thus: "Generally my policy on crap photos is to pretty much allow almost anything from the regular contributors. If there are other photos on the listing though I will generally suppress them." So the policy would seem to be that if a regular user is happy to have their name associated with a crap photo, so be it, but it doesn't have to be the photo that represents the pub on the site, i.e. it can be "suppressed" (unless it's the only photo).

My only quibble with this is that keen photographers might find the enthusiasm to make a trip to photograph a pub that has no existing photograph - these are easy to identify because of the icons next to the pub name in the town listing - but there's no way to identify a pub that has one "crap" photo, other than going through the list and looking at each pub, and quite honestly I've got better things to do with my time. (I would suggest a new icon along the lines of "crap photo alert", but this might not go down too well with either the IT dwarves or the crap photographers.:evilgrin: )

Glad you think the system is working very well, other than that.

[Mobyduck]

Questionable photos. Not an issue it seems, but I did wonder if the shot I took in the gents loo here (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/56552/) in Sep 2013 might get the thumbs down!


Thumbs up from me, but maybe not front page. :evilgrin:

[Lady Grey]

I hope so too!

I too have had my doubts about some of the "moving vehicle" shots, but when I queried this with "Santa", he replied thus: "Generally my policy on crap photos is to pretty much allow almost anything from the regular contributors. If there are other photos on the listing though I will generally suppress them." So the policy would seem to be that if a regular user is happy to have their name associated with a crap photo, so be it, but it doesn't have to be the photo that represents the pub on the site, i.e. it can be "suppressed" (unless it's the only photo).

My only quibble with this is that keen photographers might find the enthusiasm to make a trip to photograph a pub that has no existing photograph - these are easy to identify because of the icons next to the pub name in the town listing - but there's no way to identify a pub that has one "crap" photo, other than going through the list and looking at each pub, and quite honestly I've got better things to do with my time. (I would suggest a new icon along the lines of "crap photo alert", but this might not go down too well with either the IT dwarves or the crap photographers.:evilgrin: )

Glad you think the system is working very well, other than that.

Thank you for that witty clarification. :)

[ETA]

Questionable photos. Not an issue it seems, but I did wonder if the shot I took in the gents loo here (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/56552/) in Sep 2013 might get the thumbs down!



Rex, could you press the 'move logo to top' button?

[Rex_Rattus]

Rex, could you press the 'move logo to top' button?
Done that - not sure it adds much to the overall perspective! Photographic quality is not good either, as the light was poor and I took it quickly before anyone else came in. Cameras and gents loos don't go together easily - lots of scope for misunderstandings!

[Aqualung]

Has anyone tried capturing a picture from Google Streets? I often use this to verify the location of a pub (and have got it wrong twice!!).

[Blackthorn]

I agree with Quinno's points, I would generally "no show" a garden photo that I've submitted, but it's a pain that you can't do that until after it's been approved. It would be good if this option was available as soon as you've uploaded the photo, otherwise you have to try and remember to go back and do it.

I only realised recently that the approvers could do this as I went back to do it only to find them already done.

[ETA]

Done that - not sure it adds much to the overall perspective! Photographic quality is not good either, as the light was poor and I took it quickly before anyone else came in. Cameras and gents loos don't go together easily - lots of scope for misunderstandings!

Thanks Rex - it was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek request anyway.

[sheffield hatter]

Has anyone tried capturing a picture from Google Streets? I often use this to verify the location of a pub (and have got it wrong twice!!).

One or two people have submitted such images heretofore, but they are deleted if spotted because of copyright issues.

[Aqualung]

One or two people have submitted such images heretofore, but they are deleted if spotted because of copyright issues.
I guessed there must be a copyright issue, but wondered what sort of quality was achievable. It would also look silly having people's faces blurred out!

[Farway]

I have contributed plenty of pub photos, including some of gents bogs http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/14100/ [asked Santa first].

I do not upload a photo if it is another shot of same pic from same location, unless a few years, new paint job etc, happened, I think it is self censoring

Image quality, we are not all experts, and sometimes a "drive by" maybe the only picture of a pub available, I took one one the A303, near Stonehenge, there is no way any one could stop to take a photo with out a load of hassle, IMO, better something than nothing

PS I used to blur out number plates, but following discussion here, decided to not bother, you are in a pub, in area accessible to the public, what's to hide?

[Aqualung]

Image quality, we are not all experts, and sometimes a "drive by" maybe the only picture of a pub available, I took one one the A303, near Stonehenge, there is no way any one could stop to take a photo with out a load of hassle, IMO, better something than nothing


Were you driving?????

[Al 10000]

I think the way photos are now put onto the site very quickly is a good thing.

I do admit to putting a few crap photos on the site and one of a block of flats in Wellingborough,the crap ones are in Leicestershire when i was doing a pub crawl with my brother and it got a bit dark,there is one at Rothwell that is too dark plus one more in the south Leicesershire area,if anybody does'nt like these photos then go ahead and delete them.
All photos i add to this site, i then get them done on a proper print for my personal phot collection which is around the 8,500 mark at the moment.

[bcfczuluarmy]

Regarding the demolished/converted argument/adding pictures of now discussion. I believe from a social history point of view it's good to capture changes after the event and through the redevelopment especially as once Pro Map updates the geographical location of the structure on the land of a former pub it is lost unless you have access to old Pro Map versions, obviously Google images and other web sites could show where and what a pub looked like.

An example of this is The Market (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/102/) which is to be demolished for a casino and hotel complex once that happens the PH/location of pub from current Pro Map won't show it anymore.

All lists of pubs on the internet will lead people to complete quests now and in the future and become OCD to completing them and capturing pictures etc so if closed pubs are shown people will endeavor to document everything possible, which this site is a perfect vessel for.

I could add a load of converted pubs in Bristol I've been in but as I only have post conversion pictures I won't bother due to the time scale from when I went and when converted. If they haven't made it on the site already from the sources that started the site it's not worth adding.

Regarding the picture quality as long as slight sun invasion/ready brek glow pictures don't get refused than everything else referred to in above posts seems reasonable as obviously some times it's impossible not to have the sun giving a glow around the pub as they are orientated for the garden to get the sun not the front of the building at a time you'd visit.

Adding really old pubs that are ~20 years lost with a picture of a Britannia building society is pointless though.

[Mobyduck]

Adding really old pubs that are ~20 years lost with a picture of a Britannia building society is pointless though.
Agreed.

[Quinno]

if anybody does'nt like these photos then go ahead and delete them.


No deletion, just suppression from showing on main page :)

[Farway]

Were you driving?????

Nope, a passenger

[Rex_Rattus]

Thanks Rex - it was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek request anyway.
I did think that. But obviously I tried it to see if there were any embonpointment improvements!

[Quinno]

embonpointment

I had to look that up!

[Farway]

I had to look that up!

You are not alone :o

[Maldenman]

I just did what I always do when talking to Rex..........pretend to know what he's on about! ;)

[Aqualung]

One of the pictures of this (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/44714/) pub needs rotating through 90 degrees to the right, something that can easily be achieved with the humble MS Paint that comes as part of the MS accessories with Windows.
I wonder how many people use a graphics editing program on their pictures before uploading them. I use an old version of Paintshop Pro that I know my way around but I'm not an expert with.
Even using just MS Paint it's possible to trim a picture.
I'm hopeless at taking Portrait oriented pics that are at the correct angle and these are easily adjusted with Paintshop (providing they are not too extreme!).

[bcfczuluarmy]

1114

Indeed it is easy via paint. I don't do anything other than rotate portrait pics so they appear the correct way.

I also quite like the pubs galore running up the side.

[Aqualung]

1114

Indeed it is easy via paint. I don't do anything other than rotate portrait pics so they appear the correct way.

I also quite like the pubs galore running up the side.

I don't understand that, to take a portrait pic I have to hold the camera so that the picture in the viewfinder is vertical. I can't get on with that display on the back of the thing. Do you use Paint to trim the pictures as well?

[Quinno]

On Windows 7 you can edit via Windows Live Photo Gallery. Very simple to use and a bit of manipulation of contrast can turn a fairly dark and dull picture into a quite acceptable one. Also you can rotate subtly etc. I always touch mine up a bit, well-worth the effort.

[Aqualung]

I always touch mine up a bit, well-worth the effort.



1115

I'm on Vista!

[Quinno]

1115

I'm on Vista!

Cheeky!

1116