View Full Version : Report A Picture
Aqualung
07-03-2015, 22:55
Should there be a thread for this?
Since I've been taking pictures for the site I have come round to the idea that internal shots should not be shown on the front page but still encounter pubs where this isn't the case.
There are a couple of shots of Barmouth pubs by Steve of N21 where the pics are the wrong way round but apart from that are perfectly acceptable. This could so easily be fixed and the pictures resubmitted.
Should the thread include really bad shots of pubs? My personal view is no as although I have seen some very poor pictures how bad does bad have to be, it could all get very messy.
Lady Grey
08-03-2015, 12:01
Should the thread include really bad shots of pubs? My personal view is no as although I have seen some very poor pictures how bad does bad have to be, it could all get very messy.
A resounding yes. But be careful not to tread on sensitive toes.
A resounding NO
Pictures have to be approved in the first instance, so not just bunged up and hope picture censors do not spot the the porn images :eek:
There is an option to not show on front page, I have used this to stop some of my internal pics showing, but are visible to those that care to look.
I think this has to be done by the originator of photo, not a self imposed image censor, or as stated, toes & messy
There are poor images, but sometimes any is better than none, a "drive by" for instance where no one else has gone to or walked into the pub in question
Strongers
08-03-2015, 12:48
Bag of worms!!!
If there is going to be a rule on what photos are and are not acceptable for the site/front pub page it needs to be put in writing so that everyone is clear on the matter.
I don't take many photos and certainly do not think of myself as the next David Bailey, but even I know that a blurred picture of a pub through the dirty window of a moving train at dusk is not acceptable. What is not so obvious to people that do not use the forums is that we don't want pictures of plates of food. What is even less obvious is that any interior shots of pubs should not be shown on the main pub page (I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind this one as I think a good picture of the bar is just as informative as a picture of the exterior). There is also another rule that bans photos of people posing, this isn't Farcebook!
Is it ok to add picures of shops/blocks of flats/empty fields because a pub used to stand in that location? Is it ok to add a picture of a house for architectural reasons because it obviously used to be a pub?
Should pictures of pubs covered with scaffolding be submitted? Should pubs have so many duplicate pictures uploaded onto them? Is it ok to add a picture of a local landmark that can/cannot be seen from the pub?
Aqualung
08-03-2015, 13:02
As I understand it an internal shot is changed by the approvers so it doesn't show on the front page after approval. This doesn't seem to have been applied in certain cases and the poster of the photo hasn't made the change themselves. I had the impression that this was one of the rules regarding pictures. As for poor pictures I agree, it would be unworkable as who is to say how bad it has to be.
oldboots
08-03-2015, 15:42
As I understand it an internal shot is changed by the approvers so it doesn't show on the front page after approval. This doesn't seem to have been applied in certain cases and the poster of the photo hasn't made the change themselves. I had the impression that this was one of the rules regarding pictures. As for poor pictures I agree, it would be unworkable as who is to say how bad it has to be.
You are correct, the monkeys have the ability to press the "don't show on main page" button sometimes we forget though as it pops up afterwards.
Bag of worms!!!
Indeed, but we really shouldn't need to consider quality, people should self-censor the pictures of mucky bus windows with what might be a pub in the background or the fourth photo of a nail bar that stands on the site of a pub or .......etc, etc,
Strongers
08-03-2015, 15:58
Indeed, but we really shouldn't need to consider quality, people should self-censor the pictures of mucky bus windows with what might be a pub in the background or the fourth photo of a nail bar that stands on the site of a pub or .......etc, etc,
Yes, but it would seem that the competition is fierce to be the top snapper. One may be led to believe that in some cases quantity wins over quality.
Aqualung
08-03-2015, 16:03
Indeed, but we really shouldn't need to consider quality, people should self-censor the pictures of mucky bus windows with what might be a pub in the background or the fourth photo of a nail bar that stands on the site of a pub or .......etc, etc,
I agree completely. I did spot a picture a while back that looked as though it had been taken from the top deck of a bus. The same person had posted perfectly good street level pics of the pub a few years earlier. What was the point of that?
Bag of worms!!!
I think a good picture of the bar is just as informative as a picture of the exterior
I agree, but go further to say that a good interior picture can give a much better idea to what a pub is really like.
Mobyduck
08-03-2015, 16:21
I agree, but go further to say that a good interior picture can give a much better idea to what a pub is really like.
Yes I am still a bit undecided in this one,I have suppressed a few of my internal shots from the front page but now thinking again, when researching a new pub I am thinking of visiting I always look for internal shots , it gives a more in depth view and feel of the pub and you presumably will be spending more time there than standing back admiring the architecture.
bcfczuluarmy
08-03-2015, 17:16
There seriously are some shit pictures on here for example ones taken from buses or other modes of transport with the pub a distant blur.
bcfczuluarmy
08-03-2015, 18:30
I agree completely. I did spot a picture a while back that looked as though it had been taken from the top deck of a bus. The same person had posted perfectly good street level pics of the pub a few years earlier. What was the point of that?
Had there been a change in paint job? I know I've taken pictures from the bus on the way home as pub as had a paint job and it seems a good as spot to take photo from than having to pop down and get street level view.
Aqualung
08-03-2015, 19:35
Had there been a change in paint job? I know I've taken pictures from the bus on the way home as pub as had a paint job and it seems a good as spot to take photo from than having to pop down and get street level view.
I can't remember for sure, it looked pretty much the same to me. It was oop north somewhere.
Bag of worms!!!
What is not so obvious to people that do not use the forums is that we don't want pictures of plates of food. What is even less obvious is that any interior shots of pubs should not be shown on the main pub page (I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind this one as I think a good picture of the bar is just as informative as a picture of the exterior).
Who are the "WE" A bit presumptive there roping everyone into your point of view, I do do not want CAMRA members only clubs listed, but would never presume my opinion is same as everyone's. Why ever not show plates of food just because you do not want it?
You may not want them, others may, shows what one is likely to get in the pub, not all users are gagging for beer, some actually eat in pubs as well, and not just crisps
Interior shots, covered elsewhere, and as with food, photos of beer mats, bar clips etc, gives an idea of the pub in general
FWIW I have opted to limit some shots to front page only, and for Strongers, my photos of food are not visible on front pages :D
There seriously are some shit pictures on here for example ones taken from buses or other modes of transport with the pub a distant blur.
As I said earlier, better than nothing if no one has ever gone to the pub or ever walked by it
Agreed, there are some crap photos, but as I also said earlier, they have been approved and not just bunged up by anyone with a camera
oldboots
09-03-2015, 16:05
but as I also said earlier, they have been approved and not just bunged up by anyone with a camera
Well it's not quite that simple, quality isn't meant to be assessed - one man's bad picture is another's "artistic interpretation". As an approver I don't make any quality judgements about photos when I approve them merely check they are:
1. the right pub (get that wrong sometimes)
2. not a duplicate of one already submitted (some are very close but not actually duplicates)
3. do not show anything inappropriate
I haven't refered to Dave any that include people or, except for one really dreadful picture, any for quality. I have sometimes hit the wrong button by mistake which must confuse Dave and I do refer pictures of places that are not pubs anymore if there is an existing picture of it when not a pub. I believe the other approvers do pretty much the same judging by what gets put on.
Surely all pictures are welcome as they are a great asset to the site, I just wish some people would edit their work a little better or at all in some well known cases.
Aqualung
09-03-2015, 17:22
Here's a question, I get my internal shots marked as not showing on the front page and I have no objection to that. Is there anything to stop me from changing it and I wonder have people actually done that? I
As for pubs with scaffolding I've not bothered even taking a pic with two and did with one in Hastings where at least you could still see the pub sign.
sheffield hatter
09-03-2015, 17:47
Here's a question, I get my internal shots marked as not showing on the front page and I have no objection to that. Is there anything to stop me from changing it and I wonder have people actually done that? I
As for pubs with scaffolding I've not bothered even taking a pic with two and did with one in Hastings where at least you could still see the pub sign.
No, there's nothing to stop you changing it back to show your picture on the front page...and there's nothing to stop someone with admin rights changing it back again!
In considering whether to limit a photo's appearance to the "back page", I think we (that is, the photographers and the admins) have to ask whether the pub owner would be happy having that picture represent their pub. A picture of a building covered in scaffolding would not be one that I, if I owned the pub, would want potential customers to see if they landed on my pub's front page.
Strongers
09-03-2015, 18:21
Who are the "WE" A bit presumptive there roping everyone into your point of view, I do do not want CAMRA members only clubs listed, but would never presume my opinion is same as everyone's. Why ever not show plates of food just because you do not want it?
You may not want them, others may, shows what one is likely to get in the pub, not all users are gagging for beer, some actually eat in pubs as well, and not just crisps
Interior shots, covered elsewhere, and as with food, photos of beer mats, bar clips etc, gives an idea of the pub in general
FWIW I have opted to limit some shots to front page only, and for Strongers, my photos of food are not visible on front pages :D
The use of the word ‘we’ in my post was meant to draw together previous comments from posters that have commented on what they think should and should not be permitted on the site. In hindsight I could of selected better language to express my point (which is not actually my view), but unfortunately my wordsmithery is not up to your high standard so I stand corrected.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to cut me down to size! :notworthy:
Aqualung
09-03-2015, 19:08
Surely the main point here is what should be shown on the front page. I think an external shot of the pub is the one that looks more "right" (or aesthetically pleasing). A plate of food would look odd even for a Harvester wouldn't it?
Mobyduck
09-03-2015, 20:58
There seriously are some shit pictures on here for example ones taken from buses or other modes of transport with the pub a distant blur.
A good recent example here (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/1690/) ( March 2015 picture). And this (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/74609/) is not even a picture of the original building intended for the page if you read Quinnos review.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to cut me down to size! :notworthy:
Your welcome, happy to help :D
Lady Grey
10-03-2015, 15:35
Please disregard my previous comment, I was under the influence! :o
I'm glad this important subject has been raised. I wish that there was some sort of device which would allow regular contributers to supress old photos of pubs, especially those that have been refubished. A good example is http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/42455/ The previous photo is a good one, but it shows the pub in a state of closure. In some cases, might it be an idea to contant the photographer and ask them if they could supress their own photo? This would be a more freindly approach.
Another angle to looking at poor photos on this site, is that they don't give a good impression of Pubs Galore. Photos don't have to be perfect, but they should at least be a clear image of the pub.
That's me off my soapbox!
ROBCamra
10-03-2015, 15:49
That's me off my soapbox!
That's also that picture off the main page.
As far as I'm concerned if anyone does want to report a picture here I'll happily take a look at it especially if
a pub has changed look/name etc. :cheers:
That's me off my soapbox!
Not at all - We are all entitled to our opinions, and what I like about this site is that we can express them and discuss amicably.
For my part, I quite like seeing the older photos, as long as they are reasonable quality. That lets us see pubs as they change over time, and we can see a pub's history to some extent. It's interesting to see changes in name, colour scheme and so on. But I do agree that the front page photo should be a recent one and should be of the exterior as a rule, with the caveat that not all exteriors are obvious. What I mean by that is that sometimes a bar may be part of a commercial block and difficult to differentiate from adjacent businesses, for example.
Al 10000
10-03-2015, 17:52
Please disreguard my previous comment, I was under the influence! :o
I'm glad this important subject has been raised. I wish that there was some sort of device which would allow regular contributers to supress old photos of pubs, especially those that have been refubished. A good example is http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/42455/ The previous photo is a good one, but it shows the pub in a state of closure. In some cases, might it be an idea to contant the photographer and ask them if they could supress their own photo? This would be a more freindly approach.
Another angle to looking at poor photos on this site, is that they don't give a good impression of Pubs Galore. Photos don't have to be perfect, but they should at least be a clear image of the pub.
That's me off my soapbox!
I have now deleted my photo and review of the Three Tuns in Alcester as they are no longer needed on the site.
sheffield hatter
10-03-2015, 18:10
I have now deleted my photo and review of the Three Tuns in Alcester as they are no longer needed on the site.
Al, I wish you would reconsider your actions. No one said your review was not needed on the site. And Helen only suggested that the photo of the pub when it was closed should not appear on the pub's front page - which has been the theme of this thread, and which we have been discussing like grown ups (albeit inebriated grown ups, at times). I'm not sure if your actions in this regard constitute throwing the baby out with the bath water, or throwing your rattle out of the pram. Either way, please pick it up again.
Lady Grey
11-03-2015, 12:39
I have now deleted my photo and review of the Three Tuns in Alcester as they are no longer needed on the site.
You didn't need to delete your photo, like ETA said it shows the history of the pub.
Al 10000
11-03-2015, 15:58
Al, I wish you would reconsider your actions. No one said your review was not needed on the site. And Helen only suggested that the photo of the pub when it was closed should not appear on the pub's front page - which has been the theme of this thread, and which we have been discussing like grown ups (albeit inebriated grown ups, at times). I'm not sure if your actions in this regard constitute throwing the baby out with the bath water, or throwing your rattle out of the pram. Either way, please pick it up again.
I was'nt being mardy about deleting my review and photo of the Three Tuns.
I did'nt go in the pub so my review saying it is closed and looks a state inside is not now needed on the site in my opinion,i will only delete reviews and photos of pubs that i have taken when trying to do the pub that is closed and then reopens.
Definatly not being mardy just trying to help.
Maldenman
11-03-2015, 17:25
I was'nt being mardy about deleting my review and photo of the Three Tuns.
Definatly not being mardy just trying to help.
Hehe, bet there's a fair few on here who have no clue what mardy means :D
sheffield hatter
11-03-2015, 17:29
I was'nt being mardy about deleting my review and photo of the Three Tuns.
I did'nt go in the pub so my review saying it is closed and looks a state inside is not now needed on the site in my opinion,i will only delete reviews and photos of pubs that i have taken when trying to do the pub that is closed and then reopens.
Definatly not being mardy just trying to help.
So I misunderstood. If I could have read the review, now...
And I still don't see a problem with a photo of the pub in a state of disrepair, as long as it doesn't appear on the front page. You can't restore the review (it would have the wrong date) but what about resubmitting the photo, for historical interest?
Mobyduck
11-03-2015, 17:48
but what about resubmitting the photo, for historical interest?
A good idea.
Bucking Fastard
15-03-2015, 15:02
Surely all pictures are welcome as they are a great asset to the site, I just wish some people would edit their work a little better or at all in some well known cases.
I just wonder if a polite PM to a photographer pointing out that the photo ,although valid,could be suppressed so that it does not appear on the pub's front page might do the trick.I am guilty of not looking back at the photos that I have submitted,given that a lot will now be approaching 5 years old,it is quite possible that the pub has changed significantly in that time and more recent photos would be better on the pubs front page.I would be quite happy to edit the photo so that it doesn't appear on the front page,if someone would just notify me by PM.
Obviously this option wont work for photographers who are not forum members,so this thread is the right place to raise the issue in these cases and would alert the "moderators" that a bit of judgement is required.
Blackthorn
15-03-2015, 15:57
I just wonder if a polite PM to a photographer pointing out that the photo ,although valid,could be suppressed so that it does not appear on the pub's front page might do the trick.I am guilty of not looking back at the photos that I have submitted,given that a lot will now be approaching 5 years old,it is quite possible that the pub has changed significantly in that time and more recent photos would be better on the pubs front page.I would be quite happy to edit the photo so that it doesn't appear on the front page,if someone would just notify me by PM.
Obviously this option wont work for photographers who are not forum members,so this thread is the right place to raise the issue in these cases and would alert the "moderators" that a bit of judgement is required.
Likewise, if someone spots any of mine that are out of date for any reason I'd be quite happy to suppress them from the main page.
Oggwyn Trench
15-03-2015, 16:49
I have been trawling through my photos and deleting any that are really bad , and there were some terrible ones , dont know what i was thinking:confused::D
Most of my photos are also several years old so i try to keep them off the main pages whether they are internal or outside shots allthough the odd one does slip through .
Mobyduck
15-03-2015, 16:57
I don't think the age of a photo comes in to it ,as long as the quality is ok, an old picture enhances the data base as far as I am concerned.
bcfczuluarmy
15-03-2015, 21:32
I don't think the age of a photo comes in to it ,as long as the quality is ok, an old picture enhances the data base as far as I am concerned.
+1 Historical timeline is what we should be maintaining even including times of vacancy,neglect and potentially total dereliction.... I assume this speak of "main page" is relating to pictures appearing in such zones as "randomise pub" and clicking on a pub without tapping through to the pub pictures tab.
Aqualung
15-03-2015, 22:06
I assume this speak of "main page" is relating to pictures appearing in such zones as "randomise pub" and clicking on a pub without tapping through to the pub pictures tab.
That's a long winded way of defining it but you are correct!!
Lady Grey
16-04-2015, 21:06
Please can you suppress the photo of MBargo, the former name of Turtle Bay in Cheltenham.
Mobyduck
16-04-2015, 21:11
Please can you suppress the photo of MBargo, the former name of Turtle Bay in Cheltenham.
Which photo and why?
Aqualung
16-04-2015, 22:44
I would like to repeat that my original intention with this post was a facility to highlight pictures that are of the pub interior that appear on the front page, something that I come across on a regular basis. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered.
Lady Grey
17-04-2015, 02:05
Sorry about that, I'll go to the proper place with my request.
Aqualung
18-04-2015, 23:29
Sorry about that, I'll go to the proper place with my request.
Do you know where the proper place is? I certainly don't!
I wasn't having a go here but feeling disappointed that the issue of pictures should or could be reported doesn't seem to have been addressed.
For what it's worth I will highlight this (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/56926/) pub which has internal pictures from 2011 that show on the front page. If nothing happens then I won't bother to report a nearby pub with the same issue.
Mobyduck
19-04-2015, 07:20
Do you know where the proper place is? I certainly don't!
I wasn't having a go here but feeling disappointed that the issue of pictures should or could be reported doesn't seem to have been addressed.
For what it's worth I will highlight this (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/56926/) pub which has internal pictures from 2011 that show on the front page. If nothing happens then I won't bother to report a nearby pub with the same issue.
Maybe you should post here (http://forums.pubsgalore.co.uk/showthread.php?20011-Sort-it-out-Dave-do-some-updates!)?
oldboots
19-04-2015, 08:26
How about here (http://forums.pubsgalore.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?6-That-Doesn-t-Go-There!) it does say it's for "Web site corrections and omissions" and is monitored for that by those that can. I believe all users can "supress", ie don't show on main page, their own photo's.
Aqualung
19-04-2015, 11:26
How about here (http://forums.pubsgalore.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?6-That-Doesn-t-Go-There!) it does say it's for "Web site corrections and omissions" and is monitored for that by those that can. I believe all users can "supress", ie don't show on main page, their own photo's.
OK, thanks for that and I believe you are right about suppressing your own pictures.
OK, thanks for that and I believe you are right about suppressing your own pictures.
It is for suppressing your pictures, not for someone not liking the picture and reporting it
As a picture uploader I do suppress some of mine, but I would be horrified to think anyone, except Dave & co, had the right to suppress any of mine just because in their opinion it did not meet their own criteria
Aqualung
19-04-2015, 13:15
It is for suppressing your pictures, not for someone not liking the picture and reporting it
As a picture uploader I do suppress some of mine, but I would be horrified to think anyone, except Dave & co, had the right to suppress any of mine just because in their opinion it did not meet their own criteria
Just to make it clear yet again that this is nothing to do with picture quality or artistic merit but the simple fact that under site guidelines internal pictures of pubs are not supposed to appear on the front page but in some cases do.
Al 10000
19-04-2015, 15:05
There is a pretty dire picture of this pub http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/41125/ which seems to be the one that appears on the front page most times,there are two other photos which are a lot clearer and i have also added a very recent photo today which was taken last month.
I will leave it up to the admins to sort it out.
oldboots
19-04-2015, 17:24
There is a pretty dire picture of this pub http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/41125/ which seems to be the one that appears on the front page most times,there are two other photos which are a lot clearer and i have also added a very recent photo today which was taken last month.
I will leave it up to the admins to sort it out.
We don't stop pictures on the grounds of quality even pictures of dirty bus windows with what might be a pub in the background. That's the rule, of course in a perfect world people would edit their own work a little more diligently.
We don't stop pictures on the grounds of quality even pictures of dirty bus windows with what might be a pub in the background. That's the rule, of course in a perfect world people would edit their own work a little more diligently.
Agree about self editing, but sometimes, as some one said, a picture is worth a thousand words, especially if it is the picture available
Al 10000
19-10-2015, 17:40
There are food pictures appearing on the front page of this pub http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/13253/ lots of other food pictures taken.
Mobyduck
19-10-2015, 18:34
There are food pictures appearing on the front page of this pub http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/13253/ lots of other food pictures taken.
I wonder if Sarah Cross (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/userinfo.php?name=SarahC) has any links to the pub ? :whistle:
ROBCamra
19-10-2015, 19:15
There are food pictures appearing on the front page of this pub http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/13253/ lots of other food pictures taken.
There shouldn't be. They're all suppressed correctly. :confused:
Does anybody else get them on the main page? I can't.
bcfczuluarmy
19-10-2015, 19:23
There shouldn't be. They're all suppressed correctly. :confused:
Does anybody else get them on the main page? I can't.
F5 refreshed page about 50 times which is a quick way to see all pub photo's and no food in sght just OB and Sarah Cross external photos.
Pubsignman
19-10-2015, 20:39
I can't see those food photos on the pub's main page, but I can see one of them on the Pubs Galore home page, under 'Recent Activity'. I guess it will disappear once enough other people have uploaded photos, as it will drop off the recent activity section.
Aqualung
19-10-2015, 21:00
I've given up on reporting interior shots of pubs appearing on the front page as there just seems to be so many of them and pictures of a plate/slate/lump of wood with food on must be the worst possible example.
A picture that appears under recent activity might not appear on the front page but that isn't really a question for me to answer.
oldboots
20-10-2015, 07:42
I've given up on reporting interior shots of pubs appearing on the front page as there just seems to be so many of them and pictures of a plate/slate/lump of wood with food on must be the worst possible example.
Please keep reporting them either publicly or by PM to the moderators so we can do the necessary, otherwise they will stay until someone else notices.
Al 10000
20-10-2015, 16:38
There shouldn't be. They're all suppressed correctly. :confused:
Does anybody else get them on the main page? I can't.
Sorry Rob,
I meant the Pubs Galore front page,i just happened to see a plate of food so reported it,glad you are still surpressing these type of photos.
Cheers Alan
There are food pictures appearing on the front page of this pub http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/13253/ lots of other food pictures taken.
I have to align with Al here - this one is particularly irritating.
NickDavies
21-10-2015, 19:09
It would help if some of the food looked even remotely appetising. Pics of human beings should be deprecated too.
How many people, by the way, chuck most of those pillows on the floor before they go to sleep?
Aqualung
21-10-2015, 19:36
How many people, by the way, chuck most of those pillows on the floor before they go to sleep?
Out the window actually, it's more Rock 'N' Roll!!
Aqualung
17-11-2015, 21:07
I've now got a list of pubs that I've spotted over the last few weeks :-
Radius Arms (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/82910/)
William Aylmer (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/63300/)
Ivory Peg (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54530/)
Jolly Sailor (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/12050/)
Rum Puncheon (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/66352/)
Three Daws (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/59068/)
Sandford Ale House (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/79810/)
Ponsonby Arms (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/52009/)
Lincolnshire Poacher (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/30964/)
Trumpet Inn (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/42131/)
Whalebone (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/28707/)
Bagdale Hall (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/53485/)
Robert Ransome (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54074/)
Pen Mill Hotel (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/61979/)
Mare Pool (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/75740/)
Mount Edgcumbe (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/69468/)
Star Tavern (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/22865/)
Green Man (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/62521/)
The Abbey (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/)
Watermans Arms (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/1971/)
Sanctuary House (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/56661/)
Apologies if any of these have already been changed or I have just got it wrong.
sheffield hatter
17-11-2015, 21:23
I've now got a list of pubs that I've spotted over the last few weeks :-
Radius Arms (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/82910/)
William Aylmer (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/63300/)
Ivory Peg (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54530/)
Jolly Sailor (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/12050/)
Rum Puncheon (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/66352/)
Three Daws (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/59068/)
Sandford Ale House (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/79810/)
Ponsonby Arms (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/52009/)
Lincolnshire Poacher (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/30964/)
Trumpet Inn (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/42131/)
Whalebone (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/28707/)
Bagdale Hall (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/53485/)
Robert Ransome (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54074/)
Pen Mill Hotel (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/61979/)
Mare Pool (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/75740/)
Mount Edgcumbe (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/69468/)
Star Tavern (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/22865/)
Green Man (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/62521/)
The Abbey (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/)
Watermans Arms (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/1971/)
Sanctuary House (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/56661/)
Apologies if any of these have already been changed or I have just got it wrong.
OK, done all those. Except your link for The Abbey was incorrect. Can you please do that one again.
Aqualung
17-11-2015, 21:53
It should have been this :-
The Abbey (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54673/)
Sorry for that!
sheffield hatter
17-11-2015, 21:57
It should have been this :-
The Abbey (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54673/)
Sorry for that!
Done! Thanks for those.
Aqualung
08-06-2016, 16:08
I've got a huge list of more piubs where internal shots appear on the front page. I've been building these up over months now so apologies if any have already been fixed and for any other errors.
Updated List
Saracens Head (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/68426/)
Lyndon House Hotel (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/56227/)
Three Locks (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/60380/)
White Hart (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/21032/)
Generous Briton (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/21002/)
Alec Rose (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/56890/)
Opera House (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/53107/)
Two Brewers (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/1969/)
Cricketers (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54070/)
Fosters Arms (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/32006/)
Victoria (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54056/)
Assembly Rooms (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/56996/)
Lymestone Vaults (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/79320/)
Crosse Keys (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/22084/)
St Jude's Brewery Tavern (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/73022/)
Charlie Hall (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/55159/)
Rowbarge (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/35852/)
Brown Lion (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/68940/)
Coronet (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/25495/)
Slug and Lettuce (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54216/)
Pleasure Boat (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/83177/)
Horse and Jockey (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/57945/)
Holly Bush (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/65812/)
Plasterers (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/28599/)
Sahara Lounge (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/27790/)
Palladium (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54167/)
Cock O' Rhudd Inn (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/52136/)
Bank Bar & Kitchen (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/69995/)
Peasant (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54002/)
Commercial (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/63516/)
Quayside (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/59158/)
Whitstable Brewery Bar (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/69326/)
Black Horse (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/37490/)
Dial Arch (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/71158/)
Dolphin (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/53482/)
Humphrey Bean (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/56499)
Fox (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/32127/)
ROBCamra
08-06-2016, 16:16
I'll work my way through these and remove them from your post when as I complete them if that's OK with you?
Unless someone else wants to do them of course. :p
Aqualung
08-06-2016, 17:46
I'll work my way through these and remove them from your post when as I complete them if that's OK with you?
Unless someone else wants to do them of course. :p
That sounds fine. I've got the list retained in a .txt file.
aleandhearty
08-06-2016, 18:05
Unless someone else wants to do them of course. :p
Let's just split the list in half, ROB. I'll do from the Coronet onwards.
aleandhearty
08-06-2016, 18:48
Coronet (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/25495/)
Slug and Lettuce (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54216/)
Royal Oak (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/)
Pleasure Boat (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/83177/)
Horse and Jockey (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/57945/)
Holly Bush (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/65812/)
Plasterers (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/28599/)
Sahara Lounge (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/27790/)
Palladium (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54167/)
Cock O' Rhudd Inn (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/52136/)
Bank Bar & Kitchen (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/69995/)
Peasant (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/54002/)
Commercial (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/63516/)
Quayside (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/59158/)
Whitstable Brewery Bar (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/69326/)
John The Unicorn (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/)
Black Horse (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/37490/)
Dial Arch (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/71158/)
Dolphin (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/53482/)
Humphrey Bean (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/)
Fox (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/32127/)
Nearly all sorted. The links to the Royal Oak, John the Unicorn and Humphrey Bean didn't work. However, I managed to work out the latter two with the names being quite unusual, but with the first one not a clue. To be fair, quite a few had been done by someone else.
Aqualung
08-06-2016, 19:36
Nearly all sorted. The links to the Royal Oak, John the Unicorn and Humphrey Bean didn't work. However, I managed to work out the latter two with the names being quite unusual, but with the first one not a clue. To be fair, quite a few had been done by someone else.
I think John the Unicorn was this :-
John The Unicorn (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/83893)
but it seems to be OK now. I've deleted the Royal Oak as I'm never going to find that! I've also deleted the Saxon Crown as I think the internal shot is actually a nocturnal one. I've noticed another error and replaced the entire list in the original post.
ROBCamra
09-06-2016, 19:10
My share done as well now. :cheers:
Aqualung
09-06-2016, 19:35
My share done as well now. :cheers:
Great! I can start all over again now, I wonder if I'll ever find that Royal Oak?
Lady Grey
26-06-2016, 11:46
This photograph is the wrong way round.
http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/32662/
Mobyduck
26-06-2016, 17:43
This photograph is the wrong way round.
http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/32662/
Which one?
Strongers
26-06-2016, 18:46
Which one?
The one with the ceiling door. ;)
Mobyduck
26-06-2016, 19:09
The one with the ceiling door. ;)
:rolleyes:
Aqualung
26-06-2016, 19:10
The one with the ceiling door. ;)
There's a couple in Barmouth like that. Surely they should be rejected, not because they are poor quality or anything like that but because they are just wrong and so easy to correct with the humble Paint program and probably others that come with Windows. .
oldboots
26-06-2016, 19:20
http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/44714/
http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/44720/
Nothing we can do apart from rejecting of course, only Dave or the submitter can sort these. Let us know if there are any others please.
Aqualung
26-06-2016, 21:00
http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/44714/
http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/44720/
Nothing we can do apart from rejecting of course, only Dave or the submitter can sort these. Let us know if there are any others please.
Thanks and of course that is the way it should be as people would not submit pics if they were likely to be deleted. I don't remember others but I only really look at the pics when I add my own and at the moment I seem to be building up a backlog!
sheffield hatter
26-06-2016, 21:32
Which one?
Which planet are you on?
Mobyduck
19-08-2016, 21:14
Which planet are you on?
Now I'm back the right way up, :) ,
I don't believe the first of John mcgraw's pictures from 2012, here (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/53382/), actually has anything to do with the pub itself, apart from its location.
Now I'm back the right way up, :) ,
I don't believe the first of John mcgraw's pictures from 2012, here (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/53382/), actually has anything to do with the pub itself, apart from its location.
I have changed the village sign one (nothing to do with the pub) so that it won't show on the pub's main page.
Mobyduck
31-08-2016, 20:02
Another John mcgraw moan- It appears to me that his first two photos from April 2009, here (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/15687/) , have nothing to do with the pub in question whatsoever apart from being nearby.
Another John mcgraw moan- It appears to me that his first two photos from April 2009, here (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/15687/) , have nothing to do with the pub in question whatsoever apart from being nearby.
A classic trademark of his. They are suppressed from a front-page appearance now.
Bucking Fastard
29-12-2016, 16:54
Doing some reading about revived pubs near Liverpool Street ,I couldn't help noticing a whole series of old photos up to 2013 of this pub (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/25313/) when it was derelict .It's now very much alive and in the 2017 GBG.Can these be surpressed from the pubs front page ?
Doing some reading about revived pubs near Liverpool Street ,I couldn't help noticing a whole series of old photos up to 2013 of this pub (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/25313/) when it was derelict .It's now very much alive and in the 2017 GBG.Can these be surpressed from the pubs front page ?
Done :)
Komakino
30-12-2016, 17:57
In addition, as above for The Greenwood (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/27689/) in Northolt if possible? The photos from June 2010 are of the site when it was derelict...
ROBCamra
30-12-2016, 18:15
Done. :cheers:
Delboy20
01-01-2017, 11:41
Bit confused about the latest picture added to the White Swan - http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/38384/
It is wildlife but not a swan !
Mobyduck
01-01-2017, 16:10
Bit confused about the latest picture added to the White Swan - http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/38384/
It is wildlife but not a swan !
Maybe meerkats are commonplace here , In which place its a justified photo, whoops sorry I've just realized Iv'e had to much to drink.:evilgrin:
Lady Grey
07-01-2017, 12:42
Hi there, is it possible to suppress the old photos of The Greyhound Inn, at Tebury Gloucestershire? They have just reopened after a refurbishment.
The Greyhound Inn (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/12845/)
Hi there, is it possible to suppress the old photos of The Greyhound Inn, at Tebury Gloucestershire? They have just reopened after a refurbishment.
The Greyhound Inn (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/12845/)
Yes, that's been done (but a couple of new ones would be good!).
Lady Grey
07-01-2017, 13:02
Yes, that's been done (but a couple of new ones would be good!).
I'm about due for another photo expedition!
bcfczuluarmy
07-01-2017, 15:20
Are we suppressing the pictures of when it was shut at the whim of somebody's ideal of utopia or even when it was open when I went in it a few years ago?
oldboots
07-01-2017, 16:15
Are we suppressing the pictures of when it was shut at the whim of somebody's ideal of utopia or even when it was open when I went in it a few years ago?
Any particular pub in mind?
I don't see any reason to suppress pictures of closed pubs when they were open. Pictures of vacant lots, betting shops, mesh fences, Domino's Pizzas, curry houses, and such like, beyond maybe one for reference absolutely yes; personally I wouldn't even submit one of those.
bcfczuluarmy
07-01-2017, 20:08
Any particular pub in mind?
The Greyhound Inn (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/12845/)
Only person who has possibly been in it and took pictures is me and somebody want's them suppressed because it's reopened..... I can bet it won't even look much different from a few years ago.
Oh seems suppression is rife. 10 images yet no pictures showing The Bulls Head (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/37538/) WTF....
oldboots
08-01-2017, 07:58
I can't explain the reasons as I didn't choose the show options and these do look a bit odd. I suspect the Bulls Head pictures might not be shown as they were when it was the City Tavern, although the one showing was also taken when it was the City Tavern. The Greyhound pictures might be because they show the pub as To Let which is not true if it's fully open, but again the older ones that aren't shown don't have the sign but the one that shows does have the sign. All very weird.
Delboy20
08-01-2017, 08:27
Bit confused about the latest picture added to the White Swan - http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/38384/
It is wildlife but not a swan !
And yet the picture of meerkats is still there !
Who on earth approved the picture?
Mobyduck
08-01-2017, 09:19
And yet the picture of meerkats is still there !
Who on earth approved the picture?
No mention of Meerkats in Soup Dragons review either, all very strange.
Rex_Rattus
08-01-2017, 10:15
Several issues here - obviously the most important is to identify correctly the creatures in the White Swan photo. They're not meerkats - my guess is groundhogs, but I'm not certain. Perhaps we count a zoo-ologist amongst our number who might help? They're clearly burrowing mammals of some kind.
I tend to agree with bcfczuluarmy over the Bulls Head/City Tavern photos. I don't like having a blank space on the front page if there exists a photo of the building, even if it's got the previous name of the pub. When someone posts a photo with the current signage then that's the time to suppress the old photos.
I don't think that there's an "official" policy on this? Some of us may remember that a few years ago some of us were given rights to suppress (that is not to show on the front page but still be available for anyone to view) photos of pubs that had changed their name when there existed a current photo. I think that's fair as a policy, but I remember getting it in the neck from Conrad because I also wanted to suppress photos of pubs covered in plastic sheeting while undergoing repairs or refurbs. I still hold the view that if you can't see the pub in the photo then it should be suppressed in favour of photos that actually show the pub.
Mobyduck
08-01-2017, 10:41
Several issues here - obviously the most important is to identify correctly the creatures in the White Swan photo. They're not meerkats - my guess is groundhogs, but I'm not certain. Perhaps we count a zoo-ologist amongst our number who might help? They're clearly burrowing mammals of some kind.
Well spotted Rex, on closer inspection I would say the pictures are of Mongooses (that is the correct plural even though it sounds a bit silly)
142914301431
Well spotted Rex, on closer inspection I would say the pictures are of Mongooses (that is the correct plural even though it sounds a bit silly)
142914301431
Now we know what they are called, are we going to adopt them and have an additional feature for "Live Animals" or send them back to Dudley Zoological Gardens where the picture was probably taken?:p
Trivia: They are also known as The Red Meerkat!
bcfczuluarmy
08-01-2017, 12:32
Just £2 a month could probably save this species.
Rex_Rattus
08-01-2017, 12:59
Certainly looks like those guys! Oh, and my apologies for suggesting that zoologists are burrowing mammals!
Delboy20
08-01-2017, 13:32
I tend to agree with bcfczuluarmy over the Bulls Head/City Tavern photos. I don't like having a blank space on the front page if there exists a photo of the building, even if it's got the previous name of the pub. When someone posts a photo with the current signage then that's the time to suppress the old photos.
I don't think that there's an "official" policy on this? Some of us may remember that a few years ago some of us were given rights to suppress (that is not to show on the front page but still be available for anyone to view) photos of pubs that had changed their name when there existed a current photo. I think that's fair as a policy, but I remember getting it in the neck from Conrad because I also wanted to suppress photos of pubs covered in plastic sheeting while undergoing repairs or refurbs. I still hold the view that if you can't see the pub in the photo then it should be suppressed in favour of photos that actually show the pub.
Makes sense to me. I don't see any point in having a blank space because a pub has been renamed. I also agree that when a current photo is added then that should be the one on display, with the older photos accessible to the viewer.
Delboy20
08-01-2017, 13:38
Now we know what they are called, are we going to adopt them and have an additional feature for "Live Animals" or send them back to Dudley Zoological Gardens where the picture was probably taken?:p
Trivia: They are also known as The Red Meerkat!
At least we have decided on what they are!
The fact that this picture has been approved suggests that it wasn't even looked at. It could have been a whole lot worse.
Thank god that the photographer had been to the zoo and not to some swingers party !!!!:evilgrin::evilgrin:
sheffield hatter
09-01-2017, 14:36
I tend to agree with bcfczuluarmy over the Bulls Head/City Tavern photos. I don't like having a blank space on the front page if there exists a photo of the building, even if it's got the previous name of the pub. When someone posts a photo with the current signage then that's the time to suppress the old photos.
Makes sense to me. I don't see any point in having a blank space because a pub has been renamed. I also agree that when a current photo is added then that should be the one on display, with the older photos accessible to the viewer.
While I agree that a blank space is undesirable, I think it's better than having a photo of the pub when it had a previous name. It makes it look like we don't know what we're doing. (See mongoose thread above.) At least the blank has the merit of possibly prompting someone to go out and take a photo.
I don't think that there's an "official" policy on this? Some of us may remember that a few years ago some of us were given rights to suppress (that is not to show on the front page but still be available for anyone to view) photos of pubs that had changed their name when there existed a current photo. I think that's fair as a policy, but I remember getting it in the neck from Conrad because I also wanted to suppress photos of pubs covered in plastic sheeting while undergoing repairs or refurbs. I still hold the view that if you can't see the pub in the photo then it should be suppressed in favour of photos that actually show the pub.
I agree with you about scaffolding and plastic sheeting. With regard to Jon's old photos of the Greyhound that were objected to, I don't see a problem with them. Ok, so this time last year the pub was closed, but it doesn't look decrepit (just one window boarded up as far as I can see). I have unsuppressed them accordingly. Even if Lady Grey submits some new ones, I wouldn't suppress the older ones, unless the landlord asked us to.
Aqualung
09-01-2017, 17:50
While I agree that a blank space is undesirable, I think it's better than having a photo of the pub when it had a previous name. It makes it look like we don't know what we're doing. (See mongoose thread above.) At least the blank has the merit of possibly prompting someone to go out and take a photo.
That worked for me recently in Stourbridge, the trouble is I've got a backlog of pictures going back months.
Lady Grey
10-01-2017, 14:09
Are we suppressing the pictures of when it was shut at the whim of somebody's ideal of utopia or even when it was open when I went in it a few years ago?
I'm not really sure how to respond to this post. I meant no offence in requesting that some pictures of a boarded up pub, should be repressed. I was just thinking of what users of the main site would think, if they clicked onto The Greyhound Inn page and saw old photos of a pub, that may look different after the refurbishment. (I've seen a current representation of the pub, on their Face Book page, the pub does look different). Once again, sorry if I have caused offence.
If it is any comfort to bcfczulluarmy, I suppressed my own photos of The Umbrella in Cheltenham, after he had posted new photos of the pub.
sheffield hatter
10-01-2017, 21:19
I was just thinking of what users of the main site would think, if they clicked onto The Greyhound Inn page and saw old photos of a pub, that may look different after the refurbishment. (I've seen a current representation of the pub, on their Face Book page, the pub does look different).
I understand your motives, and indeed I can remember suggesting something similar to Conrad after a pub I knew had completely changed its external paintwork so that old photos no longer represented the modern appearance. He didn't feel the need to suppress the old photos (expressed rather more strongly, as I recall, and not terribly diplomatically) and I have latterly come around to his view. As long as the old photo is a photo of the pub as it was, there's no need to suppress it. My only exemption from that would be, as expressed above, if the pub had been disfigured in some way - scaffolding, fire damage, completely boarded up (not the single boarded window of the Greyhound, in my view). I don't know what the other admins with powers of suppression think about this, as they haven't joined the discussion and there are no written guidelines.
I suppressed my own photos of The Umbrella in Cheltenham, after he had posted new photos of the pub.
Again, not necessary, in my view; but they're your photos, you can do what you want. Again, I understand your motive in wanting the main site to present the best aspects of each pub, but knowing the quality of your photos I don't think a minor change in appearance would justify suppressing them.
Lady Grey
12-01-2017, 13:52
I understand your motives, and indeed I can remember suggesting something similar to Conrad after a pub I knew had completely changed its external paintwork so that old photos no longer represented the modern appearance. He didn't feel the need to suppress the old photos (expressed rather more strongly, as I recall, and not terribly diplomatically) and I have latterly come around to his view. As long as the old photo is a photo of the pub as it was, there's no need to suppress it. My only exemption from that would be, as expressed above, if the pub had been disfigured in some way - scaffolding, fire damage, completely boarded up (not the single boarded window of the Greyhound, in my view). I don't know what the other admins with powers of suppression think about this, as they haven't joined the discussion and there are no written guidelines.
Thanks for your detailed clarification of the situation, I will make no further comment on the matter.
bcfczuluarmy
22-01-2017, 22:53
Oh the irony after trying to visit today...1434
I always supress old photos of a pub where the frontage has materially changed and will continue to do so.
Not much point having the past on the front page.
Mobyduck
23-01-2017, 20:09
I always supress old photos of a pub where the frontage has materially changed and will continue to do so.
Not much point having the past on the front page.
As long as there's a present of course.
As long as there's a present of course.
Of course :D
Lady Grey
24-02-2017, 15:40
Looks like a Google image to me.
The Sylvan Inn (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/59912/)
bcfczuluarmy
24-02-2017, 16:01
Looks like a Google image to me.
The Sylvan Inn (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/59912/)
Indeed it does/is especially as the antennas on the chimney stacks were removed in 2013 and Streetview is 2012 as the building was due to be demolished after being acquired by ALTIN Homes Limited.
Looks like a Google image to me.
The Sylvan Inn (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/59912/)
Definitely Google. The clouds match exactly! Well spotted. :notworthy:
Mobyduck
05-03-2017, 09:16
Any reason the photos of The Three Guineas (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/1776/) have been suppressed from the main page? I know it is now a Fullers pub but i don't see anything wrong with the earlier photo's unless the pictures owners have suppressed them, Quinno,- Will? I cant see John Mcgraw hiding his either.
sheffield hatter
05-03-2017, 10:28
Any reason the photos of The Three Guineas (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/1776/) have been suppressed from the main page? I know it is now a Fullers pub but i don't see anything wrong with the earlier photo's unless the pictures owners have suppressed them, Quinno,- Will? I cant see John Mcgraw hiding his either.
No idea. Not sufficiently motivated to unsuppress them, though!
Mobyduck
05-03-2017, 11:00
No idea. Not sufficiently motivated to unsuppress them, though!
I should be taking a new one right about now, That was until SW Trains have just f*$%"£d me up, so I'm off to the local instead.
sheffield hatter
05-03-2017, 11:10
... so I'm off to the local instead.
Enjoy!
Any reason the photos of The Three Guineas (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/1776/) have been suppressed from the main page? I know it is now a Fullers pub but i don't see anything wrong with the earlier photo's unless the pictures owners have suppressed them, Quinno,- Will? I cant see John Mcgraw hiding his either.
exterior overhaul and signage, so I surpressed them.
Mobyduck
05-03-2017, 16:35
exterior overhaul and signage, so I surpressed them.
Yours or everyone's? The exteriors not that different ?
Mobyduck
05-03-2017, 16:37
Enjoy!
I just have, to my detriment . :nishelypished:
Mobyduck
17-04-2017, 21:13
One of John McGraws photo's for this pub (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/35753/), that shows the Wrecclesham sign, is a village sign and nothing directly to do with the the pub itself, therefore at the very least should be suppressed from the front page if not completely in my view.
One of John McGraws photo's for this pub (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/35753/), that shows the Wrecclesham sign, is a village sign and nothing directly to do with the the pub itself, therefore at the very least should be suppressed from the front page if not completely in my view.
Only John or Dave can delete it, but it has now been suppressed.
One of John McGraws photo's for this pub (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/35753/), that shows the Wrecclesham sign, is a village sign and nothing directly to do with the the pub itself, therefore at the very least should be suppressed from the front page if not completely in my view.
He does them everwhere. Sigh.
BTW there are now new pics up for the Three Guineas. Hopefully you can see why I surpresed the others - it is quite a change.
Mobyduck
23-04-2017, 06:26
He does them everwhere. Sigh.
BTW there are now new pics up for the Three Guineas. Hopefully you can see why I surpresed the others - it is quite a change.
Yes I added a couple of pics the same day although I was not clever enough to avoid the lamp post in the middle of the street. :moremad:
And yes quite a change (for the better pub wise)but at £4.35 for a very average beer, It won't become a regular haunt of mine.
https://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/86224/ last picture looks like https://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/68483/
Mobyduck
29-05-2018, 18:33
https://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubpictures/86224/ last picture looks like https://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/68483/
I would say your'e spot on.
Lady Grey
18-06-2018, 10:41
Photo is upside down.
The Kings Head (https://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/38569/)
sheffield hatter
18-06-2018, 11:15
Photo is upside down.
The Kings Head (https://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/38569/)
Thanks for letting us know.
I'm not sure, but it looks like someone has already done something about this; however, the photo has become a victim of the strange photo bug, where the thumbnail is hidden on the pictures page but the picture keeps on appearing on the pub summary page. This is something that Dave needs to fix.
bcfczuluarmy
19-06-2018, 18:08
It not upside down you clearly are not the right way up.
It's upside down to me. Maybe PM uploader and tell them to resubmit the correct way up?
sheffield hatter
19-06-2018, 21:53
It not upside down you clearly are not the right way up.
It's upside down to me. Maybe PM uploader and tell them to resubmit the correct way up?
This won't work if the photo has been hidden by the glitch. OK, he could submit a new version the right way up (though I agree that might depend on whether he was the right way up himself) but he won't be able to delete the original if it's hidden but still showing. This is so confusing.
Bucking Fastard
12-08-2018, 10:30
Any idea why the photos of this pub (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/23294/) have been surpressed from the pub's page ? They all seem relevant to me after a recent visit.
Any idea why the photos of this pub (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/23294/) have been surpressed from the pub's page ? They all seem relevant to me after a recent visit.
No idea - I wonder if a script is riunning to surpress photos older than 5+ years? Anyway I've put a couple back.
sheffield hatter
12-08-2018, 16:11
No idea - I wonder if a script is riunning to surpress photos older than 5+ years? Anyway I've put a couple back.
Well, if you did, then someone or something changed them back again. So, I have un-suppressed all the pre-2010 photos on this pub and we'll see what happens now.
Lady Grey
30-04-2023, 08:40
The one with the ceiling door. ;)
Ironically, the photo has still not been corrected!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.11 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.