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 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. )

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 in Sep 2013 might get the thumbs down!

Thumbs up from me, but maybe not front page.

[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. )

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 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!