Forums/General discussion
Misunderstanding articles
Dan Marsh
posted this on January 26, 2010 03:04
I suspect that some people are not reading and understanding articles before voting for photos.
For example, I added this photo...
http://www.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-2598161510
...to this article...
http://www.fotopedia.com/en/Clay_modeling/candidates
...and it has been voted down, despite being 100% relevant to the article.
Also, we have Killer Whales under the Whales article, even though they're not strictly Whales, and even though it tells you this in the article for Killer Whales, which are a type of dolphin.
I know this is a problem on wikipedia as well, so they sometimes place prominent warnings on pages where common mistakes occur.
Comments
Hi Dan,
There are various reasons why photos can be voted down or even removed (by admins). Relevancy is one, clearly this was not the case for your picture. Not complying with the quality chart is another reason. Its size may be not be big enough, or it may have a frame or a watermark, or it may just be just blurry, oversatured, over - or under exposed... (see http://www.fotopedia.com/help/quality_chart) In your case the size is 640x480 way below the minimum size mentioned in the chart (800x600).
What is missing on the product side is a way to tell people why you vote down when you do or (for admins) to tell why a photo has been removed. This will be added in the near future.
In the next couple of weeks, we shall introduce a new concept (the Fotopedia projects) which will be the first step towards a truly collaborative way of working on a given area of interest. These projects will be the place to discuss about non relevant pictures placed in articles and many other things that project contributors would like to share about the work in progress inside the project .
Thanks for your input,
Jean-Marie
OK, thanks! I missed the fact that one was too small. Perhaps, the minimum size requirement could be handled automatically, by software?
Yes it should. We will do it in an upcoming version. We have a big list of such small things that would help a bit to get an improved user experience and ... limited resources. So the question for us is prioritization! Next week we will review all the list and decide which one are on top. -jmh
I agree that it is important that contributors check carefully before nominating a picture for an article to be absolutely certain that it suits the article and contributes a good visual representation to anyone viewing the article.
I did post a picture on the 'Church' article showing the organist in a church playing and composing some music for a new vicar. It was removed for not being suitable. I have no problem with that what so ever. But before posting it I did check the definitions of the article and it was thus.
Local church, the body made up of a congregation, its members and clergy.
I would have thought that a picture showing the Church organist playing would fit nicely in to this definition.
As I said before I have no problem with the photo being removed, I am old enough and, I would hope, wise enough to let it go.