Naming our posts?

[jdear]

No images in here...
move this suggestion if relevant...

But could we initiate some sort of naming system for our posts? By including the kind of photo in the subject?

eg...

[POR] - portrait
[NAT] - nature
[LAN] - landscape
[STL] - still Life (including macro)
[SPO] - sport
[ART] - all others including heavy PP

so... a subject could be "[POR] Studio shoot with models"

just an idea... help me look through the images id like to (on dial-up atm)

some posts will include a mixture, so include the abbreiviation most relevant?

??

Jonathan

[Glen]

Jonathon, it is a good idea for more detail in the heading, maybe not so rigid though as I don't know if I would call holiday snaps "art" or xerebus accident photos "art". Obviously "art" doesn't interest you, but may others so they may not want everything lumped in there. I think it is useful and polite to put as much as practical in the heading though so users (especially dial up) can choose what to download. Also not all choose based on those categories eg I may not look at all portraits or all landscape. Many days when I am on limited time I choose photos of interest, whatever the genre.`

[gstark]

If you want to do this, by all means, go right ahead, but please don't expect or look for formal support.

We cannot enforce this; hell, it's hard enough trying to enforce the few rules that we already have.

Just look at how many users have graphics in their signature lines, despite it being explicitly excluded in our rules. Those in doubt need to review the FAQs.

[Sheetshooter]

Just look at how many users have graphics in their signature lines, despite it being explicitly excluded in our rules. Those in doubt need to review the FAQs.

THAT is one rule I would love to see enforced.

I also feel that pigeonholing submissions into proscribed categories might be a wasted effort. The interpretation of any photograph rests with the consumer and it is for them to decide what they consider an offering to be depite all the manoeuvrings and desires of the author. Manoeuvrings which, I might add, are often quite oblivious to the alternative readings possible.

Cheers,

[Greg B]

Jonathon, as we have more and more images to look at, a bit more info as you have suggested is not a bad idea at all. It will be interesting to see if posters pick it up.

And yes, the signature line graphics will be going the way of the dodo. We forum is too big and they tend to make threads unweildy.

[the foto fanatic]

Just look at how many users have graphics in their signature lines, despite it being explicitly excluded in our rules. Those in doubt need to review the FAQs.

Sorry - I must have overlooked this rule in the FAQs Gary.

I think the graphic thing can be overdone. In a page of posts a series of graphics in signatures takes up a fair bit of screen real estate.

I've removed my signature graphic now, and I would encourage other members to do likewise.

[BBJ]

Sorry guys, i too did not realise this and now have taken mine out, as i too am on go slow at the moment as shaped.
Cheers

[Greg B]

Thanks John and Trevor

[DVEous]

Just look at how many users have graphics in their signature lines, despite it being explicitly excluded in our rules. Those in doubt need to review the FAQs.

Didn't know about that one!
I guess an image is an image, so I've removed my gif... a whole 482 bytes!

[sheepie]

Not a bad idea, Jonathan, but I'm not sure I like the idea of defining an image in that context.
I think I agree with SheetShooter in that many of the images presented here do not necessarily fall into a single category. You can also be guaranteed to have several different views of the 'artistic' nature of any given pic.
I think I'd rather see us putting more meaningful descriptions in the topic than preset clasiffications. I'd also have to put my hand up as being guilty of NOT doing what I just said we should do!

Maybe sometime down the track Gary could implement a category component on the topic - so that a little icon appeared something like that used in the 'dumb' modes on our cameras

...I guess an image is an image, so I've removed my gif... a whole 482 bytes!

I think the issue here is more the distraction the images can cause VK - we still have the avatars available to us. I've thought a few times when reading some threads that the graphics were a little distracting. It's only when you see a page full of more sig graphics than talk and 'real' images that you realise just how bad it could get! Good call pointing this out Gary - didn't realise it was in the faq (mind you, I should really sit down and read it sometime! ).

[Onyx]

Great idea Johnathan. The phenomenal growth of this image review and critique forum has meant different types of posts are competing for viewer's attentions, and from that people are having to come up with thread titles that are, for eg. witty or otherwise 'attractive' to entice others to click on their thread; instead of applying a title that accurately describe/summarise the content of their image/post.

Due to a personal dislike of being mislead, even in this lighthearted context, and lacking the time to view every single thread, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to nagivate the forum to seek salient subjects/topics.

Great idea Jdear, it's a pity it's lacks admin support. We have a team of moderators here whom could attest that most of the time they don't have to do anything in the way of moderation - yet this suggestion of a little extra effort to assist in the organisational structure of these expanding forums have been dismissed straight off without discussion/debate on the matter. I would have though Gary would have been more open minded than this!?

[gstark]

it's a pity it's lacks admin support. We have a team of moderators here whom could attest that most of the time they don't have to do anything in the way of moderation

Chi,

A couple of points - first of all, sometimes, as a mod, we have a hell of a lot more on our plates than you can imagine. You would be surprised atg the number of "he said ... " issues that I have to deal withj.

Second, and as has already been pointed out, how the hell do you classify images in a consistantr manner? That is simply not possible.

Finally, and this gets back to some other discussions we've seen regarding the level of critques applied to images from time to time, just as we cannot enforce any way by which people must respond to any particular posting made, equally, we simply cannot make people put [X] into their subject line for a post.

Please allso note that I have made absolutely no comment at all about whether or not it's a good suggestion, so please do not tell me that I'm not open minded or anything like that.

I'm simply pointing out that trying to do this from an official PoV would be about as fruitful as pushing rope, so why in the world should we even bother?

[Aussie Dave]

I also must apologise, I did not know of the "no banner in signature" rule until just now....and have removed accordingly.

With so many posts to contend with, I feel the FAQ is easily overlooked by the masses...especially those that have been around for some time....not that I'm trying to excuse my actions. I guess someone started it and a few of us saw the idea and ran with it, without even considering if it was OK to do.

Mods - if you guys are aware of something like this in future, perhaps it might be prudent to have it posted on the mainpage, so it is harder to miss & it can be nipped in the bud before it grows ?!? (just a suggestion).

Of course, it all comes back to the individual and I urge everyone to re-read the rules to make sure we all know what we should/shouldn't be doing !

[DaveB]

Large graphics in sigs has been a peeve to me for a while, as a lot of the time I'm reading this board via RSS. It cuts the messages down to just the message: no wasted space (or download time) for avatars, etc.
Depending on your RSS reader it's not unusual to see threads of discussion where ~80% of it is taken up with people's signatures.

I wasn't aware it was in contravention of the forum rules, but I for one welcome our non-graphic-sig overlords.

[Greg B]

I also must apologise, I did not know of the "no banner in signature" rule until just now....and have removed accordingly.

With so many posts to contend with, I feel the FAQ is easily overlooked by the masses...especially those that have been around for some time....not that I'm trying to excuse my actions. I guess someone started it and a few of us saw the idea and ran with it, without even considering if it was OK to do.

Mods - if you guys are aware of something like this in future, perhaps it might be prudent to have it posted on the mainpage, so it is harder to miss & it can be nipped in the bud before it grows ?!? (just a suggestion).

Of course, it all comes back to the individual and I urge everyone to re-read the rules to make sure we all know what we should/shouldn't be doing !

Dave,
Frankly, it hasn't been that much of an issue until relatively recently - a few months ago, there were hardly any graphics in sigs.

However, when a number of people have them and some are fairly big, they can dominate the page in a thread.

It looked like time to crank it back, and like most things on this site, that can be accomplished without any drama and in good spirit. That's what is happening.

I take your point about the rules etc, but they are really there for reference rather than being right in our faces.

Anyway, it is all good.

[kinetic]

Apologies - Emoticon now gone from signature!

Re: Naming images.
I can see the merit behind naming images, but I can also see a couple of problems.
1. Trying to enforce the rule. I'm flat out looking at half the images that are posted on this site in a week, I'd hate to have to check to make sure that they matched their "heading".
2. There is the possibility that people may skip over some awesome pics, just because the title appears to be something they're not interested in. I know that I've opened some threads in the past, thinking that they'll probably be dull, only to be pleasantly surprised and very glad that I did look after all.

If the mods decide that headings are the go, then I'll be happy to comply, but I think that it has potential to be a pain in the neck. Ow!!!

[bloop]

I think it's a good idea. There's quite a few Image Reviews and Critiques posts now, it's a lot to go through. If you're looking for some pointers in say landscape photography it would make it a lot easier to search for. That said I don't think it should be a rule as it won't be enforceable, more of a courtesy message, like the D/U warnings.

[Manta]

My two cents worth...

Naming/categorising images would be a great idea but certainly not worth attempting to police it, as Gary says. However, it's purely up to the individual as to how they interpreted the shot and therefore name it leaving the rest of us, in some cases, guessing how the title applies. I feel there is a certain amount of categorising going on here already with posters being fairly descriptive (in a few short words) and therefore providing enough information for the viewer to decide whether to open the image or not. On the other hand... some image thread titles are pretty abstract and give nothing away as to the subject matter or genre of the shot.

I really think this can go around in ever-decreasing circles for some time and we'll really never reach a happy medium. I'm all for just continuing the way we are with those members who are very literal in the naming and those who choose to be a little more off-the-wall, gimmicky, obtuse or even directly satirical in the subject line. It's all part of the fun.

[mdboo]

sig gone

[MattC]

Categorising images is too hard. A suitably descriptive thread subject line should be sufficient.

So I guess it is time for me to change my sig. I was sorta having fun squashing all of those ads.

Cheers

[Nnnnsic]

Geeze... every one of my images would be [ART]. Lol.

[Manta]

Geeze... every one of my images would be [ART]. Lol.

You're probably right there, Mr Stark. I can't see there'd be a need for you to categorise yours though - we usually know what to expect.
("The Unexpected" of course!)

[Matt. K]

Jonathan
A very good idea but because of the problems that Gary could see in policing it perhaps not practical. But don't let it get you down...keep the ideas coming because they are what drives the forum and makes it great.

[Killakoala]

Of course there's nothing to stop people doing it anyway. Who knows, maybe it'll catch on.

[blinkblink]

Geeze... every one of my images would be [ART]. Lol.

Every one of mine would be [CRAP].

[DVEous]

[CRAP].

Creative,
Realistic,
Arty
Photography

[Wacky]

I'm sure it's been bandied around many times before, but if people are concerned about this, it'd be easier to create a few subforums, probably the same as FM has set them up...that seems to work well.

[gstark]

I'm sure it's been bandied around many times before, but if people are concerned about this, it'd be easier to create a few subforums, probably the same as FM has set them up...that seems to work well.

Which part of "we will not be officially supporting this" are you having trouble comprehending?


Sorry, but I'm starting to get well and truly pissed off with with this thread.

As has been stated several times - if you want to so label your images - and thereby risk mis-labelling them - go right ahead.

But for the last time: THERE WILL BE NO OFFICIAL SUPPORT!

[Nnnnsic]

I'm sure it's been bandied around many times before, but if people are concerned about this, it'd be easier to create a few subforums, probably the same as FM has set them up...that seems to work well.

First of all, what is "FM"?

Second, creating sub-forums on a phpBB board is not an easy operation.

Third, I'm not entirely sure things should be classified or why it matters. An image is an image is an image. If you feel the need to classify future image posts, go right ahead, but I see no reason to create dedicated forum sections or even sub-sections for posting images.

[Wacky]

Which part of "we will not be officially supporting this" are you having trouble comprehending?

Excuse me? Which part of my post are you having trouble comprehending. Get over yourself.
It's been made bloody clear that the administrators (quite understandably) don't want to have the trouble of trying to moderate posts with the [ABC] classifications to make sure they are right etc - it's clearly way too much work.
All I was doing was making an alternatative suggestion, should people be really concerned about it. Clearly you aren't, at all, but it seems others are. I don't give a rat's either way.

Sorry, but I'm starting to get well and truly pissed off with with this thread.

then close the bloody thing...if you don't want people discussing things, coming up with ideas on possible improvements, then close it!

As has been stated several times - if you want to so label your images - and thereby risk mis-labelling them - go right ahead.

But for the last time: THERE WILL BE NO OFFICIAL SUPPORT!

Really? I hadn't noticed.

[Wacky]

First of all, what is "FM"?

Sorry, FredMiranda.com, Forums

Second, creating sub-forums on a phpBB board is not an easy operation.

my Sony...I thought it would have been relatively simple these days to do something like that.

Third, I'm not entirely sure things should be classified or why it matters. An image is an image is an image. If you feel the need to classify future image posts, go right ahead, but I see no reason to create dedicated forum sections or even sub-sections for posting images.

Some people do, some people don't. It's all merely suggestions.

[gstark]

Which part of "we will not be officially supporting this" are you having trouble comprehending?

Excuse me? Which part of my post are you having trouble comprehending. Get over yourself.
It's been made bloody clear that the administrators (quite understandably) don't want to have the trouble of trying to moderate posts with the [ABC] classifications to make sure they are right etc - it's clearly way too much work.
All I was doing was making an alternatative suggestion, should people be really concerned about it. Clearly you aren't, at all, but it seems others are. I don't give a rat's either way.

Good; I'm glad.

Because unless you apologise bloody damn well quickly for your attack on me ("Get over yourself") - then you'll very bloody quickly find yourself out of here!

I had already made it painfully clear that there was no official support for this, but you persisted in supplying obscure (FM???) referencences to other sites.

Fine; you like other sites? Perhaps you'd be better off staying there?

Sorry, but I'm starting to get well and truly pissed off with with this thread.

then close the bloody thing...if you don't want people discussing things, coming up with ideas on possible improvements, then close it!

I'm always open to new ideas, which is why this thread - and several others - remain open.

Please understand though that I do not want the same idea regurgitated again and again, and especially when it has been very clearly rejected. Which is exactly what you did.

For now though, rather than convincing me of why we should bother considering your suggestion, you need to consider convicing me as to why I should even let you remain here.

[gstark]

Some people do, some people don't. It's all merely suggestions.

And it's a suggestion which was clearly rejected in the third post in this thread.

One of my points is that, bearing in mind that, in your original posting within this thread, you stated "I'm sure it's been bandied around many times before", the indication is that you hadn't even bothered to read the first part of this thread.

What is the point of commenting upon a thread such as this when you fail to take the time to familiarise yourself with its full content, which in this case had already fully addressed the point that you raised?

[Wacky]

Good; I'm glad.

Because unless you apologise bloody damn well quickly for your attack on me ("Get over yourself") - then you'll very bloody quickly find yourself out of here!

But insulting my comprehension skills is okay? I'm not well in the head right now (flu and sinuses blocked up) and your insult to me really ticked me off.

I had already made it painfully clear that there was no official support for this, but you persisted in supplying obscure (FM???) referencences to other sites.

No, you hadn't. The OP made reference to putting notations into the post titles to assist in determining what the images were of. This was rejected clear and simple as not being able to be officially supported due to the work it would involve with moderation.
My suggestion was COMPLETELY different (as far as I can tell) in that I was referring to different forums for the different styles - this would involve extremely minimal moderation, hence why I suggested it as an alternative, but also said that it had probably been discussed before (yonks ago, before this thread).
Oh, and I didn't realise FredMiranda's site was so obscure...I've seen it referred to as FM in many places, so figured most people knew of it.

Fine; you like other sites? Perhaps you'd be better off staying there?

If that's what you really want

I'm always open to new ideas, which is why this thread - and several others - remain open.

Which is what my suggestion was...I hadn't notice ANYONE else suggest what I did. Your rejection of the idea in the third post was regarding the OP's suggestion as far as I understood, not an outright declaration that all ideas relating to distinguishing image styles. There go my wonderful comprehension skills again!

Please understand though that I do not want the same idea regurgitated again and again, and especially when it has been very clearly rejected. Which is exactly what you did.

I don't agree...sorry

For now though, rather than convincing me of why we should bother considering your suggestion, you need to consider convicing me as to why I should even let you remain here.

You don't need to consider my suggestion (it was obviously rejected in the 3rd post as you say).
Why should you let me remain here? You shouldn't. It's up to you. I'm not really an areshole, but I get ticked off easily when I'm sick and people make remarks against me that I don't feel are justified.

[Wacky]

Some people do, some people don't. It's all merely suggestions.

And it's a suggestion which was clearly rejected in the third post in this thread.

One of my points is that, bearing in mind that, in your original posting within this thread, you stated "I'm sure it's been bandied around many times before", the indication is that you hadn't even bothered to read the first part of this thread.

What is the point of commenting upon a thread such as this when you fail to take the time to familiarise yourself with its full content, which in this case had already fully addressed the point that you raised?

I had read the entire thread, and hadn't seen my sugestion mentionedby ANYONE. I was using 'bandied around before' in reference to prior to this thread, like maybewhen the forums were being created.

I'm sorry (honestly), I just don't see where anyone else made the same suggestion which was clearly rejected in the 3rd post by you - maybe I just don't see it.

[gstark]

Some people do, some people don't. It's all merely suggestions.

And it's a suggestion which was clearly rejected in the third post in this thread.

One of my points is that, bearing in mind that, in your original posting within this thread, you stated "I'm sure it's been bandied around many times before", the indication is that you hadn't even bothered to read the first part of this thread.

What is the point of commenting upon a thread such as this when you fail to take the time to familiarise yourself with its full content, which in this case had already fully addressed the point that you raised?

I had read the entire thread, and hadn't seen my sugestion mentionedby ANYONE. I was using 'bandied around before' in reference to prior to this thread, like maybewhen the forums were being created.

I'm sorry (honestly), I just don't see where anyone else made the same suggestion which was clearly rejected in the 3rd post by you - maybe I just don't see it.

Clearly not.

As you have failed to make the requested apology, bye bye.

[gstark]

Good; I'm glad.

Because unless you apologise bloody damn well quickly for your attack on me ("Get over yourself") - then you'll very bloody quickly find yourself out of here!

But insulting my comprehension skills is okay? I'm not well in the head right now (flu and sinuses blocked up) and your insult to me really ticked me off.

So, by your own admission, your personal skills are somewhat degraded, yet you persist in insulting me, and you then fail to offer the requested apology, still blaming me for your own apparant failings.

Interesting approach to life....

I had already made it painfully clear that there was no official support for this, but you persisted in supplying obscure (FM???) referencences to other sites.

No, you hadn't. The OP made reference to putting notations into the post titles to assist in determining what the images were of. This was rejected clear and simple as not being able to be officially supported due to the work it would involve with moderation.
My suggestion was COMPLETELY different (as far as I can tell) in that I was

You're welcome to believe what you will.

Your suggestion was, however, somewhat ambiguous (FM references that nobody understood), and we had already made it clear that there would be no official supoport for the concept.

Given that we had already said - and you're acknowledging - that the original suggestion was going to impose a high degree of moderator workload, why would you believe that sub-forums, were they practical to implement - would entail any less moderator input?

I'll readily accept that you may not know of the impracticalities of implementing sub-forums, but that doesn't change things all that much: this is the important point - the concept had already been firmly rejected in that third post.

Oh, and I didn't realise FredMiranda's site was so obscure...I've seen it referred to as FM in many places, so figured most people knew of it.

I've heard of them, but I rarely visit other photographic forums. Most of them have far too many pissing contests, and far too little valuable content, for my liking.

Clearly others missed your point as well. There must be a message in there somewhere ...

Fine; you like other sites? Perhaps you'd be better off staying there?

If that's what you really want

Easily done from my PoV, as you're about to find out.

[stubbsy]

Wacky

Just a little comment from me. An observation, rather than a criticism.

I, too, have heard of Fred Miranda. I've never seen it referred to as FM and when I read the post I was unable to work it out. Similarly it took me a while to work out what OP meant (I think). Would I be correct in assuming it means Original Poster? Regardless, therein lies the problem in using acronyms. While they may be in frequent use in one location, there is no gurantee that usage is common in other locations on the net.

[gstark]

Peter,

Exactly.

Thank you.

Is it a full moon?

[Sheetshooter]

I am with you 100% on the questionable wisdom and tribalism of acronyms. They divide the cogniscenti or 'insiders' from the rest of us mere mortals.

If a forum is a place for the sharing of ideas then surely it is beholden upon those making statements to couch them in terms easily understodd by the newcomer as readily as the old hand.

Without referring back through this meandering thread I think I made a comment concerning the classification of submitted pictures way near the beginning.

Each of us applies our own filter according to our needs and perceptions. There are many here who look at everything and make comment on most of it. There are others who, like me, after a short period of familiarisation with the oputput of members choose to select which pics they'll look at based on author. Undoubtedly there are yet others who have a penchant for a particular genre.

NO imposed system of classification could cater to the varying expectations of such a diverse group of individuals as is found here and any change could only be a change for the worse.

Cheers,

[gstark]

NO imposed system of classification could cater to the varying expectations of such a diverse group of individuals as is found here and any change could only be a change for the worse.

Thank you.

[thaddeus]

I agree that an imposed system would be more hassle than it's worth.

However, I don't understand why someone gets banned for the above discussion.

I'm sorry (honestly)

It seems to me he apologised. Nobody's perfect. Surely we can forgive and move on?

[Nnnnsic]

Let me state that I had no part in this action and I thoroughly disagree with it.

[gstark]

I agree that an imposed system would be more hassle than it's worth.

However, I don't understand why someone gets banned for the above discussion.

I'm sorry (honestly)

It seems to me he apologised. Nobody's perfect. Surely we can forgive and move on?

Thaddeus,

My reading of his "apology" is that he he was apologising for not seeing that the issue had already been rejected. His statement, in context was "I'm sorry (honestly), I just don't see where anyone else made the same suggestion"

I don't see that as being an apology for his abusive tone and language, and as the person who pays the bills for this site, I simply don't see a reason to accept or deal with that sort of abuse.

Further, he went on to challenge my authority and basically went about as far as to challenge me to ban him.

That's my call, and while others are free to disagree - I know Leigh does - it's not a topic that's open for discussion, and especially not within this thread.

[Glen]

Lets lock this thread as I honestly can't see anything more can be fruitfully posted here. Time to move on.




If any admin or mod wants to unlock it feel free, I just think we cannot acheive anything more here.