ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: New Category: First photo / obstructed view???  (Read 1610 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Evgeniy .
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


View Profile
« on: March 20, 2017, 06:56:49 am »

Good morning, everybody!!!

I don't know if there was such kind of topic before but let me introduce my idea.

My idea is to add one more category with name like "First photo / obstructed view". The reason I think is need to be on this site because a lot of pictures of newbuild or new old ships uploaded on the site everyday but unluckely not every time shipspotters can make good shot due to some obstructions which are prohibited to uploaded according to site standards. So my view of this problem is to have one more category same is categories for mystery ships and awaiting identification.
The rules should be like these:
- only proved photos with clear names visible on photo to be upload.
- common used names (example: Mars - 18 names on equasis, Venus - 23 names and so on) should be confirmed by IMO painted onboard (more or less this is the way of confirmation).
-any additional info, links, sources should be added as a description or comment to such photo.


Dear admins! Very intersting to know Your reply about this idea.

Best regards,
Evgeniy.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hannes van Rijn
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12,532



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2017, 07:15:44 am »

Not all IMO numbers arevisible on the ships.

Rgds
Hannes.

Report to moderator   Logged
Evgeniy .
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2017, 08:39:06 am »

More or less, but You can make additional photo of IMO number from stern or front of superstructure. In such case the option of file attach to the comment should be nice but need more changes to the present page view. It could be changed for another forum topic.
For example You upload first photo as usually and one photo with IMO to the forum to confirm that the vessel correctly identificated. After You only add link from forum to ypur picture page as comment.
In case of better quality photo uploaded photo from "first photo" category should be deleted.

My idea that a lot of vessels need to have correct identification specialy from specific areas with non-english names. Also this is the way to minimize members mistakes. A lot of vessels already uploaded under wrong IMO because of difficulties with identification in such case when the mistake is found it could be corrected more fast.
Report to moderator   Logged
Kyle Stubbs
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 952


Something something Danger Zone.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2017, 11:18:55 pm »

Unless things have changed, site policy has been to maintain obstructed, blurred or otherwise inadequate photos if they are the first, and only photo of the vessel uploaded to the site. Once another photo of the vessel which meets standards is posted, the practice should be to delete the original.

I don't see the need for an extra category when such a process is already in place.

V/r,
Kyle
Report to moderator   Logged

"Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often." -Mark Twain
pieter melissen
Photo Corrections
Home away from home
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2017, 07:40:28 am »

When such a photo as described appears, it should always be under the category : "Ships under construction" (where parts of the ship are always blocked from sight)
That would do away with all the problems, and when the ship is completed and sailing there is no need to remove the construction shot at all.
Report to moderator   Logged
Evgeniy .
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2017, 06:56:36 pm »

The question is to collect more photos of unique vessels which are not yet presented on shipspotting.
It will be not so big quantity, may be short time for newbulidings, some time for old vessels but anyway is the chance to add more quantity of unique vessels.
This is my view of this topic.

regards, Evgeniy   
Report to moderator   Logged
davidships
Webmaster
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,635



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2017, 10:03:07 pm »

Thanks to you for your suggestion, Evgeniy, and to those who have commented.

Kyle and Pieter have neatly summarised the normal policy.  For normal ship categories where the images do not meet the genreral site standards (eg do not include the whole ship, there is an obstruction or it is not sufficiently sharp), ships which would otherwise be unrepresented on the site may be added, on the understanding that such photos are liable to be deleted if fully-acceptable images are subsequently added.  They should be endorsed "only one on site" in the Photo Description box.

For newbuildings, ships still uncompleted are expected to be added and obstructions are permitted provided they they are part of the shipyard operation and are not excessive.  There is no need for such images to be placed elsewhere, and they can already be retained indefinitely.

I do not think that there is a particular issue with IMO numbers.  All members are expected to research the correct number before uploading their photos (noting that many vessels do not have one anyway), and the knowledge and interest of members, especially Corrections colleagues, usually resolves issues over confirming the correct number where there are errors of information was not found.

So I am not really sure what kind of photos you think would go into any separate category.  Personally, I do not think that we should be extending our scope to add very poor photos, just because some vessels are not already represented.

Perhaps there is an important point that I have missed - please let me know if I have!


best wishes

David

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.043 seconds with 20 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved