Will not contribute any further photographs

[simonwp]

I think some of the problems arise because the admins appear to use standard phrases when deleting photographs. If the reason for deletion doesn't exactly fit with the phrase used it can cause the poster to feel unjustly done by.

For example I had a photograph deleted a couple of days ago for "incorrect exposure - unable to see detail". In fact the exposure was fine, and, as for the detail, you could see what the captain had had for breakfast. But it was dark, because it was taken in bad weather. I accepted it because there were better shots already on the site, but would have felt better if I'd had a proper reason given, for example " shot very dark - better on site".

especially in borderline cases, a fuller explanation for the reasons for deletion to the poster, would ease some of the issues. No all - some people will get upset regardless, but it would be better.

[SSIPaul]

Hello Everyone
IM a Master at Seaspan,the company that owns the survivor.This type of barge is specific to this country,this coast and work.The seaspan forester was the largest self loading self dumping log barge in the world.its now out of service due to its size,and a extensive amount of money to repair.these barges are going to be out of service including the survivor soon.last year seaspan log barge division after paying all expenses made $250,000.00 the first repair this year to a log barge used all of that.This is a piece of equipment that is specialized and expensive to operate,has periods of time during the year that don't work,due to weather.Too Much snow-cant cut trees down,too hot- cutting trees may cause fires.the seaspan survivor used to be 1 of only 2 in the world self load self dump self propelled log barges previously owned by kingcome navigation.This type of equipment like others in the world are disappearing,administration think back about something,someone you knew and wonder what happened to that ship,tug,barge or that person.These barges are going to disappear,its a part of west coast Canadian history that needs to be archived.Shipspotting is the forum for this. My 2 cents worth,for what its worth.
Paul

[Luko P.]

None likes when her/his photos are removed from the site, me too. I did not like when admins removed some of my night-photos, saying these were photoshoped (what was absolutely not true), but I still like the site (well, without my night photos as in the meatime I've removed even acceptable ones). So folks, enjoy taking photos, enjoy browsing this yet wonderful site and let others enjoy too. And let admins do their job best they can (or apply for admin yourself).

[Derek Lilley]

Hi Everyone,

While I appreciate that the deletion of photos is an emotive subject I do not think that we should lose sight of the fact that there are other pictures of the vessel on the site.

There are on site 10 other clear pictures of the vessel that can be seen.(Found in subcategories Barges and Tugs with Tow under IMO 7343683)

Of these 10 pictures 5 have been taken by Dirk which clearly show the vessel empty, the vessel full and the vessel unloading, so by deleting this one photo of the vessel in an empty condition, has not as inferred by Paul depleted the archive of this vessel.

We are as Admins fully aware our responsibilities with the rarer types of vessels and also to any vessel in actual fact.

Kind regards
Derek

[Balticventure]

I have had photo's removed, just the other day I had taken off, it's something you get used to. I was a little annoyed when it first happened, but then I see the standard that some of the photo's reach,. What you have to bear in mind, is the photo's that you have taken have a WOW factor to us who want to get where you are. and you will remove the enjoyment and puzzlement of how in hell did he take such a good shot as that, which then spurs others on. I do hope you dont stop posting, but will respect what ever you do.
best regards

Balticventure

[dirk septer]

Thanks Paul,
You seem to be the only person besides me who appreciates these technical wonders,
unique to our West Coast. Sorry, one more: MattyBoy as well.
Shipspotting Admin considers 10 pictures of this vessel enough and seems to be more
interested in showing literally hundreds and hundreds of pics of the same (to me)
boring cruise ships. For example, they allowed one member to post seven shots taken
in a row of a cruise ship of which there were already several hundreds of photos of
that same vessel posted.
The deleted photo showed a totally different angle and some nice typical west coast
background. Of all the hundreds of members who viewed the shot before it was deleted,
none has come forward yet here to state that it was out of focus or hard to see the
details. daviships actually identified it by reading the vessel's name on her stern.
Dirk

[simonwp]

You raise an interesting point, Dirk. If a photograph has attracted a number of favourable comments and a large number of views, it should indicate to admins that it's a photograph of interest to members in general, i.e. is something that members want to see on this site, and therefore should be kept. After all the site is for the benefit of members.....isn't it?

Having said that I've noticed that once a photograph has had a comment added, the number of views rises significantly. I guess members use the comments on the home page as a link to photographs.

[pieter melissen]

Having said that I've noticed that once a photograph has had a comment added, the number of views rises significantly. I guess members use the comments on the home page as a link to photographs.

I think we have had this discussion before. Yesterday I posted three shots of product tankers, all built 1982, of one vessel no picture at all was on the site, the second one had shots under different names and the third one only had some shots after she had exploded in Spain. I added a comment to the latter ship, and no comments were made (by me or others) to the other two ships. The shot with the comment got twice the amount of hits of the other two. It goes a little besides the topic currently under discussion, but some months ago I made the suggestion that one or two lines from the "description" section of the photograph should be made visible directly next to the thumbnail. It gives the poster a way to explain why he posted this shot and why it is interesting. It will certainly help people in deciding whether to open the thumbnail or not and it may also help the admins in their deletion considerations (if any). I suppose if this something like that would have been possible for Dirk's shot we might not have have had this discussion.

[simonwp]

Here's a constructive suggestion as to how Dirk's photograph should have been handled. It should have not been deleted. However there should have been a friendly PM to Dirk from the Admin telling him that although his photograph did not meet site standards because of XXXX it is being retained because of the amount of interest. Dirk could have been reminded of the standard and told in a friendly way that in future the standards would be more rigorously applied and similar shots would be deleted.

A comment on the photograph itself by the Admin along similar lines could also be added.

A while ago that is exactly how Ken Smith handled a photograph of mine of a poor shot of a vessel not already on the site. He put a comment on the photograph stating it did not meet site standards because of XXXX but was being retained as it was of interest.

Simple. All parties happy. admin had made his point in a friendly way, and I was happy because photo retained, but was aware that similar shot might well not be, so could not complain if they were deleted.

[Tomas]

If i may say my perhaps useless meaning, i would say as i have said before, IF there shall be moderators, they have to follow the same line.
HAVE TO.
Otherwise, if you realize your picture aint good/correct enough for this site, post it here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/161371183916725/ or other groups on facebook that aint that hard on the rules.

That is my suggestion.

The rules for posting on this site is in my eyes rather picture perfect.

That was my femti kroner

 

[B.Clark]

[quote author=Tomas

[dirk septer]

@ M.K.:

Thanks for your generous offer to enhance my deleted photograph of the self-dumping
log barge Seaspan Survivor.
Being an old-school photographer I'd rather not Photoshop or Photoscape my pics.

Since according to the rules I am not allowed to repost the same picture twice and
I have decided not to post any more pictures on Shipspotting, I have to decline your offer.

I have posted 5,000+ on this site, not to collect a large score of "Views" rather to share
my west coast shipping pictures and those of my travels. I really don't care who looks at
my photos; rather give a chance to those who are interested in my work.

I have made a number of positive suggestions to make this a more user friendly and higher
quality web site, but have not much hope anything will change.
Till then I will just step back and continue to shoot pictures just for my own enjoyment.

I shoot an average of 40-50 pics a day and only post the ones that meet the guidelines and
possibly may interest other members.

As a final parting I'll post a selection of vessel I have taken pics of today:

Wallis Futuna-registered cruise ship "L'Austral";
1944 built ex US Army FS-289 (sister ship to ill-fated Pueblo, captured by North Korea
in 1968: still going strong as "Sea Bird";
classic motor yacht "Thea Foss";
46-m motor yacht "Elisa"

[dirk septer]

@ M.K.:

Thanks for your generous offer to enhance my deleted photograph of the self-dumping
log barge Seaspan Survivor.
Being an old-school photographer I'd rather not Photoshop or Photoscape my pics.

Since according to the rules I am not allowed to repost the same picture twice and
I have decided not to post any more pictures on Shipspotting, I have to decline your offer.

I have posted 5,000+ on this site, not to collect a large score of "Views" rather to share
my west coast shipping pictures and those of my travels. I really don't care who looks at
my photos; rather give a chance to those who are interested in my work.

I have made a number of positive suggestions to make this a more user friendly and higher
quality web site, but have not much hope anything will change.
Till then I will just step back and continue to shoot pictures just for my own enjoyment.

I shoot an average of 40-50 pics a day and only post the ones that meet the guidelines and
possibly may interest other members.

As a final parting I'll post a selection of vessels I have taken pics of today:

Wallis Futuna-registered cruise ship "L'Austral";
1944 built ex US Army FS-289 (sister ship to ill-fated Pueblo, captured by North Korea
in 1968: still going strong as "Sea Bird";
classic motor yacht "Thea Foss";
46-m motor yacht "Elisa"

[Tony des Landes]

Below are the rules for posting ship photos on MarineTraffic.com. Is this site really that different in wanting to keep to a standard and maintain a certain amount of pride in what is posted. As someone else mentioned, if photos do not meet the standards here, what's so difficult about posting on other sites where they do meet the rules?

Size

[simonwp]

Tony,

There is nothing wrong with the rules. They are perfectly acceptable. It is how they enforced by Admins that appears to be the problem. There appears to me to be two related problems.

The issues seem to arise when a poster thinks they have complied with the rules, only to have their photograph deleted. It is then compounded by the way in which they are informed of the deletion. The deletion e-mails can seem abrupt, dismissive, and rude. the use of standard phrases in these e-mails may well help admins but the often only confuse the poster, especially when the phrases does not exactly describe the reason for deletion. I have suggested above that a more user friendly approach to informing a poster of a deletion may help soften this. I would like admins to at least consider this approach, and, if they consider it is not appropriate to change their approach, explain why.

Sometimes it is not what you say, but they way that you say it, that causes the problem.

Then there is the issue of interest. There should be a bit of discretion around photographs which have generated a lot of interest, even if they do not strictly comply with the rules. I realise that this is subjective, and not easy to manage.

There is an English saying: Rules are for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools.