Will not contribute any further photographs

[Paul Finnigan]

Below are the rules for posting ship photos on MarineTraffic.com.

while I like Marinetraffic for what its main purpose is to track ships,its photos leave a lot to be desired, so much for the rules.

[Tony des Landes]

Below are the rules for posting ship photos on MarineTraffic.com.

while I like Marinetraffic for what its main purpose is to track ships,its photos leave a lot to be desired, so much for the rules.

Interesting comment as I have used quite a few photos from MarineTraffic

[DEREK SANDS]

"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.""

Hi Simon,

You suggest a more user friendly approach to deletions. Yes we do use standard phrases in deletion emails, these were introduced some time ago when the number of photos for deletion each day had reached epic proportions. However although we still use them there is an option for the Webmaster doing the deletion to send a personal message, this is done often. We do try to help and have sent examples to many members regarding rotations etc. to help them re-post a photo. I don't know of any other site that does this. At present I am engaged with several posters over material and they are getting a pre-warning and chance to discuss with me or another Webmaster the proposed deletion.

I know Dirk had many discussions with Ken Smith when he was Webmaster. Dirk's photo that has been the catalyst for this thread was treated with delicacy as we agreed not to delete it whilst it was highly visible in the top three due to the number of comments it had received. The reason for deletion was due to distance it was not in focus, Dirk will dispute that, but two Webmaster's agreed it was out of focus so it was deleted. We do I believe operate a good system with at the very least two pairs of eyes looking at photos placed in the category "considered" for deletion. If we don't agree it is initialed and returned to category.

A lot of Websites operate a screening policy where the photo is looked at before the uploading process can be completed. They are therefore deleted at source by just one pair of eyes looking at it, no discussion, no come back its just not uploaded to the site.
Ours is more friendly to say the least, but does not satisfy some. What can we do about it?

Well we have commissioned a review of the site standards to make them simpler for uploader and admins alike. There will be a chance for any member to make a suggestion or comment in a dedicated forum. This will be led by a newly appointed admin who has volunteered to oversee the process. I would like to say however that personally I would not be in favour of a watering down of the standards we have to accommodate photos that would not normally be accepted on the site. Most other sites are tightening their rules we should not be going the other way.

Best regards

Derek

[pieter melissen]

Quote from Derek's post above: "A lot of Websites operate a screening policy where the photo is looked at before the uploading process can be completed. They are therefore deleted at source by just one pair of eyes looking at it, no discussion, no come back its just not uploaded to the site.
Ours is more friendly to say the least, but does not satisfy some. What can we do about it?"

The essential point is the number of pair of eyes looking at a shot. I agree that one pair is not enough, but several pairs should be sufficient. What we have now is that the deletion category is still visible to everybody, so we get literally hundreds of pairs of eyes that all have an opinion, not necessarily corresponding to that of the people who have te decide about the fate of a shot.
And to answer the last question from the quote: Move the "considered for deletion" shots to a hidden category, only visibly to photo admins. If accepted the shot can be replaced in the correct category, if deleted, no one, except the poster will know about it.

[DEREK SANDS]

Hi Pieter,

The category is not visible to non-admins. But we cannot stop a disaffected member highlighting an individual photo to make it visible. The previous Webmaster had this category hidden. I know when I was ordinary member I could not access it.

best regards
Derek

[pieter melissen]

But Derek, how many times have I seen a photo with category : "Considered for deletion" (and I have to admit that I saved a couple of those shots before they would disappear.) Just the fact that this consideration is visible for a while generates comments and discussion about the deletion policies all the time.

[DEREK SANDS]

Hi Pieter,

The only way to stop it being visible then would be to delete it without notice, and doing away with the category entirely?
Of course another way is to introduce a screening at upload point, the photo would not make it onto the site.

Its only a minority of people making a fuss about deletions and even Dirk has now begun uploading again despite all this in the thread that he would not. Changes are afoot in the
site standards to make them simpler,hopefully this will make a difference. However some members do not accept deletions of any kind.

best regards
Derek

[simonwp]

Thanks for your comprehensive response, Derek. You ask, What can be done? Firstly restrict the use of standard phrases when advising a poster of a deletion, except, perhaps, in very obvious cases, such as horizon not straight. They often do not address the specific issue. I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets frustrated when I contact any organization in general and then receive a response in corporate-speak standard phrases that doesn't address the issue that I raised in the first place. I see this as no different. This is especially the case when delivering news that a poster doesn't want to hear, namely that their photograph has been deleted. The use of standard phrases in communications delivering negative news should always be avoided, as they imply a lack of thought and feeling.

If standard phases are used they should be reviewed regularly to make sure that they are still appropriate. The wording should be more conciliatory. Something along the lines of "We're sorry that we've been unable to accept this photograph because of xxxxx. A couple of Admins have looked at it, and agreed, that unfortunately on this occasion it has to be deleted. However we hope you will continue to post and look forward to further contributions". More words I agree, but not quite so dismissive.

You shouldn't benchmark yourselves against other websites in this respect, you should only benchmark yourselves against the responses of members of this website (on any topic, not just deletions). The site only functions if it is giving members what they want.

Just to be clear, I think this website functions very well, but, like everything, there are always area's for improvement. In the past members suggestions for improvements have often been met with a lack of engagement, and sometimes downright rudeness and aggression. I see that this is changing now, and that those running the site are more prepared to discuss openly and constructively, even if we don't always agree.

For the record, I didn't think Dirks photograph was out of focus either. Because the decision could only have been borderline, and due to the amount of interest shown, I think it should have been retained, with, as I mentioned in an earlier post, a suitable comment added.

Thanks again, Derek, for a constructive response.

[pieter melissen]

Derek, good to see Dirk coming back on his initial decision.

What I am arguing for though is that the category "considered for deletion" simply should not be visible. IMHO that does not mean that once a shot gets moved to that category, it has been deleted, but it has found a temporary (hidden/hiding) place there, awaiting a final decision after several pairs of eyes had their say about it. If a shot has been apoproved it will return to the site, and people will not know it went for a bit more scrutineering. So as soon as a photo mod will mark a ship as "C for D", it will automatically move out of sight, avoiding all sorts of discussions. This action though should also be followed up with a PM to the poster, explaining what is going on, and for instance asking to put the horizon level etc etc. Deletions should be discrete and not result in unnessacary antoganisms.

This may require some software amendments, but I am sure it can be done.  

[DEREK SANDS]

Hi Pieter,

The category is not visible but the photo is, so a comment on it and will lead to it.
I will ask Henrik if the photo can be hidden as you say software issues are evident.
I am sure Ken tried to get this sorted when he was Webmaster, the fact it has not been leads me to think although its possible it may cause errors? I don't know without speaking to Henrik which I will do.

I agree deletions should be discrete but some will not accept them no matter is said or done.

best regards

Derek

 

[pieter melissen]

Hi Pieter,

The category is not visible but the photo is, so a comment on it and will lead to it.
I will ask Henrik if the photo can be hidden as you say software issues are evident.
I am sure Ken tried to get this sorted when he was Webmaster, the fact it has not been leads me to think although its possible it may cause errors? I don't know without speaking to Henrik which I will do.

I agree deletions should be discrete but some will not accept them no matter is said or done.

best regards

Derek

 

Thanks Derek, hopefully that will help. I am sure people concerned may not always be happy with a decision, but at least the whole site community does not need to watch the proceedings and also, if that should be applicable, the poster will not feel ashamed to others to see his picture being exposed as being C for D.

[dirk septer]

@ Derek and Pieter:

No, I did not change my decision; if you read my last post:
I posted the pics of those four vessels I shot on Sunday as
a cross section of my photography "as a final parting";

Though I could have taken these same pics from the down town
area of Campbell River, I always try to head out of town to
get a more scenic backdrop.

I will not contribute further till I see some positive changes on
Shipspotting,
especially in the Vessel Identification/Technical Data/Additional
Info department: Not only full of incorrect data and missing info,
but also so very amateurish looking in the upper and lower case and
spacing; Does not look very professional.
And don't blame this on the source where you imported it from;
just don't import garbage; and if you do, at least correct it.

Also your basic "search" function is lacking and useless; If, for
example, I try to search the vessel L'Austral I posted pics of
yesterday, it does not come up at all.

Dirk

[Dеnis]

so your basic "search" function is lacking and useless; If, for
example, I try to search the vessel L'Austral I posted pics of
yesterday, it does not come up at all.

For that case you use http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/advanced-search.php, input Austral only & select "Anywhere (slow)".  Might select additional options too.

[simonwp]

Dirk, I've tried to be supportive regarding your photo deletion because I did think it was a bit unfair. However, equally unfair are your comments above. You know the reasons why some of the functions are not as everyone would like at the moment, Derek has replied fully and openly previously. You also know that work is going on to improve matters. However it may well take time. This site is not a professional site with limitless resources, most work is done in peoples spare time, and with limited resources, certainly financial resources.

This site is a hobby site, which is why I get concerned about how deletions are handled, but because it is a hobby site and not a professional site, I do not expect everything to be perfect all the time. Indeed, taking your example of L'Austral, it can be difficult to find on other sites, because some have it with a gap after the comma, it is not an exact science. The English spelling of Russian vessels, for example, can cause all sorts if problems.

Even professional sites such as Equasis and Fairplay get vessel details wrong at times. If you are looking for perfection I suspect you are likely to be disappointed where ever you look.

The layout can be a bit messy, but it's a bit extreme not to post because of it, I'm sure it will be tidied up in time, but it's probably a low priority compared with getting a replacement source of information now that GrossTonnage has closed.

The site in improving but it's evolution not revolution. I think you are expecting too much too soon.

[dirk septer]

@ simonwp;

I only pointed out some points that need improvement:
a simple item such as a "gap after a comma" should be
easy to fix by some IT person.

I think it wouldn't take any time to fix the lower/upper
case and spacing when importing data from elsewhere; matter
of seconds really and would look so much better.

It would be nice if members could get access and fix the
problems and fill in such items as current owner if this
is blank there for the photos they post.

Don't have the web masters access to this part of the page
to make corrections and additions?

Dirk