ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Category standards: Military ships  (Read 2991 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
davidships
Webmaster
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,652



View Profile
« on: October 13, 2015, 01:50:23 am »

The standard currently reads:
Quote
Only single photos of Armaments, Flight Decks, and Ships Crests will be accepted.

General standards such as sharpness, level horizon and obstructions apply to these sub-categories, but clearly not those related to individual ships themselves.

Should it be made clear that for flight decks and ships’ crests a single example per ship will be retained on the site?  Site moderators will attempt to retain the clearest and most representative example. 

Should the interpretation for Armaments be that a single example per type of armament will be retained, on a similar basis?

Please add your views on this topic below, before 13 November 2015.
Report to moderator   Logged
WadeArmstrong
Capt Wade Armstrong
Photo Corrections
Just popping in
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


Pearl Harbor Pilot


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2015, 02:31:42 am »

Should it be made clear that for flight decks and ships’ crests a single example per ship will be retained on the site?  Site moderators will attempt to retain the clearest and most representative example. 
** Concur **

Should the interpretation for Armaments be that a single example per type of armament will be retained, on a similar basis? 
** The problem with armaments is that very few list the actual armament, most list the ship's name, often with little amplifying data. It will be a big task to sort through the 700+ armaments photos, correctly label them, and then thin them out.  I am willing to take on this task a bit at a time. However, I think that only a single example per armament type is too restrictive.  For example the Oto-Melara 76mm gun is widely used by many navies and coast guards.  Limiting that system to a single photo is simply not realistic. **

Wade Armstrong
Military Ships Corrections
Report to moderator   Logged
jdap
Just can't stay away
***
Online Online

Posts: 72


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2015, 02:15:36 pm »

Please allow me to use this topic to sidetrack here slightly, and to share my views on categories with only 1 photo online per topic/subject/target (militar ship crests may be one, but also the more popular funnel/superstuture logo category is part of this lot).

I would like to make a remark on the process through which these single photos/topic are managed overtime. Allow me to illustrate with 1 example (based on actual past experience at Shipspotting):

Assume I submit a photo for one of these categories, and the photo is accepted, and is left online;

Assume now that sometime later a better photo is submitted for that same topic. As a result, mine gets deleted, and is replaced with the new photo. No problem so far;

But now assume that sometime later the author of the photo online leaves ShipSpotting for whatever reason, and asks for his photos to be deleted. This request is accepted, and is carried out done by the Adms/Webmaster. What happens next? That specific topic remains empty until somebody else, a third party, one day submits his own photo of that specific topic/subject/target. In the meantime, the void that was created on the database by the deletion on demand persists until a new photo is upload. The time interval may be quite long. Who benefits from this situation? No one. And certainly not those who visit the site looking for that specific topic/subject/target, or photo category, in particular.

So first there was a photo, now there is no photo anymore, viewers may get confused and frustrated.

Did I manage to make my point clear?

In my opinion, such voids, whenever they may pop-up due to circumstances outside of our control, should be avoided.

So my suggestion is that:
Only one photo of each topic is online for those categories/subcategories that demand it - OK, no problem with that;
But all photos submitted for that topic/subject/target that meet the site standards but are not better than the one online at a given time, are kept by the Adms/Webmaster in an offline folder. And the ones that have already been online and got replaced are marked in such a way that they can be the first spare ones to be considered in case of need (i.e., a deletion on demand, for example).

In summary, in case of need there will be a spare set of photos to be brought online, and the topic/subject/target rests covered.

Another advantage of this continuum is that no photographer would be wasting his time on that same topic/subject/target unless he was sure that he could present a better photo than the spare one put back online. This would save both photographer's as well as Adms' time, and spare bandwidth as well as memory space. And would prevent having to start all over again on the quality curve for that specific target/subject/topic, when a third party finally uploads a new photo to fill the void that the deletion on demand has created.

As far as I could see, this process is not implemented and fully managed at the moment.

Would the process I envisage be feasible, and manageable, in practice?

My 2 cents' worth.

Jose
(jdap)
Report to moderator   Logged
WadeArmstrong
Capt Wade Armstrong
Photo Corrections
Just popping in
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


Pearl Harbor Pilot


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2015, 05:02:43 am »

Jose has a very good point.  If we can keep 500+ photos of some abominable human livestock carrier, we can certainly keep the best three to five of each ship's crest.  There are less than 300 ship's crest photos in total, weeding out a handful and keeping the majority is a good solution.
Now if we could limit the number of photos of the human livestock carriers...

Wade Armstrong
Military Ships Corrections
Report to moderator   Logged
Emmanuel.L
Not too shy to talk
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2015, 05:15:25 pm »

I have a query her regarding warships, their armaments and the number of photos to upload. Say I took a number of photos of say a Russian destroyer and uploaded  the regulation 4, but everyone knows that these Russian destroyers are bristling with armaments, guns, missiles, flight decks , radar arrays etc. So do these armaments have to be part of the required 4 ?. Sometimes there are more than 4 different type of armaments on these vessels, so it is either you upload the ship as herself or  the armaments , or a mixture of both ,which is not adequate and does not make justice to the category.

Emmanuel.L.
Report to moderator   Logged
WadeArmstrong
Capt Wade Armstrong
Photo Corrections
Just popping in
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


Pearl Harbor Pilot


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2015, 06:15:12 pm »

A very good question.  From my perspective, I would suggest that armament photos be labeled with the armament, not the ship's name, with ship's name in remarks, and perhaps pennant number.  Using Emmanuel's excellent example of a Russian Udaloy II-class Destroyer, you might end up with photos of the 130mm/54 twin gun mount, SS-N-22 SSM missile tubes, twin 30mm Gatling guns, anti-sub mortars, and torpedo tubes.

Wade Armstrong
Military Ships Corrections
Report to moderator   Logged
Kyle Stubbs
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 952


Something something Danger Zone.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2015, 07:10:50 pm »

I might suggest that for the military vessel weapon category, the site enforce a member limit instead of a site limit.

In such a case, each member would be allowed to post one photo of a weapon type per vessel class, regardless of which vessel it is mounted upon. For example, a single member could post images of a 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 Mod 2 each from both a Ticonderoga-class cruiser and a Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, but posting images of the same weapon from two different Ticonderoga-class cruisers would not be permitted.

As such, weapon photos would only be accepted if the posting member does the leg work to identify and describe what type of gun is photographed, and which vessel, class and type it is mounted upon. Any photos lacking such details would be automatically nominated for deletion.

Those are my thoughts on the subject.

Kind Regards,
Kyle
Report to moderator   Logged

"Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often." -Mark Twain
Clyde Dickens
FAQ Administrator
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,477



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2015, 08:10:54 pm »

I agree with you Kyle.  I believe that member limits are more appropriate than site limits which require looking at other member's work before planning or uploading a shot.

The site is not one album.  It is a collection of individual member's albums.  Always provided that Site Standards are met, the compilation of a vessel or item album, including self deletes, can be part of the interest and skill of shipspotting.

My first post of this was incomplete, hence this modification

I agree with Wade's request for descriptions that help the viewer of the pic.  Not only for Military items but for all site uploads.

Clyde
« Last Edit: October 14, 2015, 08:57:58 pm by Clyde Dickens » Report to moderator   Logged

To view some of the shipspotting sites I use, see the listing at  http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=510326.
csaba
Quite a regular
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2015, 07:58:48 pm »

Do airplanes and helicopters count as "armament" or should they be in a separate category?
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.044 seconds with 19 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved