ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Deletions again  (Read 24567 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Clyde Dickens
FAQ Administrator
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,496



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2010, 11:41:36 pm »

Hi all

I can not seem to see the post I added this afternoon.  It's too late to try to remember it all, but the gist of it was that despite three rather lengthy replies, my original point about retrospective deletions, has still NOT been answered.

Allan

Allan

Click the Support tab on the Home page.   Under the heading Uploading photos guidance see Items 14, 15  and 16

These were announced in the Forum by Derek Sands in March 2010.  The presentation has changed for the migrated site, but not the words. 

Clyde
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.
Kelvin Davies
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,649


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2010, 06:43:33 am »

Hi all

I can not seem to see the post I added this afternoon.  It's too late to try to remember it all, but the gist of it was that despite three rather lengthy replies, my original point about retrospective deletions, has still NOT been answered.

Allan

Allan

Click the Support tab on the Home page.   Under the heading Uploading photos guidance see Items 14, 15  and 16

These were announced in the Forum by Derek Sands in March 2010.  The presentation has changed for the migrated site, but not the words. 

Clyde

Having read the three items, they bring us right back to Allan's original questions.
The photo referred to by Allan seems to meet pretty much all of the above criteria.
Despite this issue being raised over and over again, nothing seems to have changed.
It is a sign of something amiss when an admin feels obliged to express his frustration at the same issues.
While I can understand Ken's frustration, suggesting that Allan was making some sort of attack on the admins was not a good answer. He wasn't; he was querying the whole process, although he may have been querying the actions of the admin responsible for this deletion in the first place who caused offence with the comment about the photo being "dumped".
As the admin chose to remain anonymous (I thought we had been round this one too, a long time ago), may I suggest the admin contacts Allan and the original poster directly and offers an explanation? Perhaps this help defuse the issue.
Kelvin
Report to moderator   Logged
miraflores
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,016



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2010, 08:06:50 am »

Hello everybody
This is one reason why i defer posting any of my photo's on this site, i was in the understanding that this is a Shipspotting site for the average spotter, not a professional camera club
Adrian

You cannot make money with average fotos.
I think it is necessary that the deletion policy will be discussed here again and again.

http://i55.tinypic.com/mta2io.jpg

This foto was published today in a german daily newspaper with about 150 000 reader as the foto of the day.
It was not good enough for SS and deleted because the main object (Rijnborg) was obstructed by TREES.

Rgds.
Juergen
Report to moderator   Logged
Allan RO
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,617


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2010, 11:23:21 am »

Hi Clyde

In reply to you post.  Section 15 of the guidelines ends, 'the uploading member will be advised.......'    The first Capt. Snorrasen knew of the deletion was when I made the first post on the subject.  So the Admin concerned did not adhere to the wording of point 15.

In section 16 : 'shots of historical value, or for research/interest etc, may be retained.'
I highlighted the fact that the vessel was involved in the 1970's cod wars and was therefore of historical interest, prior to its deletion, and gave this as a reason NOT to delete the photo.  But my information was clearly dismissed as irrelevant.   So again, point 16 was totally ignored by the Admin, who was clearly hell bent on deleting this photo for whatever reason.

Allan

Report to moderator   Logged
Clyde Dickens
FAQ Administrator
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,496



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2010, 12:23:30 pm »

Hello everybody
This is one reason why i defer posting any of my photo's on this site, i was in the understanding that this is a Shipspotting site for the average spotter, not a professional camera club
Adrian

You cannot make money with average fotos.
I think it is necessary that the deletion policy will be discussed here again and again.

http://i55.tinypic.com/mta2io.jpg

This foto was published today in a german daily newspaper with about 150 000 reader as the foto of the day.
It was not good enough for SS and deleted because the main object (Rijnborg) was obstructed by TREES.

Rgds.
Juergen

The photo was deleted by me after a joint decision by the Webmaster and the Deputy Webmaster.

If it had been retained on site, it would have been used as a precedent by many members who wanted to upload photos with a wide variety of obstructions. 

You have not told the members that in my message to you, I quoted your own previous comment to the photo "Foto must be deleted, does absolutely not fulfill the site standard."

Clyde
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.
Clyde Dickens
FAQ Administrator
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,496



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2010, 12:58:40 pm »

Hi Clyde

In reply to you post.  Section 15 of the guidelines ends, 'the uploading member will be advised.......'    The first Capt. Snorrasen knew of the deletion was when I made the first post on the subject.  So the Admin concerned did not adhere to the wording of point 15.

In section 16 : 'shots of historical value, or for research/interest etc, may be retained.'
I highlighted the fact that the vessel was involved in the 1970's cod wars and was therefore of historical interest, prior to its deletion, and gave this as a reason NOT to delete the photo.  But my information was clearly dismissed as irrelevant.   So again, point 16 was totally ignored by the Admin, who was clearly hell bent on deleting this photo for whatever reason.

Allan



Your first statement misleads the members.  A notification message had been sent, and the photo deleted before you made your post.

You state "But my information was clearly dismissed as irrelevant.   So again, point 16 was totally ignored by the Admin, who was clearly hell bent on deleting this photo for whatever reason."   Those remarks are based on false assumptions.  If I had seen the comment you say you posted I would have kept the photo and asked the member for the information not supplied when uploading.  

Clyde
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.
Allan RO
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,617


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2010, 01:17:00 pm »

Hello Clyde

You are totally incorrect.  I added my comment to the photograph whilst it was still in the 'photos considered for deletion' section.   So either my comments regarding the history of the vessel were not read, not understood or ignored.   And if Capt. Snorreson was told of the likely deletion, how come the first he knew of it was from this forum ??   

I am not the one misleading members, I suspect it may the the Admin militia who are doing that.   

Allan



Report to moderator   Logged
Clyde Dickens
FAQ Administrator
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,496



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2010, 01:32:53 pm »

Hello Clyde

You are totally incorrect.  I added my comment to the photograph whilst it was still in the 'photos considered for deletion' section.   So either my comments regarding the history of the vessel were not read, not understood or ignored.   And if Capt. Snorreson was told of the likely deletion, how come the first he knew of it was from this forum ??   

I am not the one misleading members, I suspect it may the the Admin militia who are doing that.   

Allan


Allan

Read it all again, carefully.

You are confusing your comment to the photo with your post to the Forum

Clyde
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.
Allan RO
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,617


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2010, 01:49:15 pm »

Clyde

I added my comment to the photo stating the reasons why it was of historical significance and asking for its retention, whilst the photo was in the 'considered for deletion' category.   I could not have done so after it had been deleted - that is an impossibility !! 

I started the thread after my comments were ignored and the photo was deleted.   That as far as I am concerned is the crux of the matter.   

Allan
Report to moderator   Logged
miraflores
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,016



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2010, 03:04:54 pm »

Clyde,

but you are so honest to delete also the 5-10 of your fotos which I have claimed as "not complying with the site standards of SS "

Juergen
Report to moderator   Logged
Stan Muller
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,125



View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2010, 03:35:38 pm »

I still do not understand, why a perfect photo, with a more areal view is deleted, while really crap photos can stay on this site. No need to mention, ships in a dense fog or experimental night view photos. I like night view photos, but only when a ship can be seen.
I like ships in the fog, as long as the ship is CLEARLY vissible. I like a ships in the Kiel canal with some trees which do not obstruct more than an average tugboat, quay, moring rope or swell. I do not understand why admins go into a senseless discussion. Your time is limited, your work is important, look before you leap an go for the real CRAP.


Just my two cents.
Report to moderator   Logged
Ron
Guest
« Reply #26 on: December 05, 2010, 03:52:03 pm »

This one was deleted?Huh Huh

Stupid.....It`s a superpicture.

Regards Ron
Report to moderator   Logged
Robert J Smith
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,716


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: December 05, 2010, 04:22:58 pm »

Just wondering, how do we access 'photos considered for deletion', it's not in the "category quicklist"?

Regards

Bob
Report to moderator   Logged
miraflores
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,016



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2010, 06:43:57 pm »

Derek,
just yesterday there were 2 fotos considered, one small tug "too far away" and an inland vessel little overlighted by the sun, that's what I cannot understand.
Both were ok in my opinion, but I'm not an admin.

Rgds.
Juergen
Report to moderator   Logged
Frank Behrends
Photo Administrator
Top Poster
*****
Online Online

Posts: 11,881



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2010, 10:10:20 pm »

Hallo Jürgen,
das erkläre ich Dir gerne, vom Schlepper gibt es noch ein zweites Bild, das näher dran ist, es kann gerne als Ausschnittsvergrößerung wieder hochgeladen werden. Vom Binnenschiff wurden  mehrere Bilder hochgeladen, eins davon aus dem selben Winkel, nur ohne Gegenlicht.
Grüße von Frank
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.05 seconds with 18 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved