ShipSpotting.com Forum
Shipspotters all over the world => Shipping News and information => Topic started by: Captain Carlitos on February 17, 2016, 06:24:42 PM
-
I ask gentlemen managers. Took more than a year hanging pictures in your web with my watermark, since yesterday I have posted are considered to clear because of the watermark according to your discretion, I ask of you are going to delete all ?, this is new? or what happens ?. every day I am disappointed over the policy shispotting. If you delete the images mentioned bearing the same watermark that I've been hanging for a while, then I will retire from the web, so simple. No it is this change in policy. Then I see photos above are a mess and remain active on the web. Nothing, I expect clarification.
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2410081
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2409006
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2410392
??? ??? ???
-
For now I will suspend my activities until someone explain to me taking this decision after being publishing my images with the same watermark for quite a time and never made me a warning about it.
De momento voy a suspender mis actividades hasta que alguien me explique por que toman esta decisi
-
Carlos
Es muy extra
-
I have deleted four photographs that do not spoil anything capture and have the same watermark you've used since about April 2015. So, I ask,
that since that time I did not clearance about it?
when using this criterion will have to erase the 200 photographs in which I am taking this watermark, you're going to delete?
Ya me han borrado cuatro fotografias que no estropean en nada la captura y tienen la misma marca de agua que vengo usando desde aproximadamente abril de 2015. Entonces, pregunto,
por que desde esa fecha no se me hizo un aclaramiento al respecto?
si usan este criterio tendran que borrar las aproximadamente 200 fotografias en las que hago uso de esta marca de agua, vais a borrarlas?
-
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2410975
After receiving several of my photographs accepted on this website, I found that all bear the same size in the watermark, and this photograph does not interfere with anything in the image of the ship.
-
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2408864
Same ship, same watermark, same size and is not deleted. Honestly, it does not seem fair that I have deleted some pictures where it is clear that they have the same size of watermark and do not interfere at all in the image of the ship.
-
It seems that the only watermark that causes problems is mine. These photographs have a watermark larger than mine and yet managers lords do not say anything about it. Sorry for the spotter, but if there should be equal justice for all.
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2409176
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2211194
I hope a coherent explanation from managers.
-
Carlos, I understand your problem and have sent you both pm's and Emails about it.
So you can be sure it is being dealt with.
Regards
Ken
-
I accept half, and I say this because I've seen pictures of other brands spotter with larger water than I had been using and managing the web has said nothing. So far I agree, but I am unhappy with your policy on the web.
Although I would like to know that answer gives me these pictures and their watermarks.
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2409176
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2211194
However, thank you very much for your attention. I will continue to participate on the web but I wish they were more fair in their policy.
-
Thank you Carlos, I appreciate your concern about this problem and it has been taken on board for the future.
Kind regards
Ken
-
Carlos,
Why can't you follow the site standards and post photos with watermarks which are not so visible? The Nikon logo is very distracting and adds nothing to the photo. All you need to do is have a less obtrusive watermark with no logo. Is that really so unfair or difficult?
If anyone else is listening, you can also have my resignation as admin, because I'm sick of people who question everything that we do.
Phil
-
While I agree Phil, that Carlos watermark is obtrusive, what he is questioning is why has this only been raised as an issue now, and not with his previous posts. A perfectly reasonable question, which appeared to have been answered, at least in part, satisfactorily be Ken.
Why you suddenly feel the need to weigh in and throw your toys out of the pram, when all appeared to have been sorted, is beyond me.
-
I continue on this site because I like the pictures and the popularity you have, otherwise you do not agree with what happened, not cut, does not courageous. I just hope justice is more when it comes to taking action. Greetings to all and I will end the issue, because I came to terms with Ken Smith.
-
I'm inclined to agree with you Phil and can see where you are coming from. In the bigger scheme of things, this was supposed to be an enjoyable hobby site for all of us, which can run parallel alongside family life. Being an Admin on here is far from that, and at the end of the day there are far more important things to deal with than appeasing the constant stream of whingers with nothing better to do in their lives than criticise what the people giving up their free time are trying to maintain for them free of charge. I think I have probably also reached a stage where I want out of that and will concentrate my efforts elsewhere. If there is no enjoyment left in it, then it is time to move on to another platform. Times change.
Brgds
John
-
Again, the issue is already clear to Ken Smith, so I will end it.
-
Seeing this picture and its high water mark, I keep wondering why my watermark not long ago accepted a management ?. This issue is already clear, but I would like an administrator explain to me why accept this photo with the watermark size exceeds mine.
-
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2426530
This is the photo in question.
-
Well, JanHu has nearly ALL of his photos with such watermark & black frame.