Photo quality versus quality of technical data

[dirk septer]

Having seven photographs deleted in one swoop/one message is discouraging.

They included very unusual barges returning from the Red Dog mining operation
in northern Alaska, Beaufort Sea. I am the only photographer having taken these.

I went out of my way in terrible stormy weather to take these and though they
are clearly in focus with their names visible. they were considered "blurry."
Severe weather conditions can result in somewhat "blurry" photos, but that is all
part of the conditions they were taken in.

Now whereas literally hundreds of boring photos of the same cruise ship are accepted,
photos of a few interesting and very unusual barges are deleted because they do not
meet standards that are set too strict.

At the other hand, Shipspotting does not care at all about the quality of the technical
data of the vessels they do accept. Technical Data is full of very annoying mistakes and
wrong data:

here is one example: http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=3356556

Also, the vessel identification in that section is full of typos and incorrect use of
lower and upper cases.

Having contributed close to 11,000 photos on Shipspotting, I have become very discouraged.

[Paul Finnigan]

Dirk, I agree with you on the amount of photos of the same cruise ships I think there should be a limit. 

[Jens Boldt]

It's no good to compare photo quality and the quality of technical data.

The latter (as well as vessel identification and additional information) was provided and updated by Grosstonnage.com. Grosstonnage.com went out of business in 2015 and ever since
this data hasn't been updated because Shipspotting.com never had (and still hasn't) access to this data**. The techs of Shipspotting.com only have the possibility to delete this data completely. That's all they can do about it.

So it's not correct to say that Shipspotting does not care, Shipspotting just can't do anything about it (other than to delete it completely, as I said above).

**This also is the reason why there's no such data at all for more recently built ships.

[davidships]

Thank you Jens for explaining to members yet again the situation with ship data, which is indeed unsatisfactory.
We remain open for practical suggestions for sources of better data, but none has yet emerged. 

The question of limits on the numbers of photos of particular ships has been discussed many times before, and not found wide-emough support.

On the question of deletions, I have sent you a PM, Dirk.  To remind members generally, we have well-established procedures for considering appeals against deletion, and will always respond to requests in that way, not through complaints on the Forum or in Photo Comments.

[Bob Scott]

If members took the trouble and the little bit of time needed to look-up details of the ships in their photos and include them with their posts, the site would be much the better for it.

[Sinisa Aljinovic]

Ship's data changes frequently and think this should be linked automatically like on those AIS web pages.This is job of IT sector but....

[dirk septer]

@ Bob Scott: It's not all that black and white:

Here's again one of my examples:

http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=3356556

After having done all the research re: details of the vessel's length, etc.
and having properly posted these with my photograph, it's so frustrating to
see under the Technical Data these huge wrong data posted.

Whereas, in my honest opinion, the rules re: photo quality (especially in cases
of rare or "first on this site" vessels) could be more flexible, the quality
of the technical data is totally ignored.

Really, what is the use of knowingly reporting/posting the wrong data?
Sadly this makes Shipspotting.com look amateurish to say the least.....

[ChasB46]

Dirk, as has been pointed out many times before Technical Data, Additional Information, Vessel Identification is the data imported from long defunct Grosstonnage. Its way out of date/ closed 2015. Should be ignored.
"Latest News" box is also defunct (last entry 10 months ago).  That is why admin recommend as much ships data that can be sourced is added on upload by the photo contributor. He/she can amend if new details come to light/ suggested by others, via their personal photo edits via login. Admin/volunteers do not have enough hours in the day to amend all amendments/ corrections.
Personally I would like to see the Technical Data, Additional Information boxes removed from the page layout but that has also been discussed via admin/site techies. That would require a revised master page layout etc. and associated links. Their verdict - it stays, so just ignore.

[Richard Paton]

Could this site not explore a collaboration with say Equasis, technical data in exchange for some photos? Surely it would be a win win for both parties? Just a thought

[ChasB46]

Can't see any advantage if I was Equasis ..they already have access/links  to VesselTracker and Marinetraffic photos and their data is supplied by 56 other associates , all of which might not be agreeable to sharing.

[Tony des Landes]

This site is essentially a (free) ship photo sharing site, not a ships database. If I want to know any technical details I will look them up myself on Equasis etc. I think repeating all the extensive details on each photo for each vessel is just a duplication of data.

[davidships]

Shortly, a "health warning" will be added to those data sections, while replacement sources are still being sought.

I can advise that Equasis will not agree to a data-feed to anyone, not least because that is a condition of some of their own data providers.  See: http://www.equasis.org/EquasisWeb/public/Moa?fs=DataUpdatePublic&P_MOA=faq

[ChasB46]

Tony des Landes, I know I keep "rattling a few cages" and upsetting some admin. volunteers. That is not my intention at all. Trying to be constructive, not destructive.
As you state it is or was a free photo sharing site but in my opinion has seriously veered away from this concept.  
The opening title line .. The Best Ship Information, Ship Photos and Shipping News!
suggests to the newcomer, viewers etc and even the members that the site is more than just photos.
What data is shown (ex Grosstonnage) is way out of date, if relevant at all? Shipping News stalled 10 months ago etc.
The site needs re directing to its core purpose?
If members want details, history etc. then they should be prepared to do the leg work ..not admin. AND an easy to enter SET data format is therefore required.

[Bob Scott]

The site needs a new owner. One who cares about ships.

[ChasB46]

Bob, I could not agree more. Someone/a team that is going to put in some work on the server/ front page/ templates. Its got the XP look but ships on the header were updated.
Does the owner ever visit the site?