Improvements to the website design

[Owen Foley]

I'm sick of this website design.
Whenever you log on, the only images you see are just the top four"most popular" and everything else is buried and only visible if you want to dig for it.
The previous version of Shipspotting was a good showcase for ship photography.
When you logged on you saw a range of images, displayed larger and you didn't have to dig to find them.

And almost every day, the top four "most popular" are old B&W images of old ships with no particular photographic merit.
There seems to be a never ending supply of these old images and every day they rocket through the pack and get to the top in just a few hours.
This means that a couple of hundred great images that have been captured by members are hardly seen by anyone.

When I post high quality images now, they are lucky to get 20 views, where once they would frequently have 100 or more views.
This is only marginally better than putting them in a shoebox in the back of a cupboard.
I can't see much point in continuing to post images when they are unlikely to be seen by more than just a handful of people.

The current website design has had a good trial and it's failed.
It's time for a facelift to make Shipspotting better for people who want to see pictures of ships and photographers who want to show their hard work.

[Pieter_Inpijn]

I will not go for "the website design sucks", because the design is much better than the previous version.
Don't think the digging is necessary: the buttons "most popular"  and "new photos" give a fast access to many photos.
But I agree with you that the b/w photos are to prominent on the website nowadays.
In the past I had a few arguments with the admins why this was allowed, for reasons of copyright or bad quality or copied from the internet.
The site started in 2004 and it mission was: "because there is no website at the moment for shipspotters to show their work".
That mission has gone out of sight with all those b/w photos, mainly are of great interests but that is not what this website was started for.
Just my thoughts.
 

[Tony des Landes]

And almost every day, the top four "most popular" are old B&W images of old ships with no particular photographic merit.

That would suggest that they are the most viewed images for that particular day which must say something.

[Patrick Hill]

Owen,

I think the website is fine, it's just certain elements work differently to the previous incarnation.

The "most popular" answers itself - they may be old B&W images but some would say that the ships were better looking in those days so do have merit. As the thumbprints are better on this new site you can view the photos quite well without opening them, hence the lower number of hits. Maybe the B&W photos are more interesting to "people who want to see pictures of ships" so are then being opened, giving them more hits? Some of these B&W photos are from long time ship photographers scanning their own negs/prints who want to "show their hard work".

Pieter,

Your comment on the original purpose of the site - "because there is no website at the moment for shipspotters to show their work" - quite a few of the old B&W photos are doing just that, from well established shipspotters. Maybe when we can filter the groups things will be better for each user.

Patrick

[Pieter_Inpijn]

Let me clarify about B/W: of course I have no objection to b/w photos from shipspotters and my definition for that is: taken by them self. Such as Malcolm Cranfield, excellent photos, I wished I was around in that period.
But for instance b/w photos found in an old shoe box inherited from granddad with photos far before 1945 or without any trace of the origin belong to my opinion on historical websites. And b/w photos copied from the internet or other sources should not be posted on this website.
When uploading, members must comply with Copyright Law. See the website rules under Info & Faqs.
This website was set up for actual shipspotters and not as historical archive for ships worldwide (because there is  no limit to that).
Just my opinion and everybody is free to think otherwise.
 
 

[Owen Foley]

The "most popular" answers itself - they may be old B&W images but some would say that the ships were better looking in those days so do have merit. As the thumbprints are better on this new site you can view the photos quite well without opening them, hence the lower number of hits.

My complaint is that when you open the site, the only images you see ate the top 4 and you have to dig deeper to see anything else.
The Top 4 keep getting views and nothing else has a chance to be seen until they finally expire.
I don't understand how old B&W images can get 40 hits only an hour or two after uploading, when wonderful contemporary images struggle to get 20 views in 24 hours.
Perhaps there are a huge number of members who have little interest in coloured images and seek out the ancient ones?

But that doesn't matter.
What does, is that the website in its current form hides almost all other images that are being uploaded and doesn't give them the exposure they deserve.

[Dеnis]

As the thumbprints are better on this new site you can view the photos quite well without opening them, hence the lower number of hits.

I second this. After a little scrolling anyone would see this - photos in those thumbnails are clearly visible, so clicking on any becomes unnecessary unless you have to for some reason.
Clicking on From our Galleries brings random photos from the database.

[simonwp]

Personally I think the new design is a big improvement on the old one. Not perfect, but not much ever is.

Everything seems accessible. The number of hits on a photograph is down because of the reasons above, the thumbnails are now much better, and there is no need to click on the photograph most of the time. I don't post to attract hits, I post in the hope that others will enjoy my photographs, but the number doesn't bother me. If only two people do, that's as good for me as 100.

I think the older photographs, especially the b/w ones attract the hits, simply because they are interesting to members. It is that simple. Would I click on the 334th photograph for Estelle Maersk (for example), or the first of a 1950's built freighter. The freighter wins every time, no matter how good the photograph for Estelle Maersk is. I would enjoy the Maersk ship, but the thumbnail would be good enough for me.

[Tony Martin]

I can appreciate Owen's concern and understand that a lot of us only view thum nails, mainly due to the slow response. Interesting though today I visited the lighthouse category and the top six posts had the same number of hits double that of the next post. Interesting.
On another subject forum posts some are inappropriate ie "how to improve spided solatire and What bmtcallulaes. They  have remained for a couple of hours so far. This did not happen in the past. I had a photo deleted within 30 minutes yet these posts still exist. So in summary I tend to agree with Owen all is not well with this site. Hopefully things will improve.

[Aleksi Lindström]

On another subject forum posts some are inappropriate ie "how to improve spided solatire and What bmtcallulaes. They  have remained for a couple of hours so far. This did not happen in the past. I had a photo deleted within 30 minutes yet these posts still exist.

Dear Tony, I deleted the spam posts as soon as I woke up. This is not the first time we have had them in the forum, quite the contrary. I'm sorry we can't be on the lookout 24/7 as we are merely volunteers.

[Tony Martin]

Hi  Aleksi thanks for responding, seems this is a European site, if you had a more global admin this would not be a problem. Ie 24 hours coverage. Cheers

[victor radio74]

I agree with Owen Foley. The main problem in my view is the scrolling system that is boring and makes that hits are given only in a short period after uploading a photo. In the old version hits were increasing from time to time and now are frozen.
This is a site based in the members activity and  it seems that fellow members are losing interest. We should ask why the forum has so poor activity.
My opinion: if you give me the choice I prefer the old version ... but I continue uploading
Health  for everybody

[Richard Paton]

I agree wholeheartedly that the thumbnails now do not require anyone to click on a photo anymore, and even when you do click the photo isn't much bigger with an unattractive couple of black rectangles at either side of the photo.

For a trial period how about going back to thumbnails the size of the old site where you can only open it to full size IF your logged in as a member?

[Henk de Winde]

For a trial period how about going back to thumbnails the size of the old site where you can only open it to full size IF your logged in as a member?

Hope they can arrange this very soon!

[Manfred]

And while you are busy implementing this great idea about the thumbnails please delete the Copyright part from the site regulations or please finally act accordingly, thank you. Photos from so called collections by unknown photographers are getting on my nerves.