Standardization Of Pictures

[+Colorado Papa]

Sheez, I enjoy seeing pictures in the gallery, however I get frustrated when I see them captioned as Mvc-014s.jpg or other such thing. If possible, would like to see the image upload require the date, PID and location (city or county and state) plus a short description as to what direction the view was taken.

 

I have been trying to label my image captions as XXnnnn Closeup, City, State for the mark itself and XXnnnn NW View, City, State for the pan shot. The NW View could be any short description of the picture.

 

Anyone agree? And how do we get Jeremy to consider this?

Edited April 3, 2004 by Colorado Papa

[+xmashl]

If you want to label them for future inclusion in the NGS database, it's PID_YYYYMMDD_A.jpg for the closeup with the designation visible, and PID_YYYYMMDD_C.jpg for the wide shot that landmarks in context in the data sheet description.

[+GeckoGeek]

If you want to label them for future inclusion in the NGS database, it's PID_YYYYMMDD_A.jpg for the closeup with the designation visible, and PID_YYYYMMDD_C.jpg for the wide shot that landmarks in context in the data sheet description.

Works for me. No point in having multiple standards. Besides, if you make it too messy or long then either people won't upload or they'll blow you off completely and name it what they want.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Colorado Papa -

 

I certainly agree!

 

Black Dog Trackers  Posted: Feb 13 2004, 09:41 AM

 

On the benchmark images:

 

1. I suggest that the benchmark gallery Automatically gets the PID, Designation, County, State, Benchmarker name. I imagine that these could be attached to the picture file at picture upload time.

 

Some of us put this information in anyway to improve the Gallery and continue to encourage others to do so, but it really could be done automatically, I think. For those of us who take time to put this information in, this automatic fill would be a huge timesaver in uploading pics.

 

I haven't heard any evidence from Jeremy about plans to do something like this, but I hope it will happen in the future.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm not even sure what you are getting at. Pictures are renamed when they are uploaded to a cache page. From there you can give a title to the pic. and a description.

 

The renameing solves the problem of everyone submitting photos called "The Cache Container" etc.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

There has been a misunderstanding here.

 

Colorado Papa, Renegade Knight, and I are talking about the Captions of pictures.

xmashl and GeckoGeek are talking about the Filenames of pictures.

 

By the way, xmashl, DebBrown said that the _A in the filename is for the area picture, and _C is for the closeup, not the other way around.

[+Colorado Papa]

There has been a misunderstanding here.

 

Colorado Papa, Renegade Knight, and I are talking about the Captions of pictures.

xmashl and GeckoGeek are talking about the Filenames of pictures.

Right on!!! I should have used the word caption instead of label for the start of this subject.

At least geocaching does add the date to the picture. It's a start of what we desire.

[ArtMan]

Problem is, the length of the caption is severly limited, and my typical caption may not fit, e.g. Closeup of BRADFORD AZ MK (HV1234), Middlesex Co, NJ

[+bons]

 

Last I checked, I wasn't obliged to either:

1) log my find

2) Upload a photo if I did.

 

And now someone wants to make a rule that says what I have to name my photos if I decide to share them?

 

This is not a job. It's a hobby. It's supposed to be fun. Fun for me does not involve following official policies, procedures and standards. If you want me to do that sort of work, pay me.

 

If you want official proper labels on the site, I suggest you personally visit the benchmark in question, take your own photos using approved equipment and at an approved resolution and upload those photos in a manner that meets your standards.

 

Meanwhile, I'll be out having fun.

 

[ckhd]

While I agree with bons, I would probably follow an accepted convention, if it were a suggestion.

 

I think trying to dictate how a person does a hobby is a little too control-freakish (no offense intended Co Papa). If it were a requirement, I probably wouldn't upload pictures, unless they were direct to the NGS.

[+Colorado Papa]

If it were a requirement, ...

OK, how about a compromise for you anti-caption hunters? Just add the PID to the caption. That's ONLY six strokes of the keyboard!

[ckhd]

"anti-caption" might be a little strong.

 

I don't mind putting the PID in the caption. It's a good idea. I've started putting the PID in my filenames anyway.

 

One problem though... Not all benchmark hunters are on the forum.

[+bons]

We're talking about the same 6 characters that are all over the page we're uploading the photos to, right? Since my benchmark phots don't appear to be in my gallery and since I'm not sure where else you can possibly get to them from other than the page that has those 6 characters all over it, I don't see what you're getting out of this.

 

Perhaps if you were to explain to me how this would make things better for everyone, I could think of a reason why I would bother, but right now I'm just not seeing what adding the PID does to improve anything.

 

And I'm not anti-caption. I'm PRO-CAPTION. Specifially, I'm pro-CHOOSING-MY-OWN-caption. I'm anti-you-get-to-dictate-my-caption-to-me. There's a difference.

[Wintertime]

This is what the Geocaching.com folks recommend on their main benchmark page: "When uploading images, you can put the station's Designation (name, not PID) as well as its State and location in the "Name:" field - it makes the benchmark gallery more interesting." So they're thinking of the situation where people are browsing the benchmark gallery and thus don't know which page the mark is associated with.

[+seventhings]

All -

 

Interesting thread. I don't think that Colorado Papa or Black Dog Trackers are suggesting more complete captions on benchmark pictures for the purpose of gaining and exercising control over the process, or instituting rules and policies that place an undue burden on the activity. It's just that most of us hunt for marks because both the process and the result are (for some unfathomable reason) rewarding. And the results of other hunters' activities are also interesting, especially when displayed as an area or locale photo of a find. When I see a photo of a dull green disk mounted on a brick wall my first thought is "Gee, that looks cool. I wonder where that is and what the PID is?" Simple as that.

 

Yeah, it's a hobby, but hobbies aren't necessarily supposed to be solitary and effortless.

 

I like the idea of "JU3627 in New Castle Co., DE."

 

7

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Very well said, 7 !

[+Colorado Papa]

We're talking about the same 6 characters that are all over the page we're uploading the photos to, right? Since my benchmark phots don't appear to be in my gallery and since I'm not sure where else you can possibly get to them from other than the page that has those 6 characters all over it, I don't see what you're getting out of this.

Wrong!

 

OK, I think I see the problem. Apparently you are not going to [Visit the Gallery] where only benchmark photos are displayed right after they are posted. The gallery contains the lastest 1000 photos. You'll find access to the gallery on the same page as you find access to this benchmark forum if you use http://www.geocaching.com/mark/.

 

Now do you understand the gallery we are refering to and why we would like better captions?

[ArtMan]

In the Gallery, the PID should accompany the photo (as it did before the makeover), and the State/County should also be added automatically. Problem is that adding the PID and location to the caption is redundant in one setting and desperately needed in another. Sorry, Jeremy, but this is not the best web design.

 

-ArtMan-

[+mustanglx]

Every pic that I have uploaded I have renamed it as the PID and then added disc if it is a close up.

I also added a caption that stated the PID.

I figure that if you need more info lookup the PID that is stated and go out and find the BM for yourelf.

I do agree that some designation should be given so as to tell what it is but time, date and location? Shouldn't the PID tell you where it is located when you look it up?

I have to agree with Bons this is a hobby, nothing more.

IMHO make a caption with the PID. Anything else is up to you.

 

Remember, This is supposed to be fun.

 

mustanglx

[+JeremyA]

I think that many people who log benchmarks don't even realise that there is a gallery. They title and caption their pictures using titles and captions that make sense relative to the log that they have just posted for that particular mark. In that context a title such as 'the mark' or 'close-up of the disk' makes perfect sense. This seems reasonable to me because the appearance of a picture in the gallery is fairly transient (within a day or two it will be so far down the gallery that most people won't look at it) whereas its appearance in context (ie in the log for that benchmark) will last for as long as there is a benchmarking section at gc.com.

 

I see no reason to try to force people here to adopt NGS standards for their pictures (or anything else for that matter). This is a hobbyist site and, for me, the point of a hobby is to have fun. Most logs that I see for benchmarks are from geocachers who just find one or two near the caches that they visit, who aren't interested in submitting finds to the NGS. Those that are interested in submitting recoveries to the NGS can keep to NGS standards here, but they shouldn't expect everyone else too.

 

Before the benchmark pages were revamped the PID of each mark used to be automatically displayed in the gallery. For this reason I took to the previous convention of titling my pictures with the designation, place-name and state - placing descriptive text like 'close-up of the disk' in the caption. I have continued to do this thinking that the PIDs might return to the gallery one day.

 

To me, a better solution would be to get TPTB to make the gallery automatically contain the information that makes it interesting to look at (PID, designation, state... ). Then it doesn't matter how people title their pictures, people browsing the gallery would always see this information.

 

JeremyA

[+chaosmanor]

Thank you, Artman and JeremyA!

 

When I was reading this thread just now (I' ve been too busy to keep up with the fora for a week or three), it was making no sense to me at all, as the PIDs were displayed in the gallery, so far as I recalled. Thus, I couldn't figure out why we would need to put the PIDs in our captions: redundant.

 

Now that I've taken a good look at the gallery, I see the problem; PIDs are no longer being automatically posted with our pics Sure wish I knew why, but that's idle musing, best left for other topics, such as Life, the Universe and Everything

 

I did notice, however, that if one clicks on a photo, one is taken to a page that has the log for the BM: name, all the shots for that BM and any additional info that the finder logged. Problem solved. If you want to know which control that is, click on the photo

 

Speaking purely for myself, I am not going to add PIDs to my photo captions. I take a minimum of three, and as many as a half-dozen (on rare occasions, even more than that), shots of each control that I find. These include the disk, rod, rivet, etc., a shot of that plus any witness post, a "family" shot of the control and any associated RMs, plus individual shots of those RMs (if there are any), as well as at least two shots "in situ", that is, of the surrounding area with the control visible, or else labeled as to it's location, if it's under weeds, etc. These are all posted at the same time, and they are labeled in re: the control's page, not the gallery. While I can understand the desire to have the PID info handy on the gallery, the gallery is a collection of photos, with no background information, and, thus, is of limited practical value, for all that it can be a fascinating place to visit But if all one needs to do to gain context for any shot is to click on it, then that's pretty easy, and it ought to be enough for anyone who wants more info.

[+bons]

It seems to me that it would be a LOT easier to add the PID to the gallery page than it would be to force or even encourage every benchmark hunter to follow a particular convention of captioning. It would probably make a lot more sense as well.

 

Is there anywhere other than the gallery page where the PID for a benchmark photo isn't obvious?

Edited April 5, 2004 by bons

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

What is the old saying if you see it needs to be done you need to do it.

Not being a smart a** but if you see something that needs working on maybe you could find a way to get this done.

Most time people volunteer their expertice,and forget some details along the way.

After all we are not getting those big$$$ like some do for that type of work.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I think this is all a temporary situation, at least I am hoping it is.

 

The thing I most want to see in the benchmark gallery is the State and location within the state (City or County).

 

Currently I always put the State and City/County on and I also add the Designation. I was adding the Designation back when the PID and geocacher's name was added automatically by the Website. When the benchmarking section had the big improvement step two months ago, this automatic feature was lost. So until it comes back, I'm continuing with the Designation. Between the choice of Designation or PID, I prefer the Designation since sometimes they have interesting names.

 

Of course you CAN find out all these things by fussing with your mouse and a bunch of extra windows, but then it doesn't seem much like a gallery when you have to do that.

 

I'm hoping that the next time the programmers cycle back around to the benchmarking section, they will go ahead and make not only the geocacher's name and PID be automatically attached to the picture, but the Designation, State, and County as well.

 

Then it would really be cool. So until then, adding at least put the State and City/County in the caption would be the cool thing to do for adding interest to your pics in the gallery.

 

Concerning filenames, I think they are quite unimportant on the GC site. The filenames don't show up and therefore just don't matter. They matter only to the NGS site. You can always rename your picture filenames if/when you send them to the NGS.

[+GeckoGeek]

What is the old saying if you see it needs to be done you need to do it.

My motto is that it's easier to teach machines then to teach people. I'm with Bons on this one. Fix the gallery page, don't hassle the users just because the page don't work right.