How about a thumbnail file for the postings with images
Apr 17, 2016 12:57:15 #
donolea wrote:
I think it's a fine idea. However, it all depends on the site platform and if the templates even allow for thumbnails. Even as someone who has spent time as a copy editor, it is hard to come up with pithy titles that grab someone's attention for every upload.
why do we need a "pithy title"? an accurate description is suffice. I find that I'm clicking on fewer and fewer shots. I realize we aren't all pros, but some of the stuff is......
Apr 17, 2016 13:01:01 #
BobHartung wrote:
Does not have to be pithy, just has to convey accurate information. Say, for example, "London Bridge silhouette"
As I was writing mine, your message popped up. You and I were writing the same thing at almost the same time.
Apr 17, 2016 13:07:52 #
BobHartung wrote:
Does not have to be pithy, just has to convey accurate information. Say, for example, "London Bridge silhouette"
Agreed, some people write the vaguest of titles i.e. "Iv'e Got my . . ..", this means nothing to anyone until you click on the link and are rewarded with "Beady eye on YOU!!". A great image of an eagle by Rathyatra. He has lost my vote for not bothering to write an informative title.
Apr 17, 2016 13:28:45 #
Apr 17, 2016 13:49:32 #
BobHartung wrote:
Does not have to be pithy, just has to convey accurate information. Say, for example, "London Bridge silhouette"
But what about those members, and there are quite a few of them, who say, Look What I Did OR Two Feathers? Personally I don't bother to look. A small thumbnail wouldn't make me have any more interest.
Dennis
Apr 17, 2016 14:00:52 #
TheeGambler wrote:
It is amazing how many photos those Flickr people put up on some of their sites. I get probably 10-15 of mine processed and finished, per year. I am not a prolific producer like some that can post new photos every day. And the suggestion of individual pages for UHH members might be a service that UHH could provide, possibly making a little money. It could also draw more people to UHH... Ha! I am always looking for money-making opportunities, I admit it!
Gambler, "Those Flickr People", now that's Funny, because they are actually regular people, their photography is just out of control!! What's wrong with 300 pics of the same crappy bald eagle shot( at least it looks like the same shot), over and over again?!?! :lol:
If we each had a 16 image gallery and a member wants to put the same 16 shots into it, well, that's their prerogative!! If it's all you got, then it's all you GOT!!! ;-)
SS
Apr 17, 2016 14:03:26 #
It's rather interesting how this Main Photography Discussion is wandering toward The Attic.
We start with a not unreasonable suggestion (curious query regarding feasibility?) about thumbnails accompanying topics because a lot have rather vague titles.
Then we get several observations to the effect that if you can't take the time to click into the topic, you should not bother to be here.
Then an observation to the effect that the work of only 9-10 posters here is worth the effort of looking.
And, in fairness, some have said it sounds like a good idea, but we don't know what resources are needed or available.
Sounds like modern political discourse to me.
We start with a not unreasonable suggestion (curious query regarding feasibility?) about thumbnails accompanying topics because a lot have rather vague titles.
Then we get several observations to the effect that if you can't take the time to click into the topic, you should not bother to be here.
Then an observation to the effect that the work of only 9-10 posters here is worth the effort of looking.
And, in fairness, some have said it sounds like a good idea, but we don't know what resources are needed or available.
Sounds like modern political discourse to me.
Apr 17, 2016 14:59:41 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Gambler, "Those Flickr People", now that's Funny, because they are actually regular people, their photography is just out of control!! What's wrong with 300 pics of the same crappy bald eagle shot( at least it looks like the same shot), over and over again?!?! :lol:
If we each had a 16 image gallery and a member wants to put the same 16 shots into it, well, that's their prerogative!! If it's all you got, then it's all you GOT!!! ;-)
SS
If we each had a 16 image gallery and a member wants to put the same 16 shots into it, well, that's their prerogative!! If it's all you got, then it's all you GOT!!! ;-)
SS
I appreciate your humor! Some of "Those Flickr People" (no disrespect intended) do seem to be, "out of control." Few people can post 500, of their "best photos." :-P
Apr 17, 2016 15:13:59 #
Glaspark wrote:
What a ridiculous statement.
YES it is a ridiculous statement and it was written by ZONE-SYSTEM-GRANDPA!
I just didn't want anyone to think I wrote it. In my post, I forgot to "give him credit" for making that statement.
Apr 17, 2016 15:20:10 #
TheeGambler wrote:
YES it is a ridiculous statement and it was written by ZONE-SYSTEM-GRANDPA!
I just didn't want anyone to think I wrote it. In my post, I forgot to "give him credit" for making that statement.
I just didn't want anyone to think I wrote it. In my post, I forgot to "give him credit" for making that statement.
Apologies TheeGambler, I missed the original post and accredited to yourself
:oops:
Apr 17, 2016 16:08:50 #
buddah17 wrote:
[/quote]Thanks for the replies. I take that as two NO's
But can l get some feedback as to IF this can be done on the site, and if anyone thinks it's a good idea? Thanks..
uote=Manglesphoto]"Nothing ventured , nothing gained" and maybe something lost! But if you never had it you can't lose it.
But can l get some feedback as to IF this can be done on the site, and if anyone thinks it's a good idea? Thanks..
uote=Manglesphoto]"Nothing ventured , nothing gained" and maybe something lost! But if you never had it you can't lose it.
Sure it can be done. How much effort the admin/programming staff wants to put into facilitating the implementation is the question.
--Bob
Apr 17, 2016 19:55:59 #
Moose
Loc: North Carolina
Buddah, I'm with you on this suggestion. Some of the titles get me interested to look, but I really can't take the time to look at them all. Another suggestion would be to show the id of the submitter. I get to know some of the ones that I like to follow, but to find them I have to do some searching. Another would be try and categorize the photos, like Birds, Landscapes, Pets, etc. Probably too many categories for that to work.
buddah17 wrote:
Unfortunately in today's world, everyone is in a r... (show quote)
Apr 18, 2016 08:08:26 #
BobHartung wrote:
Does not have to be pithy, just has to convey accurate information. Say, for example, "London Bridge silhouette"
I understand it doesn't have to be pithy, I didn't say we "need" it to be pithy, I choose to be pithy when it is suitable. One of my titles is called "Shark Bait". I think it's both pithy and descriptive. Man Diving Feeding A Shark, may be descriptive, but IMHO, I think it's a bit boring.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.