Skip Navigation

1. Posted by Herr Bert (Moderator 1384 posts) 6y

I just saw the weirdest thing. A photo of Penguins as the opening photo for Europe. Photo number: 127125. I can see that it is tagged United Kingdom, but isn't it a bit more logical to have it tagged as South-Georgia or Antarctica instead? ... and thus have it not popping up, as a photo under Europe.

2. Posted by Hien (Moderator 3906 posts) 6y

Photos get labelled incorrectly quite often on this site, and some of them got featured. I've seen a featured photo of the Petronas Twin Towers labelled as taken in Thailand. What we could do is inform the member about it and request them to change it.

3. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5588 posts) 6y

The photo is actually tagged 100% correctly. The problem is that Grytviken happens to be a UK territory, and thus the system sees it as being part of Europe. This is nearly impossible for us to work around without seriously slowing down the wiki pages, as we'd have to do extra calls to the database to see if the lat/long falls within a pre-set 'Europe' range. Another (probably better) alternative is to assign that location to be a part of Antarctica, rather than the UK, but we're redoing the mapping soon, so that is rather pointless for now (aside from the discussion that would then follow regarding 'is this really the right thing to do?'). Or unfeature the photo :)

4. Posted by Herr Bert (Moderator 1384 posts) 6y

Quoting Sam I Am

The photo is actually tagged 100% correctly. The problem is that Grytviken happens to be a UK territory, and thus the system sees it as being part of Europe. This is nearly impossible for us to work around without seriously slowing down the wiki pages, as we'd have to do extra calls to the database to see if the lat/long falls within a pre-set 'Europe' range. Another (probably better) alternative is to assign that location to be a part of Antarctica, rather than the UK, but we're redoing the mapping soon, so that is rather pointless for now (aside from the discussion that would then follow regarding 'is this really the right thing to do?'). Or unfeature the photo :)

I can follow your remark, and understand that there are limitations, but the 127124 and 127126, would be wrong than, as those are tagged as Antarctica, and are also in the Antarctive Photo Gallery. Isn´t it possible to have a good look at the photo´s that are selected for the galleries, when they are featured, and have, a kind of moderator, that can make some corrections when needed.

5. Posted by Utrecht (Moderator 5595 posts) 6y

Quoting Herr Bert

Quoting Sam I Am

The photo is actually tagged 100% correctly. The problem is that Grytviken happens to be a UK territory, and thus the system sees it as being part of Europe. This is nearly impossible for us to work around without seriously slowing down the wiki pages, as we'd have to do extra calls to the database to see if the lat/long falls within a pre-set 'Europe' range. Another (probably better) alternative is to assign that location to be a part of Antarctica, rather than the UK, but we're redoing the mapping soon, so that is rather pointless for now (aside from the discussion that would then follow regarding 'is this really the right thing to do?'). Or unfeature the photo :)

I can follow your remark, and understand that there are limitations, but the 127124 and 127126, would be wrong than, as those are tagged as Antarctica, and are also in the Antarctive Photo Gallery. Isn´t it possible to have a good look at the photo´s that are selected for the galleries, when they are featured, and have, a kind of moderator, that can make some corrections when needed.

My opinion since years as well.
Just wait for the explanation why it's not possible. Or allowed, depending on how you would call it.
I mean, it's not about deleting or even (un)featuring, just giving it the right location according to objective standards. KL is in Malaysia right

6. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5588 posts) 6y

Quoting Herr Bert

Quoting Sam I Am

The photo is actually tagged 100% correctly. The problem is that Grytviken happens to be a UK territory, and thus the system sees it as being part of Europe. This is nearly impossible for us to work around without seriously slowing down the wiki pages, as we'd have to do extra calls to the database to see if the lat/long falls within a pre-set 'Europe' range. Another (probably better) alternative is to assign that location to be a part of Antarctica, rather than the UK, but we're redoing the mapping soon, so that is rather pointless for now (aside from the discussion that would then follow regarding 'is this really the right thing to do?'). Or unfeature the photo :)

I can follow your remark, and understand that there are limitations, but the 127124 and 127126, would be wrong than, as those are tagged as Antarctica, and are also in the Antarctive Photo Gallery. Isn´t it possible to have a good look at the photo´s that are selected for the galleries, when they are featured, and have, a kind of moderator, that can make some corrections when needed.

Both of those were located in Antarctica, hence them showing up there. The earlier example was specifically set to Grytviken, but the other two weren't. I'm not saying it's correct, but that's why it happened.

Our basic stand on why we won't actually go in and edit a location on a photo ourselves is that we won't do it unless it breaches our terms/conditions. I think that's the right thing to do, otherwise, where exactly does our editing end? Can/should we change spelling mistakes? How about adjust UK English to US English or vice versa. How about if we're wrong as to the location, or the uploader had something else in mind when they uploaded it. Worse yet, what if we start editing descriptions because we don't like what they say. These are some contentious issues, and (especially with photos) we'd rather stay well away from these by basically saying the uploader is always the one in charge.

I think you're right in saying that these photos should at least not show in the featured galleries though, so have unfeatured this one. The best photo of the three I left featured. I know I've passed on featuring photos for this reason before, but it's also easy to miss this being the case when you are going through hundreds of photos a day

7. Posted by Herr Bert (Moderator 1384 posts) 6y

Thanks for the effort. out of curiosity how many photos a day are featured. (ok I understand that it might take a couple of days sometimes before someone has a look at the photos.) My feeling is that these should be checked for the location.

Sometimes when working on the travel guide, I leave out some photos as the title shows next to the story. When the title is just a number or something wrong I leave it out. In my opinion that is a shame, but it's just the way it is.

8. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5588 posts) 6y

Quoting Herr Bert

Thanks for the effort. out of curiosity how many photos a day are featured. (ok I understand that it might take a couple of days sometimes before someone has a look at the photos.) My feeling is that these should be checked for the location

Between 8000 and 10 000 a week are uploaded, and those are all looked at.... Whilst certainly no excuse, sometimes checking all the details when featuring just slips through the cracks. Keep in mind, we also check all forum posts, blog entries and reviews

9. Posted by Herr Bert (Moderator 1384 posts) 6y

It's work done by humans, so you have my complete understanding. This question was more out of curiosity, as I wrote before.