Deletion of old photos

<p>We currently have nearly 380,000 photos in our database, which

take up a large amount of disk space. While we can go on at the

current photo submission rate for a while yet, we will eventually

exhaust our current space.

 

<p>At this point, in order to further expand our disk capacity, we

will need not only to buy additional disks but to upgrade our entire

server configuration. While it is inevitable that we will need to do

this eventually, we also don't see a great deal of value in

indefinitely archiving photos that are neglected by the community.

 

<p>Therefore, we announce that in the near future we will delete

photos that were submitted more than six months ago that fail to meet

certain criteria. We have not decided the criteria, and we seek

your input.

 

<p>We have made one definite decision, and that is that we will not

delete <em>any</em> photos of members who are photo.net "heroes"

or "patrons". Patrons are either people who have purchased a one

year "photocritique alert" subscription or who have made a $25.00

contribution in the past 12 months. Heroes and patrons have little

icons next to their names.

 

<p>Beyond this, we are considering some other possible criteria for

preserving photos older than 6 months:

<ul>

<li>the photo has ratings, or some minimum number of ratings.

<li>the photo has an average rating above some level

<li>the photo has comments, or some minumum number of comments.

<li>the photo has some minimum number of views.

<li>the photo submitter is a "top photographer", defined in some

reasonable way.

<li>the photo submitter is an "active critiquer/rater", defined in

some reasonable way.

</ul>

 

<p>We seek your feedback and suggestions.

Please don't remove photos that are linked to posts. Such pictures generally don't have many ratings or comments, yet they are useful to illustrate posts.

I suggest that part of the criteria be size and number. If a person uploads one or two decent photos be treated different than a person that uploads 10000 crap. I realize the issue of "decent" and "crap" is difficult - so I will use myself as an example. I have uploaded two pictures of moderate size. They aren't great but they aren't total crap either. Why ultimately i expect them to be deleted -- I would certainly think are of a higher photo quality then a lot of the recent crap I've seen flooding this site. Yet, I suspect by the criteras you have listed they would be the first to be deleted...

"the photo has ratings, or some minimum number of ratings.

the photo has an average rating above some level

the photo has comments, or some minumum number of comments.

the photo has some minimum number of views.

the photo submitter is a "top photographer", defined in some reasonable way.

the photo submitter is an "active critiquer/rater", defined in some reasonable way. "

 

All except the last are HORRIBLE ideas.

 

The ratings system is a total joke now. As a result few people comment on pictures anymore and even fewer rate them. I myself do this much less now. Simply because the system is so screwed up! I get flames if I don't rate something with a 10/10!

 

In fact all the ideas pretty much have MASSIVE drawbacks except the last one. Most of them would just encourage the kind of behavior that made the ratings ystsem a joke in the first place. Dummy accounts would run rampant so that people could pump up THEIR views/ratings/etc.

 

Basing it on critiquing might work, but even then we'd need to avoid people just running around and 1/1ing everything to stay active.

Alan, I doubt either of your photos would be deleted by any likely set of criteria. They both have a fair number of ratings and the averages are high, or at least decent.

 

But one thing that I do take from your post is the suggestion that we should leave alone somebody's "last N" photos; that is, if someone has only uploaded a couple of photos, even if those photos didn't meet any of our criteria for retention, we should keep them anyway, and only "pick on" the folders of people who've uploaded "a lot" of neglected photos. What do other people think of that?

Good decision about not deleting photos of "heroes" or "patrons".

 

As far as the criteria mention in the original post here is my humble opinion.

 

>> the photo has ratings, or some minimum number of ratings.

 

At least one rating.

 

>> the photo has an average rating above some level

 

Unless the level is really low don't use this criteria because of rating flames, etc.

 

>> the photo has comments, or some minumum number of comments.

 

Don't use this criteria. I've seen many great pics without comments.

 

>> the photo has some minimum number of views.

 

Definitely. Maybe 100 views?

 

>> the photo submitter is a "top photographer", defined in some reasonable way.

 

I can imagine the flames and war if this one is attempted. Skip this one.

 

>> the photo submitter is an "active critiquer/rater", defined in some reasonable way.

 

Good idea but I can't think of a "good reasonable way".

Although I do not have the numbers to support this, perhaps image size (size of uploaded file) might be a criterium as well. Some people seem to upload huge files straight from the digicam -- they are way too big to be viewed on any reasonably-sized monitor even at medium size. Deleting these may help in recovering disk space.

<p>

Obviously, if the huge photos only make up for a tiny fraction of the photos, this still won't help much.

<p>

And, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photonet-donations">becoming a patron</a> is very easy if you have $25 to spare. Becoming a hero may require a bit more effort, but <a href="http://www.photo.net/editorial//plan.html">writing an article</a>

should get you there.

Robert, actually your statement that "few" people rate or comment any more is completely untrue. I don't know how you reached this conclusion.

 

The number of comments and ratings dipped after the "Top Photographers List" was altered back in March, which was a peak month, but they have since returned to and surpassed the previous levels, and July set records for both ratings and comments on photos. Disk space for photos is increasing at the rate of 20Gb per month, and this is considering the fact that around 50% of photos are deleted by the submitters within one month.

 

The only thing that hasn't returned to the March level is the number of people paying $25 per year for "photocritique alerts". (So, we are back to exponentially growing use of the photo critique system, with the attendant growth in the bandwidth and disk space required, but less money to operate it with.)

Actually, I'd expect users to manage their portfolios. Just a common sense, you know...

One criterion for activity is "visit"; we know the time of every member's last visit. We could delete the old images of people who haven't logged in for a while. This obviously wouldn't be the only criterion. Even if people could avoid the axe falling on their photos by just logging in, I think we'd still end up being able to delete quite a few old photos.

I guess in summary I have no problems with the idea (and even encourage it). However, the methods mentioned can all be 'faked' out. Someone(s) could write scripts to artifically munk with ratings, views and so forth.

Whew, as long as mine are staying. :) I'm a paying member.

<p>While a change may be needed, the whole idea seems unpleasant to me. Part of the beauty of photo.net is that it is such a level playing field. Hacks and geniuses have the same opportunities, which may be bad, but thus also do beginners/learners and geniuses. I am a lousy photographer, by most any ranking, but I have placed a few photos of mine in my portfolio just to provide people with a sense of with who they are conversing. My photos will likely never get enough views, ratings, or comments to keep them "alive" under your proposed system. It one set of skills to be a photographer and another to be a critic, printer, technical resource, teacher, etcetera. It seems a weak bit of logic to cull the photos of those who lack solid photography skills without regard to their potential or other useful contributions.</p>

<p>If it's operating budget that we need, I'll put my money where my mouth is and pitch into the pot. Please think carefully about how your proposed system would change photo.net for many of us.</p>

Jon, I interpret your comment as another vote for the idea that the we should only the whack the photos of people who've uploaded "a lot", or as Patrick pointed, who have overstepped the size guidelines by a significant amount. Would you agree that somebody who uploaded 50 pictures from a beer bust six months ago ought to be treated differently than an active photo.net member who has uploaded a modest portfolio?

<i>However, the methods mentioned can all be 'faked' out. Someone(s) could write scripts to artifically munk with ratings, views and so forth.</i>

 

<p>

Are there really that much trouble-makers on photo.net that we need to worry about them when cleaning up? I think the bulk of to-be-deleted photos should be the old, forgotten holiday snaps that people uploaded ages ago.

 

<p>

 

I think the "photo has comments" and "submitter is active critiquer/rater" (and especially critiquer) are the best criteria suggested, as well as the activity criterium. Maybe portfolios of people with invalid email addresses should be cleaned out as well?

 

<p>

 

Perhaps there should be a maximum number of photos per user? If a user has uploaded not more than the maximum, nothing happens. If they upload more, the least interesting ones (according to criteria we're trying to determine here) get deleted.

How about some type of quota system. Each user has X space for photos. Maybe POW winners, heros or patrons get more. This transfers the work of keeping things clean to the users of Photonet, not the admins.

One more thing,delete all the "FAMILY ALBUM" crap.

<p><i>Would you agree that somebody who uploaded 50 pictures from a beer bust six months ago ought to be treated differently than an active photo.net member who has uploaded a modest portfolio?</i></p>

<p>Aye!</p>

Great idea, what a challenge to implement - my two cents:

 

<p><i>the photo has ratings, or some minimum number of ratings. </i>

<br>this one will be pretty controversial, as well as will kill a bunch of photos that are valuable, just not popular. But, I also have no problem applying this rule if people don't support photo.net - TANSTAAFL. Maybe combine this rule with a 3 month rule - post your photos, if you're not paying for the storage space, then if your photo is not deemed to have redeeming value (using ratings as a proxy), then it is deleted. However, people will still be able to use phony ids to add ratings, so this solution may solve nothing.

 

<p><i>the photo has an average rating above some level</i>

<br><i>the photo has comments, or some minumum number of comments. </i>

<br><i>the photo has some minimum number of views. </i>

<br>same problem as above

 

<p><i>the photo submitter is a "top photographer", defined in some reasonable way. </i>

<br> i like this exclusion, perhaps add that x people have marked this as an interesting person, as suggested recently by someone. again, this is subject to abuse by phony user id's.

 

<p><i>the photo submitter is an "active critiquer/rater", defined in some reasonable way</i>

<br>this is a great idea and should be number one on the list. it should include comments as a metric, not just ratings. in fact, i would suggest some minimum comments/ratings ratio.

 

<p>Bottom line, photo storage is a service. That service is not free. I support any scheme that links service provided (ie, storage space) to contribution to the community (sweat, cash, or other).

 

<p>I still think some form of user id validation should occur to prevent abuse of phony userids. Probably on your list already, but I think it solves a lot of problems with one arrow.

 

<p>Great to see all these improvements coming. Thanks to the volunteers for their blood, sweat, and thick skin.

People that don't pay anything (like me, sorry), but still love being a part of photo.net, are probably a bit concerned about losing all our uploaded images.

 

For those that don't pay, I believe we should be given limited file space, say 40 photos, so that we choose carefull what to upload, and replace older photos ourselves with newer ones. This means the user decides what stays, rather than 'big brother.' I have some reasonable images (but may not have attracted many ratings or comments), which I think are useful for people to see if I criticise their work.

 

Hope you decide carefully, so that people don't feel annoyed and leave the site.

Good luck!

hmmm, I dread the concept of arbitrarily deleting photos here. Something I enjoy doing periodically is just plonking random numbers into the URL's til I find something interesting and then browsing from there. One thing that I see as a potential space hog as someone mentioned earlier are the images coming straight out of a digital camera. Something reasonable would be resizing the image on upload to a more "reasonable" size and compression ratio. Unfortunately as the years go by, the reasonable size and compression ratio keep going up making the old photos too small for the current standards. 10 years ago an image much larger than 200x200 was practically undisplayable on my computer system. Now anything smaller than 300x300 is unconfortable for me to look at and I much prefer at least 800 pixels on a side for viewing on screen. So where does this leave me? I've no idea. Just more food for thought.

 

jim

Marcello, I basically agree with you. When it comes to photo uploads, there are two things that really bug me: people who use photo.net to host family snaps to share with relatives and friends, and people who use photo.net as a free image hosting service for the images included in their posts to other sites.

 

Did you know that our "image-display" URL is the third highest entry URL into our site? That means that photos are not being accessed from within photo.net (via the folders, etc) but are being embedded into emails or pages on other sites, like auction sites and other photo sites.

 

DPReview, for example, does not permit you to upload images, but it has an active "Samples and Galleries" forum. Which site hosts a lot of the images that people are posting for critique on dpreview? You guessed it.

 

The purpose of the photo.net photo database is to permit people to upload photos to illustrate postings in the forums, to offer portfolios of their best work, or to participate in mutual rating and critique.

 

I'll bet that very few of the people who are using photo.net as a free image hosting service are (a) active raters/critiquers on photo.net; or (b) have become photo.net patrons. I'd really like to stop this, since it is free-loading and wastes our resources.

 

THe problem is: how? One person's "family snap" is other person's "sensitive child portrait". And another person's picture of a beanie baby being offered for sale on an auction site is another's "powerful statement on the commercialization of childhood". And our software can't tell a family snap or an auction item from a beautiful landscape.

I often crop my own portfolio, mainly following these criteria:

 

- Photos that haven't been seen over 300 times (or somewhere thereabouts) even after I post a critique request.

- Photos I uploaded only with a temporary purpose, like "How can I fix this?" issues.

- Photos with low ratings from people I respect, or a general average of below 4 or 5.

 

Deleting posts based on the rating system, however, is certainly a problem, since photos I love are despised by others (such as some of Leslie Hancock's images), and so if you're going to delete images based only on ratings, I'd suggest deleting only those that have a large number of ratings (20+) that average really low in both aesthetics and originality (3 or less).

 

I'm not sure how good an idea it would be to delete images based on comments received, since for some reason I get ratings more often than comments. I believe that the average is about 20 ratings for every comment, even if I ask specific questions on my request for critique.

 

Does Photo.net keep a record of when was an image last seen? If a photo hasn't been seen by anyone other than the original poster in 3 or more months, doesn't have any comments and has low average ratings, it could be a prime candidate for deletion.

 

As has been mentioned, all requirements for non-deletion can be faked, but it's still a matter of finding the ones that make more sense. I somehow doubt there's a majority of people who are going to go through the pain of "faking it" just to keep their images online.

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Ricardo

I discovered this site by accident, a few months ago, and was amazed that I could post my photos and have someone critique them.

 

I was also amazed that some shots that I thought mediocre scored 10/10 and others that I�d worked at scored low.

 

The main thing is that genuine people take the time and effort to review my stuff.

 

So what should my response be to this thread?

 

Firstly, I want to contribute positively in some way or other. I am not a �web techie� so my online or service contribution is limited. So MONEY then�I am happy to pay a contribution to this site as it is fantastic value for money and invaluable for any half serious photographer.

 

Secondly, I think those non-paying �contributors� that bend the rules (if they do) or indeed those who clog up the system with �rubbish� should defend their position in print or they should remove themselves from the site.

 

People will post �rubbish� or �bend the rules� simply because they can get away with it and the site is free. The more serious member, a paying member, is much more likely to take ownership of the site and WANT to help reduce operating costs for all.

 

My suggestion is that 2 or 3 pictures, at less than 100k each, can be posted by any particular person. As an option, more space can be purchased for $15 and the ability to critique photos can be added for a further $5-$10 per year.

 

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

I'll second the idea of limiting the disk space or total number of photos available to each user. That puts the responsibility onto us to manage our portfolios, while giving us control over the images that we present. Old pictures will necessarily be deleted when we want to upload new stuff.

 

The only problem is that there is still an abuse angle - someone registering multiple IDs in order to get more free space. Perhaps the space limit should be combined with active membership - active members (via general comments as well as critiques) get their space, inactive members get old pics deleted. I would argue that heroes and patrons should also have a space limit, albeit substantially larger. Perhaps you could choose to pay more for more space?

 

Finally, could you configure the web server to reject links from outside? Possibly even go as far as to allow the images to be seen only by logged on members? That would get rid of all but the most determined freeloaders ("Yes, aunty Muriel, you can see the pictures I took of the baby. First you have to get an account at photo.net...")