I've been looking through the Site Information for a description of the life of an image in the perms without much success. I have some images in the perms now and a few members have told me that they used to have some in those galleries but the number of their images that were permed has dropped. Is being in the perms not actually permanent? Do the mods occasionally go through the permanent galleries and weed out some of those photos? And what would the criteria be for the weeding-out? Is this something that has been covered before? Did I know it but just forgot it? Will Lassie ever convince Pa that Little Timmy has fallen down the well? Has my prescription worn off? Life is so full of questions.

The "Perms" were never really permanent; it was just called that to differentiate from the "New" gallery. Anyway it's called "Main Galleries" now.

There is no specific criteria for removing images from the mains, just as there is no specific criteria for promoting them. Over time images that were once considered the best may be outclassed by new images; some artists have multiple shots of the same scene promoted so a mod might remove the extra ones; there are other factors which may result in the removal of an image, for example images from several years ago may be at a resolution that is now considered too small.

"Is this something that has been covered before?"

There are several other discussions on the subject (sometimes referred to as "spring cleaning") in the forums if you care to seek them out.

Danke. I'll go have a look.

In the last six months I've been notified that 4 of my shots had been promoted to the permanent gallery although only two remain. Additionally a few Caedes friends have mentioned that some of their newly promoted shots didn't stay in the permanent gallery very long. If the moderators see fit to remove a shot that has just been promoted, shouldn't we receive a notification or at least an explanation?

Dorothy

The 'why' behind some removals of imagery from the Main Galleries:

*caedes (21/11/10 13:45)

"The situation where moderators override Art Council decisions is mainly due to the Art Council process still being in the testing phase."


::cynlee (20/12/10 11:42)

"I am beginning to think that people don't really look at the images they vote on anyway, so what does the VB or the AC matter? I see images in the main galleries that are overly sharpened, poorly composed, blurry and over saturated as examples. Granted many of the images are of fine quality, but discrimination has been lacking in the choice of subjects and quality. The main galleries are becoming very bland."


The 'what' to do about this happening..

"If the moderators see fit to remove a shot that has just been promoted, shouldn't we receive a notification or at least an explanation?"

Go to the "Feature Bloat / Bug Squash" and put forth your suggestion about a notification, Dorothy.


Insofar as an explanation is concerned? Unlikely, due to the numbers and time involved.

That said, you are free to PM an image mod for an explanation yourself.



Filling out the enchilada of this subject..

If more constructive critiques were profferred, perhaps, members such as yourself who've experienced this ... would have more of an idea as to the 'why'.

If the Art Council process can be refined more, perhaps, these instances will not happen at all.


We, the image mods, are human. Make mistakes, in short.

On that note, there has been a lot of discussion on individual images that have been promoted via the Art Council on this side of the fence. So, it is unlikely that any one mod acted solely in the removal of an image.

In short, a consensus was formed and agreed upon.

If members were sent a notification every time an image was removed from the main galleries all I forsee in the future is a massive number of complaints/questions every time an image is removed; leading to an unwillingness by the mods to remove anything from the mains; leading to a massively cluttered main gallery. Imagine what it would be like if we had never gone through and maintained them in the 9 odd years the site has been running? It is a natural process that over time some images will be removed to make way for new material... then you have the issue of multiple images by the same author and of the same scene being promoted by the art council; a difficult thing to avoid but easily rectified manually by the mods.

Personally I think the only way to reach a good balance is for the art council to carry on promoting images, but for the mods to still be able to monitor what is going into the mains and make adjustments. Sure, this means that occasionally some people might be upset that their image is removed from the mains but remember that the main galleries aren't supposed to be some sort of prize or reward, they are supposed to showcase the very best work that the site has to offer and in order to do this they need to be maintained to a high standard and that is all the mods are trying to do...

Despite the words of Sam and myself above, or, in light of ... might be more appropriate..


In case anyone felt disinclined to put forth the suggestion on the note of a notification sent in the instances of an image being removed from the Main Galleries ... I've done so on your behalfs ... here.

On the other hand (if I can be forgiven for getting a little off the subject), it would also be good if the moderators skimmed the new galleries periodically to make sure good images aren't being overlooked. I sometimes see images that deserve promotion but I can't nominate at the time, and ones that deserve promotion sometimes don't get enough voters that "get" them.

I second Hannah on that suggestion.

Suggestion: Don't notify the member that their posting has been elevated to the permanent gallery until the moderators have determined if the image will become part of the permanent gallery.

Roger