We created a new gallery: Photography->Bridges. Enjoy :-)
Link

hehe ...I only put forth that suggestion half a year ago. guess someone finally dredged it out of the suggestion box ;-)uber cool!

on a serious note (and thanks,btw) I had also wondered if a splinter gallery of "structures" would be useful. this would pare down the architecture gallery once more, but leave it more to buildings,houses,and the like.

Could you give us some examples?

ok, I'd be more than happy to. I'll be back with a few links of each.

ok, I'm back. here are six examples of architecture-type images, that I would suggest belong in a separate "structures" gallery

example #1

example #2

example #3

example #4

example #5

example #6

Personally I don't think any of those should have been in the Architecture gallery to begin with... I would have placed the first three in "City", the fourth in "Water" or "Shorelines", and the 6th in "Nature" or "Landscape". Not sure where no. 5 would fit best... possibly "Landscape", but I wouldn't class that as architecture myself.

#1 = places of worship

#2 = sculpture

#3 = city

#4 = shorelines?

#5 = places of worship?

#6 = images with misspellings in their titles



hey .. why don't WE code one of the Microsoft OFFICE assistants to help with gallery selection

imagine this ..

a little paperclip bounces around to look cute, then asks ... "are there people in your photo?"

[ ] yes .. [x] no

(*bounces around*) .. "is the sun close to the horizon, like it might be setting .. or rising?"

[x] yes .. [ ] no

(*thinking*) .. (*brightens*) .. (*bounces furiously*) ... then, might I suggest ... (*busy pointer*) .. Sunset\Rise

(*quizzical look, rubbing chin*) .. "would you like me to fill in the blank for you with Sunset\Rise .. ?"

[x] yes .. [ ] no .. [ ] start over

*imagines it*

*slashes wrists*

ok, I got that you don't think those selections should be in "architecture", but you realy haven't answered, or even acknowledged my suggestion for the separate category.

but we have .. we have said they have existing categories that they are not in

#4 .. a dock on the water's edge .. it's not a "structure" in my mind .. creating a gallery that is vague and open ended leads to gallery mis-filing


how about .. FORESTS \ TREES \ WOODS .. for a category

ok, so lets say I upload (as I sometimes will) a shot of something like...monkey bars? or a chain link fence? etc...
do they get placed into "still life" nah.. "general"...um...nah
these are sort of the things I had in mind as well, structural items that dont quite fit the architectural guidelines

To my mind, most (if not all) architecture is a structure... so splitting a gallery into those two categories would just be confusing, rather than helpful.

ok,that was pretty much the answer I was seeking

monkeybars, chainlink fence = city (urban)

we are NOT going to make a monkeybars gallery .. so, stop it

I made the changes

"Bridges" is a great looking gallery, by the way! (I noticed there was at least one aqueduct in there... is "Bridges and aqueducts" being too pedantic?)

Perhaps, but the post itself is a textbook example of passive/aggressive behavior. I made what I felt, and hoped would be a helpful suggestion for a gallery change. Mockery isn't what I'd expect from one of the site's leaders. Do us all a favor and knock it off. If you think you're going to bait me into sinking to that level, you've misjudged me...grossly.

Rob: They are saying that the multiplication of galleries, to which the topic is very close, can harm the legibility of the site. We had the same problem between some 'landscapes' and some 'nature' photos, or 'trams/trains' and 'transportation'. We had long discussions about that...

thanks, for the explanation Pierre. :o)

I was quite serious about "Bridges and aqueducts". Not everything is about you...

right. got it. so when you used the word pedantic...you were just...being you. Have the stones to stand by what you say, or don't say it. Backpeddling is..sad.

double post

As I said, not everything is about you. I thought "Bridges and aqueducts" might be too pedantic. I wasn't referring to any of your previous comments or even thinking of you when I wrote it. Get over yourself.

*making popcorn*
*waits for next round*

oops.... almost forgot the fake movie butter flavoring... brb…

Actually I think I'll throw in the towel now. No more sparring for me...

'K ... not pointing fingers here ...

Everyone makes mistakes. (Lord knows I do.)

But, in all sincerity ... I am politely asking and requesting the dissenting parties to ... let ... it ... go.

Please.

It's very easy to get caught up in the emotion and lose sight of the intended meanings.

This medium of words alone really, really ... really requires some calmer waters.

Don't lose your perception and try to employ some more objectivity.

Annnnd ...

I am going to thank you in advance. 'Cause I know that this is definitely doable.

*hands out cookies*

You're right Les. In fact I don't deserve a cookie...

*sits in the corner*

Sorry everyone...

hey .. Les? .. can I have his cookie? .. I was good

(for once)

No !! Me Les, me !! I sent you a funny videooo~oooo ...

So I deserve the cookie ... not Burger King Boy up there.

No worries people ... everyone ... everyone gets cookies.

I gotz lotz. :o))

*goes over to Sam sitting in the corner and hands him ... two*

I counted more than 30 mills images in the perms. They are so specific buildings that I created a new 'Photography->Mills' gallery. Please have a look here.
Hey! Holland wins!!! :-)

With Sam's help, we created a new Reptiles/amphibians gallery in the Photography section.
Enjoy :-)