Groundspeak Portal

Opinions needed here. We've had recent visits to some of our waymarks either done at night with barely recognizable photos or shots of the areas surrounding the waymarks but not the actual waymark itself.  I can understand traveling at night and wanting to waymark but if it is a visit the original owner should be able to tell what is in the picture, shouldn't they? We've never denied a visit due to poor pictures or lack of pictures but does anyone else see a trend starting along these lines? We are not talking about any one waymarker here but several. Thanks for all your opinions.

macleod1:

Opinions needed here. We've had recent visits to some of our waymarks either done at night with barely recognizable photos or shots of the areas surrounding the waymarks but not the actual waymark itself.  I can understand traveling at night and wanting to waymark but if it is a visit the original owner should be able to tell what is in the picture, shouldn't they? We've never denied a visit due to poor pictures or lack of pictures but does anyone else see a trend starting along these lines? We are not talking about any one waymarker here but several. Thanks for all your opinions.

To me you have two things to consider. First and foremost, they are your listings and it would seem that you are the first line in quality control. That can be based on your own level of acceptance and factored by the individual category descriptions. Secondly it would be prudent to consider the situation. Was the visit an actual attempt by people that were actually at the location or does it seem to be fraudulent?

I tend to always side on believing that people were honest and would not have logged their visits with low quality pictures unless that was all that was possible. I also see no reason to tell someone that they didn't do a good enough job.

Letting the visit logs stand doesn't hurt your listings, gives the logger some added memory and if they were content with a lesser effort than you would have liked then it only reflects on them. Anyone that views their log will only judge them, not you. Hopefully others will say "Meh, I can do better than that!"

BQ

In general I agree with BQ on this except that the poor quality images do become part of the waymark's gallery thus to me they lessen the quality of the waymark.  If they were only attached to the visit log then they would reflect only on the visitor but since the become part of the waymark they also end up reflecting upon the waymark itself.

I agree with BQ. A lot of waymarks ask for a description of the area etc, a picture of the area says a thousand words. :/ If you feel it is a poor visit, ask for better pictures and/or write up in the future so that they might do better on their next waymark.

Fatcat

Personally, I feel like we shouldn't judge the quality of other people's photos.  If people want to waymark at night and the pictures are good enough to prove they visited the object, I have no issue.

In my eternal search of U-Hauls, I found one at night and posted my grainy cell phone shot.  The picture sucked but it was a valid visit.

Are we judging the visit by the quality of a picture?  If so, I think we're doing it wrong...

I think the visit is probably OK.

ODragon is right. If we judge a visit based on photo quality we do ourselves a disservice.

 Bruces brings up that the photos are in the gallery and thus brings down the quality of the waymark. To an point this is true but  the waymark page itself only shows 5 photos. If the location gets visited enough those will cycle off of the page and if not the waymark owner could add photos themselves to cycle the others off the page if it bothered them enough.

I think we need to remember that all visits do not happen in optimal conditions or with optimal equipment at hand. I see no problem accepting  a visit (grudginly) that is the equivilent of TNSL even if I don't prefer that type of visit.

ODragon:

In my eternal search of U-Hauls, I found one at night and posted my grainy cell phone shot. 

Reading that hurt me. A grainy cell phone at night?

Just Say No!

macleod1:

Opinions needed here. We've had recent visits to some of our waymarks either done at night with barely recognizable photos or shots of the areas surrounding the waymarks but not the actual waymark itself.  I can understand traveling at night and wanting to waymark but if it is a visit the original owner should be able to tell what is in the picture, shouldn't they? We've never denied a visit due to poor pictures or lack of pictures but does anyone else see a trend starting along these lines? We are not talking about any one waymarker here but several. Thanks for all your opinions.

The visit photo should be, at least, recognizable or otherwise match the category requirements.

I think the US Civil War cat says that photos have to be taken during the day ( but that might be just for Posting, not for Visiting ).
 

Redneck Parrotheads:

ODragon:

In my eternal search of U-Hauls, I found one at night and posted my grainy cell phone shot.

Reading that hurt me. A grainy cell phone at night?

Just Say No!

A u-haulic has to do what a u-haulic has to do!

ODragon:

I found one at night and posted my grainy cell phone shot.

You United Statesians will shoot anything for sport won't ya? But then again, you'all think Poker is a sport too

Back on topic... I'd accept a grainy cell phone shot for a Visit but likely not for a Waymark Listing. In ODragon's specific example since U-Haul's have a special default image requirement I would overlook it.

BQ