Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

What about fun?

• I have followed QIC almost from its very beginning and there seems to be no doubt that it has contributed a great deal to the overall quality of our pictures. Still the project appears to be in a serious impasse mainly owing to the large number of pictures being nominated, the inadequacy of the wiki-platform and the relatively small number of experienced reviewers. Two external factors seem to contribute to the situation: the idea that QIC is some kind of official service where we submit most of our images to be stamped; and the competition among nominators. Considering the first, I have always defended that only the best of our photos should be nominated so that they will become a kind of quality models for the future. However that is not obviously what is happening and the redundancy of pictures showing the same subject in almost exactly the same way has become the norm in our QI galleries. If we really want to reduce the number of nominations this is a point that should be discussed. The second factor (competition) seems to be a natural consequence of the first. There is nothing wrong with healthy competition among nominators provided that this will contribute to raising the quality of our galleries and stimulate the uploading of good images. What is wrong is abusing the system the way it is being abused now, with little regard for the real goal of QIC and the value of the nominated pictures.
• A second line of thought is about the motivation of both creators and reviewers. In the good old times (that is, when the number of nominations and participants was just a small fraction of what it is now), it was fun to participate in QIC. Not only because if offered the possibility of sharing our best work with our peers, but also because we could learn a great deal about photography in the process. This is an important component we should preserve in whatever solution we find to solve the present crisis. Everybody will agree that if the only reason for someone to review 10 pictures a day is the presence of his own images in the page, something is very wrong.

I don’t like the imposition of a daily limit myself but see no other immediate palliative to the present disease, while the question is being discussed in depth. And if we are indeed going to impose such limit, please make it sufficiently small (five or less) so that people may learn to evaluate and select their own images before nominating them to QIC. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Alvesgaspar. --Bgag (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

+1 I too agree with @Alvesgaspar: . Completely --Hubertl (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Of course I wasn't there in these good old times, and like with everything in life they may or may not have existed, but QI is a fundamentally different concept than FP to me. A QI is a well-executed photo (technique and composition) of something. What that something is, is not so important. A QI is as such useful for users that want to have a quick way to find images that are fine in these aspects. I think we sometimes become too obsessed with ourselves here. As a preselector for WLMUK I have seen 1500 images that probably reflect a good sample of uploads to commons. I can honestly tell you that 60% of these images are not acceptable to view on a normal screen (unsharp, lots of CA, tilts), and probably only 20% would be QIs (most of them coming from names active here! The QI sign shows that sb. has had a look and has confirmed that flaws are absent.

I would not like QI to be a FP-light, not only because that would require far more discussion but because I think that fundamentally misses the point. We as nominators should look at our images and choose the ones that we think are good and illustrative for the subject. I appreciate the work of nominators like Poco or Ccc (and others) that bother to mix their nominations up, so that we get something to see andsome enjoyment in seeing something else in every image.

Some problem arises when the "archivists" nominate massive batches of generic buildings etc. that have very little interest to most people. As I have lined out my opinion of the purpose of QI, I do not think that they are wrong in their behavior per se, but of course there is a bit of a paradox here (virtually nobody will ever search for some random building, so it is unlikely that they will need guidance in finding a good image of it). I think here a hard limit would make sense, because it is a compromise. I still think that major problems arise in that some people structurally do not assess their fair share of images. --DXR (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to say the biggest obstacle to me participating regularly at QI is the dreadful UI experience. Although it is meant to be lightweight, it ends up being a chore. I want bigger previews than the tiny icons, an easy way to then see the image in large size + full size, and then an easy way to give my review/vote in one quick operation (rather than waiting 20s for the page to reload). My second biggest negative is the number of dull pictures. I know QI doesn't require wow like FP, but we seem to have forgotten that good light and interesting composition is required. And I agree that uploading numerous photos of the essentially the same subject from different angles/locations is tedious -- whether in a batch or drip drip. As a very occasional nominator, I find it utterly random, with what I consider interesting and good quality images just ignored, while others who nominate 10 at once get them cleared up simply because they are visible at the top of the page. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

While I agree, that it can be dull to assess many nearly identical files of (POV) boring subjects, I don't think that we should limit the number of nominations per user. QI means nothing more, than what DXR laid out already. We have FP to select the cream of the cream (always POV), QI means, this photo clears a certain threshold of Quality (NPOV). Frankly, we want all photos on Commons to be QI, so a large number of candidates should be something good. Yes, some people do not review as many images as others, but why? Because it is a pain in the ... If we get the technological platform right it could be easy and fun to review and there would be no "flooding" problem, because nobody needs to feel obligated to review.

I have two ideas to improve reviewing:

1. Splitting the current QIC page in one page per day to avoid edit conflicts. Right now it is almost impossible to review more than one photo at a time without an edit conflict. This is a must have and it's quite easy to realize.
2. Making QI candidates visible in their respective categories (even parent categories maybe) would encourage new reviewers to participate. This is probably difficult to realize and not very important but it would be really nice to have.

--MB-one (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 2 above, FastCCI. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 1 above: This is an idea, I suggested months ago. But someone has to do it. I'm not familar with (nested) templates and things like that and do not know how all this stuff works. sorry. -- Smial (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Same with me, having edit conflicts all the time is really boring. And almost every time, I am opening the pictures completely - inkluding download sometimes to check some parts in PS, it really needs some time to classify a good picture. --Hubertl (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we have all those {{/Promotion}} templates which would suddenly not work, and QICbot would also suddenly fail, and we'd need to implement an automated process to create the daily page. This is something we need, but it needs to be done by Dschwen. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I really do not want to invest time in daily subpages just to avoid edit conflicts, when I'm already investing time in building an improved UI, which would eliminate edit conflicts entirely. --Dschwen (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify from my side: There are nominations by some individuals whose images do not even reach the basic requirement of what can be described as acceptable. It's just to get the highest possible amount of QI. From a single motive several images regardless of whether they are even have a personal preselection or not. To get this promotion for themselves, images from others are partially rated positively in an indiscriminately way, within the hope, that they will get positive returns. These are mostly the same people. It´s like in a kindergarten: If you do something for me, then I do something for you.

This gives this QI an worthless value, which contradicts the original intention entirely, QI is getting degraded. The worst thing for me is, that then exactly these people also rate the bad images of others, regardless of their actual quality . Thus they lose my confidence to be taken seriously in this assessment.--Hubertl (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so old here than Alvesgaspar here, but I think I have a good experience of QI now. He is right, but , with all due respect, the started discussion is as old as me here... btw, splitting the current QIC page in one per day is a good idea for the current day, but a good idea should be to review old pictures too...--Jebulon (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• +1 with Alvesgaspar. It is a fact that it is much more easy to nominate than to rewiew, there is even a gadget for nominations. I think my idea above for a script for to know who nominate, who rewiew and in what proportions, even with one-time results, for the last month for exemple, can be a good thing for to incite people to think at the way they nominates. -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 11:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• I also think that many images are too easily promoted, if we search in the recent archives it will be easy to find a lot of images with many issues (dustspots, perspectives, OE...) which should not be QI. Maybe that a double rewiew with 2  Support for a promotion could make a little more drastic sorting. -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 17:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd support double reviews as Christian suggests to get a promotion and of course will always support any steps to reduce the amount of dammed edit conflicts (like having a page per day, that can later on be used as the current daily archive). On the other side I'd NOT support any limitations in the amount of daily/weekly/monthly or whatever threshold of QICs per user. To me it this kind of measure would be like killing fleas with a sledgehammer. Poco² 19:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Right now, there are some guys, they don´t know what pre-selection means. And we need it hardly! Its like a kindergarten-competition sometimes! --Hubertl (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Reviews are careless, in general, because of too many nominations. I boycott silently some users for that. We should accept only five noms a day per nominator. We should not accept the Consensual Review as a "court of appeal": it means that a nominator should not be allowed to put his own nomination in CR after a "contra" vote. That's logical : if you nominate, you think that your pic deserves the seal. So, an oppose is unacceptable, and then : CR. Actually,  Oppose has not the same value than  Support. I guess it is deviant from the wish of the QI founding fathers. I repeat this since years: 5 noms a day per nominator maximum, no access in CR for nominators. But I never received any consensus, therefore I play for myself and nominate only five pics a day, and very rarely push my own noms in CR...(sorry, today I nominated 6, but one is just a renom after rework, it is exceptional)--Jebulon (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm with Jebulon on this one (as usual...) and will support a poll on this: that is, on limiting the numer of daily nominations to 5 and not allowing nominators to appeal to CR. I'm somehow divided concerning this last measure. Because there are so many images on the page, the reviewers tend to pay less attention to green or red templates, thus permiting poor reviews to prevail. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

    I thought that above 7 seemed to be a reasonable number. I agree though, I don't tend to look at green/red ones unless it's obvious in the thumbnail or I review someone particular images and find myself going against the reviews around them. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking of things that aren’t fun, the Recently Promoted list is up over 2500 images waiting to be categorized. Is this activity still necessary? Isn’t the combination of tagging each QI image with the QI category, in addition to the other categories the image should have, sufficient to allow potential users to find the image? Looking though the very broad gallery categories isn’t as useful, giving the large number of QI images, and the difficulty of placing an image in the right gallery category. Is it time to end categorization of the recently promoted list? --Generic1139 (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  Seems reasonable. I have no idea what it's for. We have FastCCI now. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm totaly against not allowing nominators to appeal to CR. A only rewiewer can easily be wrong. What about my idea of a double rewiew with 2  Support for a promotion? -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 19:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Christian, how should it run with 2 reviews per nom, given that we have too few reviewers and even with 1 review/nom many images remain unassessed? --A.Savin 19:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi A.Savin, I was thinking about that, one solution could be te create a new statut for the image which received a support, named firstpromo for exemple. And when the image have this statut, the BOT don't treat it and this image stay on the page until they have a second support or an oppose. Exemple :

 Support=new statut firstpromo (don't treat by the BOT) and stay on the page.

 Support Support=Promotion

 Oppose=Decline :as it is at now and the nominator or anybody keep his possibility to go in CR

 Support Support Oppose=Decline, the nominator or anybody keep his possibility to go in CR

Consensual rewiew: 2 Support beforehand. exemple 1 Oppose=3 Support to be promoted, 2 Oppose=4 Support to be promoted....

Another way is to change the way the BOT works, maybe the image the images which had no their changed status should stay on the page: not promoted or not declined=never unassessed. Anover limitation possible is not the number of nomination by user but more the impossibility for all of us to nominate until there are on the page not rewiewed images at day-5. Exemple we are the 2014.10.24, maybe it should be impossible for anybody to make new nominations until the images nominated the 2014.10.19 are not rewiewed. -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 05:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What about KISS ? Pleclown (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be way too complicated. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Two Pros, two Contras. And no selfappealing. And not more than 3 pictures a day.--Hubertl (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • To be clear: I often do pay attention to red or green frames: it may depend of the name of the nominator and of the reviewer, and sometimes of the combo of the two.😷. Need to say more ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

    No way to your proposal Hubertl. I can accept a limit on nominations, though I think seven would be a better number for that. But limiting the number of promotions and declines, and thus in fact the number of reviews that can be done? That's insane. As for no self-appealing, I oppose that too. Often if someone declines an image of mine I'll accept it, they saw something I didn't when I added it to my nomination list. But if someone declines an image I nominated, I ought to be able to ask for a second opinion if I really do think the review is in error. Especially if someone reviews it, declines it, and then I upload a new version which fixes whatever was wrong. More generally I've seen quite a few times where the initial review was decline, it was appealed and then the final vote went 4-1 in favour of promotion. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think discussion of changes to rules is premature since what is fundamentally needed is a change to the UI. If we had something where it was quick to view an image full size and to give one's +/-/? review then the turnover in reviewing would be massively increased. The UI could even be designed to randomly present images for review, to avoid the problem where yesterday's images are neglected -- it is much easier to review the top where there is more chance of finding an easy support/fail, for example. If this was done, we might find some issues disappear. With increased speed and more enjoyable UI, the "double marking" possiblitity of two supports to promote becomes feasible and attractive, whereas right now it is a non-starter. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I rather agree with Colin and my discussion of changes to rules have only for purpose to highlight some ideas rather than real propositions. An improved UI : yes. Bigger images : yes. Elimination of edit conflicts : yes. Let us begin with it. Just another idea : why not put the new nominations at the bottom of the page like in VI Candidates? -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 10:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• But dealing with those issues is not trivial and it may take some months or years before a good technical solution is found. In my opinion those restrictions on nominations should de temporary. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Another argument for the limitation of nominations is that the inexperienced users or those not very delicate can take example on experimented users who are very active but the issue is that they can take exemple only for the number of nominations and not for the numbers of rewiew. If we talk about flooding, the experimented users must give the exemple, I know that they are also tireless rewiewers, but they must shows to others the good attitude concerning nominations. -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 17:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If you talk about people like me I don't see anything that I could call "bad attitude" in my behaviour here. I don't see a point in keeping this discussion, let's start a voting and attach to whatever the majority wishes, no problem with that. Poco² 17:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Per Diego, the subject is reccurent, discussed enough, let's start a voting for closing (temporary) this discussion. -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 18:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominating featured pictures

There's currently a batch of Eiffel tower images nominated by Paris 16 which have already been featured. The featured status is generally considered "one level higher", so to me, it doesn't make much sense to nominate and promote random subsets of featured pictures. Opinions? — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

FP and QI are completely different projects. The FP star does not imply QI seal. There are FP that fail to qualify for QI status. To me, it is perfectly OK to nominate FP's as long as they meet the guidelines. --A.Savin 12:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Which FPs fail to qualify for QI (except of course those that aren't created by Commons users which isn't a matter of quality)? — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Those which received 7 support votes on FPC but were declined on QIC, I suppose. --A.Savin 12:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

FP places more emphasis on "wow", and sometimes allows that to make up for quality. Files under 2MP for instance. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still, at least this case seems a bit random and redundant. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Was soll das?

Im Consensual review stehen zurzeit einige Bilder von einer Sportveranstaltung für Behinderte zur Diskussion. Gegen die Gestaltung und gegen die Qualität der Fotos ist zum großen Teil nichts oder nur sehr wenig einzuwenden. Dennoch soll den Aufnahmen das Prädikat „Qualitätsbild“ verweigert werden, weil der Fotograf die Namen der abgebildeten Personen nicht nennt oder nicht nennen kann. Welche Rolle aber spielt es, ob eine Amateursportlerin oder ein Amateursportler, der in einer bestimmten Disziplin gezeigt wird, zum Beispiel Erika Müller oder Jessika Schmitz, Jens Montag oder Dirk Freitag heißt? Als Antwort auf meine Frage kommt wahrscheinlich der Hinweis auf die Bestimmungen, die möglicherweise demnächst soweit ausgelegt werden, dass auch die Telefonnummer der abgebildeten Personen in der Bildbeschreibung erscheinen muss, damit das Foto positiv bewertet werden kann. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I won't go as far as Lothar, but I've got to say that I think that the position "No name = No QI" is not sustainable in the long term.

Let's take an concrete example: I've been to two hockey matches a week ago. I haven't processed all pictures yet, but you can see some of them here. While those were Swiss first league matches, all the players are amateurs, there was no player sheet, there is no match report. I won't be able to identify any of those players. Are those pictures worthless ? Should I delete them all and not upload them ? Can't I propose any of those pictures, regardless of their qualities, just because we don't know the name of the person depicted ?

I'm open to all comments.

Pleclown (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO, it is of course desirable to know the names, but sometimes it is not possible for some reasons. I think, that a vague description like "Midfielder No. 9 of the amateur football club Littleoaks" would be a reasonable description. The field says "description", not "identification". Futhermore, there is always the hope, that someone who is familiar with the persons is changing the description. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Lothar Spurzem! Die Kritik war wohl an mich gerichtet? Sorry, dass ich einige Tage keine Zeit hatte und daher nicht antworten konnte. Du hättest mich ja anpingen können.
Ich will mich deiner Kritik gerne stellen. 1. Setze ich voraus, dass commons der Bildserver für Wikipedia-Projekte ist und dass hochgeladene Fotos der Bebilderung von Wikipedia-Artikeln dienen. Dies setzt aber 2. voraus, dass Bilder eine entsprechende Bilbeschreibung und eine entsprechende Kategorisierung haben müssen, wobei es 3. schon fragwürdig ist, ob man Fotos von Hobbysportlern hochladen soll, die vermutlich niemals Relevanz erlangen werden; dafür gibt es andere Plattformen. Nicht zuletzt ist höchst fragwürdig, ob die Abbildung eines Amateurs – also einer Privatperson(!) – nicht gegen das Persönlichkeitsrecht verstößt.
Der dritte Punkt ist zwar strittig, denn auch ein Hobbysportler könnte vielleicht irgendeinmal Relevanz erlangen wenn er Staatsmeister, Europameister, Weltmeister wird oder an Paralympiques teilnimmt. Ist dieser eher unwahrscheinliche Fall ein, dann wird der Punkt 2 wichtig. Meine Kontras haben also nichts(!) mit einem „Hinweis auf die Bestimmungen“, oder gar mit „Telefonnummern“ oder etwa Schuhnummern der Abgebildeten zu tun. Wenn ich dann sehe, dass Pleclown lobenswerter Weise insgesamt 194 Fotos vom „Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport 2014“ hochgeladen hat, die alle ohne Beschreibung des abgebildeten Sportlers sind und nicht einmal im Artikel französischen Cyclisme handisport verwendet werden – dort ist der österreichische Paralympics-Sieger und Weltmeister Johann Mayrhofer abgebildet –, dann frage ich mich wirklich, wem diese 194 Bilder (so gut diese auch sein mögen) dienen sollen?
Die Sache ist zudem noch eine andere (damit du siehst, das ich gut recherchiert habe): es gibt von diesem „Championnat de France de cyclisme handisport 2014“ eine offizielle homepage und offizielle Ergebnislisten mit den Startnummern aller Teilnehmer in den verschiedenen Kategorien. Es kann mir also niemand erzählen, dass bei entsprechenden Willen eine Benennung der Sportlers/Sportlerin nicht möglich gewesen wäre. Man müsste sich zumindest bei den Einzelfotos nur in der Reihenfolge der Fotos die am Bike angebrachten Startnummern aufschreiben. Fotografieren ist nicht nur Spaß, sondern auch Arbeit; inbesondere bei Sportveranstaltungen, wo es Starlisten, Ergebnislisten, Mannschaftsaufstellungen und dergleichen gibt und es beispielsweise beim Fußball, Handball etc. dennoch oft schwer ist die Sportler korrekt zuzuordnen. Ich kann ein Lied davon singen...
Meine „Bewertung“ ist daher keineswegs respektlos gegenüber dem Fotografen. Respektlos ist das Hinschmeißen der Bilder ohne entsprechende Bildbeschreibung nach dem Motto „Friss Vogel oder stirb“. Eine solche Nominierung bei QI kann ich aus meiner Sicht daher nur ablehnen, so leid mir dies auch tut. Das wahre Leben wäre da noch häter, denn ein (Bild-)Redakteur würde ein solches Bild wegschmeißen/löschen.
Ich hoffe, dass damit meine Ablehnungen verständlicher werden. – Freundliche Grüße 00:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone translate my answer ? I understand german, but I cannot write what I have to say...

The main problem here is our different reading of Commons:SCOPE. User:Steindy sees Commons as only an image bank for Wikipedia, where all pictures should be used in articles. I see it as a repository of free pictures of educational value. Is there an educational value in pictures of amateurs ? I think so, even if they are not identified. Steindy seems to think the contrary.

Regarding the proctection of private life, as long as the persons are photographied in a public place, participating in a public event, there is no problem (in France and in Switzerland, my two main playgrounds).

Regarding the identification of the runners in the championnat de France handisport, two points: as you can see, the runners don't have any identification, except on their backs for the upstanding ones. While it may be possible to identify some of the runners with the startlist of the time trial, this is not an exact science. For the anecdote, the organizers weren't so sure of the results of the time trial, as they were unable to identify the runners! There is, in my opinion, a risk I don't want to take to misidentify someone. Furthermore, I don't think it's relevant. Those runners are participating in a competition in a fair play spirit. While this is called "Championship", this is no big event. We were only two photographers, one volunteer from the organisation and me. Would you identify all the persons on pictures of an amateur 10km race ? I wouldn't (and haven't), even if they have numbers on their shirts. This is a kind of courtesy (Google is not really your friend when there are pictures with your name everywhere). And this would be a greater deal of protecting the private life !

Pleclown (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we need the name of every individual of such events. Such photos have their own relevance and can be QI without names. -- Smial (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Statistics

Along the lines of the “fun” discussion, the project may benefit from even more introspection. What is the proper rejection rate of self-nominated images of the experts in the group, where expert is defined as you like, amount of time in the project, number of nominations, number of reviews, number of promotions, take your pick. I don’t want to single anyone out here, and please don’t draw any conclusions based on any current examples, but I recently saw the indirect claim that a 25% rejection rate of self nominated images is good. Assuming an expert should be able to rate their own work at least as well as they rate the work of others, and that the experts should by now have near certainty that their submission is in fact QI, this implies that a rate of one in four non-QI images being rated QI is viewed as acceptable by some. Time spent evaluating submissions and offering suggestions and training should be going to encouraging and teaching the newer participants. If you are an expert, and you think your own image might not be QI, then perhaps the project recommendation should be, "please don’t submit it".

Does the project have any global data on the number of nominations vs. promote or decline? How about the number of submissions by user?

Does the project have any data on the number of QI images that are actually used by any of the sister-projects of commons? I know we can’t count the number of outside uses, though everyone has their favorite success stories about the day their image was used by a TV station or a magazine ,or was picture of the day somewhere, but this is a tiny percentage of QI images. But we can perhaps extrapolate from inter-wiki use to external use. I fear the vast majority of QI images aren’t, and won’t be, used for anything, encyclopedic or otherwise. Yes, I know, QI is about the technical quality of the image independent of anything else, but as resources get limited as submissions go up, wouldn’t we rather spend less time on images with no discernible subject or utility and more on showing how to improve the quality of images on commons in general?

Maybe we even a month-long moratorium on self submissions and a concerted effort to find laudable images by regular commons uploaders that aren’t regulars here, and nominate those? --Generic1139 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I cannot answer all those questions, but you can find some numbers here, here and a search here of the category "Quality images" (80000) will show you that it doesn't look so bad. The QIs are used 333888 times in the name spaces of all Wikimedia projects and almost half of them are used in at least one project. Poco² 21:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. This will require some study. Of 80217 files, 74257 are used on vi.wikipedia. This seems unlikely. Maybe there is a list there of most of the photos, or the ones that were categorized, or some other special case. I'll see if I can find out. 28782 are used on en.wikipedia, which was closer to what I was expecting. --Generic1139 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You do not interpret the output correctly. Technically, 1 image could be used on 100000 pages and would give 100000 uses. Some images are used more than 10000 times on vi. so they have a large impact on the stats. It's probably better to look at distinct images used: 33k images are used in the main namespace (in articles). This isn't too bad imo. Also there might be images for buildings which don't yet have an article and images of famous buildings where articles couldn't use all images. That doesn't mean they cannot have value. I agree that nominating others' QIs might make sense (though not exclusively!), but right now the interface makes it enough of an annoyance to handle one's own images. --DXR (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

DXR, thanks, you are correct, I didn't express myself properly. I do understand the difference between the unique images count and the other, less useful for this purpose image usages count. For total image usages, this single image File:Batus barbicornis MHNT femelle.jpg makes up 8% of the total image usages. In fact, the top 10 images account for 39% of the total image usages. I do agree, though that 41% files used on at least one page is pretty good. Now, lets talk about nomination failure rates. --Generic1139 (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about statistics, and also do not nominate every image, that could possibly meet QI criteria. I'm happy if some of my photos are useful somewhere. -- Smial (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Smial, I agree with you, exercise some discretion with what you nominate and take pleasure if some are found useful by others. Generic1139 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

More fun with statistics (with apologies to Smial). I looked at the top ten users based on their number of QI – or at least those users who had a category of their quality images. Those ten users provided 26271 QI images, or about 33% of all QI images. I then used the GLAM pointer that Poco a poco provided. Of those top ten users, five of them had 31% to 47% of their images used at least once across all projects. Two of them had 9% of their images used. The other three were in-between. Generic1139 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I was the one who found I have a roughly 75% strike rate in 2014. I don't think this is an unreasonable rate for nominating, and I have decided to increase the scrutiny I put images to before nominating. But the thing is we have different ideas of what is QI. There are some things which worry me more in a review (overexposure/sharpness/focus) and others are less concerned with them (maybe they care more about CA or composition). There are no specific criteria you can set to say "this is definitely QI" (although the reverse is true), there will always be an element of humanity in reviews. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a dream ...

I saw a really good idea: Easy nomination, no edit conflicts. Just put a template on the image page like

{{Voting|for=QI|reason=That's why I think the image is QI.|category=... |nominator=~~~~}}

So a voting section is visible - with category -, if the nominator has at least 50 edits and 10 uploads. (And there is an automatically check for 2 MP limit, at leat one category and using the information template.) Just give a comment and vote for "pro", "neutral" or "contra". On the page description, categories etc. and the image itself can be reviewed. On the page "QI candidates" a only summary is shown with the images, the comments and the votes - and a link to the image page. You can nominate as many as you like (alternative: 10 within 24 hours/50 per week/...), but not more than 25 (experts with more than 100 reviews) or 5 (beginners with less than 100 reviews) more than your number of reviews.

If there if are more votes for "pro" than "contra", the image gets QI status 2 days after the last vote. The voting template will be removed after 8 days of inactivity.

And that's the way for FP and VI too. The criteria may be different, but the way of nomination is the same.

May be the voting template should be extended by a summary of the criteria to be checked. So beginners can see what has to be done. --XRay ^talk 15:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have had some of the same thoughts. Perhaps use the file talk page for this, let the state of the voting template categorize it to review categories. Once promoted or declined the template moves it out of the review categories. From promotion it goes to "promotion pending" state and category, which the QI bot could traverse to tag the file pages, and then change their state to "promoted" (thus emptying the category). The challenge: Have some Javascript or similar running on the review categories, which supports fast and easy review. In that manner there would be no need to move templates around on nomination pages. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be elegant if the review was kept together with the file page. Today it is hard to find the review evidence. You may see a link to some overloaded QIC archive page with very many images in. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Flooding?

Hallo miteinander, ich habe immer wieder neue Fragen. Heute lese ich, dass Bilder abgelehnt warden, weil ein Autor zu viele vorstellt. Auf wie viele ist es beschränkt? Today I read that an author nominated too much images. To what number is it limited? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nicht nur das. Immer öfter werden Dateinamen, Beschreibungen oder Kategorien bewertet statt daß das Bild betrachtet wird. --Ralf Roleček 08:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Если какой-нибудь участник выставляет пятнадцать или двадцать изображений в один день и при этом не считает нужным поучаствовать в оценке чужих номинаций, то для меня это есть флуд и я полностью поддерживаю того, кто отклонил номинации по этой причине. --A.Savin 10:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Если я назначаю 10 фотографий, я также пересмотреть 10 фотографий или больше, где проблема? --Ralf Roleček 11:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ik presenteer hier een lange tijd slechts een paar beelden. Vooral omdat hier nu deels utopische eisen worden gesteld. Straffen voor ongewenst gedrag zijn niet productief. In plaats van af te wijzen zoals foto's, kunt u ook gewoon negeren. -- Smial (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that some of the frequent nominators here do not know our guidelines. One of the rules for nomination says: "Carefully select your best images to nominate. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is at least frowned upon or may even lead to immediate decline." User Boehringer nominated 19 photos in one batch and even continued uploading after declining the first images because of flooding. I declined such mass nominations in the past entirely and I will do that in future too. Boehringer can be happy, that I left a couple undeclined for further review. @Spurzem: your question was discussed here frequently. You can retrieve the discussions and some opinions about that from the archive. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, as I am not capble of reading russian language, I will leave the discussion at this point. Cheers. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dies ist das deutsche Forum, ich spreche kein Englisch, dafür aber russisch. Also habe ich halbwegs russisch geantwortet. --Ralf Roleček 11:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Das ist nämlich das nächste Ärgernis: Es wird stillschweigend vorausgesetzt, daß Jeder Englisch beherrscht.

Zum Flooding Folgendes: Ich kann verstehen, dass nicht zehn oder mehr geringfügig voneinander abweichende Fotos ein und desselben Motivs unmittelbar nebeneinander vorgestellt werden sollen. Warum es aber nicht erlaubt sein soll, mehrere unterschiedliche Bilder zu zeigen, ist unverständlich. Abgesehen davon scheinen manche Benutzer von dem Verbot ausgenommen zu sein. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mit diffusen Anschuldigungen ("scheinen manche Benutzer vom Verbot ausgenommen zu sein") begibst Du Dich auf dünnes Eis. Bitte Ross und Reiter nennen oder einfach schweigen. Im übrigen nochmals meine dringende Empfehlung, die bisherigen Threads zu diesem Thema zu lesen. Es gibt ausserdem einige regulars hier, die durchaus in der Lage wären, auf einen Schlag mehr als hundert Nominierungen mit unterschiedlichen Motiven in QIC zu werfen. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass Du dafür Verständnis hättest. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ich beschuldige hier niemanden, sondern will nur deutlich machen, dass mir – und nicht nur mir – einige Eurer Vorschriften absurd erscheinen. Wie bereits gesagt, sehe ich ein, dass nicht zehnmal das gleiche Motiv – mal etwas enger, mal etwas weiter zugeschnitten, mal mit Vordergrund und mal ohne usw. – nebeneinander präsentiert werden soll. Aber zu sagen, dass ein Benutzer nicht mehrere unterschiedliche Bilder auf einmal vorstellen darf, halte ich für abwegig. Wo soll der Sinn liegen? Ebenso erscheint es mir verfehlt, die Qualität eines Fotos („quality image“, nicht „quality description“) nach der Formulierung des Dateinamens zu bewerten. Freundliche Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ich hatte an einem Tag 12 Bilder aus Spanien, Norwegen und Österreich, mit völlig verschiedenen Motiven, zu verschiedenen tageszeiten eingestellt und bekam das floding vor den Latz geknallt. Als Nächstes Dateinamen, die nicht gefallen und dann Beschreibungen, die nicht gefallen. Das alles hat nichts mit der Qualität der Fotos zu tun. Und genau darum gehts hier. --Ralf Roleček 14:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Spurzem: Ну так выставляйте хоть пятьдесят изображений в день, но только при условии, что обработаете в тот же день по меньшей мере столько же чужих номинаций. Причем обработаете не халтурно, как это нередко делает господин Ролечек, а основательно, в соответствии с требованиями к качественным изображениям. Но ведь я правильно понимаю, что здесь речь идет о случае, когда кто-то выставил пятнадцать номинаций и взамен не обработал вообще ни одной? --A.Savin 16:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Quel est le but recherché par ceux qui proposent et reproposent un tel nombre d'images ? La gloriole personnelle ? Une course aux sceaux verts ? "La mienne est plus grosse que la tienne" ? Un défouloir à testostérone ? De la négligence ? Du foutage de gueule ? J'ai autrefois suggéré une limitation à cinq ou six images par jour, les médiocres sans argument ont eu leur réponse habituelle :"rules, rules, more rules etc..." Il en est ainsi dès que quelqu'un essaie de mettre un semblant d'ordre dans le bordel ambiant. Et que dire des six photos de la même église polonaise (série en cours), prises du même endroit, avec juste une petite rotation de la mollette de l'objectif ? Savez-vous que nous avons une vingtaine de QI avec le même lampadaire public sur le Jubilee Campus de Nottingham, dont beaucoup prises de la même fenêtre ? Entre nombre exagéré de propositions, et images au contenu inepte, il n'y a qu'à pleurer sur la bêtise des gens. Et qu'on ne se fiche pas de moi avec le fameux "assume good faith", car bien sûr, ici, la mauvaise foi règne souvent... Sans parler de l'immaturité. --Jebulon (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ist es vielleicht möglich, dass wir es versuchen, die Diskussionen hier halbwegs in einer Sprache, die die Beteiligten am besten verstehen, zu halten? Es scheint mir, dass alle Beteiligten hier mindestens DE-2 sprechen, warum also die Sprachen andauernd durchwechseln? Ich verstehe, dass Englisch für viele eine Herausforderung ist, aber das ist doch kein Grund hier in derart babylonische Verhältnisse abzudriften? Inhaltlich muss ich Uwe recht geben. Man kann wahrlich halbwegs sinnvolle Titel, Beschreibung und Cats erwarten, zumindest in der eigenen Muttersprache und, wenn das Bild nicht selbsterklärend ist, ist eine einfache englische Übersetzung eine freundliche Geste. Ich finde es durchaus erstrebenswert, dass QICs halbwegs abwechslungsreich sind und glaube auch, dass das im Interesse aller Reviewer liegt. / It would be nice if we could actually try not to change languages multiple times without a proper reason (here everybody involved speaks at least decent German). I do not think that a proper title, description and cats are an unreasonable requirement for a QI. I also think that some changing-up of QICs is desirable, since it makes the job of all reviewers more interesting. --DXR (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's not forget that there may be much more people reading it, who are far from even de-1. Given that, the discussion should actually be in English (as usually the case here in the past), but some colleagues seem to confuse this page with the German Forum. --A.Savin 18:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm here because I nominated a dozen photos overleaf and was therefore accused for flooding. Besides I'm quite convinced that each of my photos (with different subjects) meets the QI-guidelines, I ran into several edit-conflicts while evaluating other photos. IMHO we do have a general methodic here on QIC. Afaik the overall purpose of QI is to rise the generall quality level of pictures here on Commons and give the other authors a reference, which pictures are best to use. Sadly our technical nomination- and evaluation-infrastructure is obviously not capable of handleing even a fraction of the good images, uploaded here every day. Right now only very few of our photographers nominate just a selection of their images - and we're already complain about flooding?!

What we really need, is a new technical infrastructure for the overall image evaluation here on Commons, that is not only capable of evaluatiing more than 5 images per person and day, but even works without a nomination. As mentioned on the photo tour during Wikimania in London, an evaluating Software directly built into MediaWiki would be a better solution than what we have now. // Martin Kraft (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty dream... Until it becomes reality, let's respect the current rules....--Jebulon (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Until yesterday, I thought it is desirable for a reviewer to stick to the QIC rules. But applying the rule "Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is at least frowned upon or may even lead to immediate decline." not for the first time turned out to unleash complaints and personal attacks. Frankly: Why should I expose myself when even long time users of QIC and regular reviewers do not back application of rules? Then, we better dump the rule about flooding and everyone can upload as many photos as he wants to. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this already flooding? --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ten noms a day is just too much for me. So yes, it is over the limit (my opinion).--Jebulon (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If ten noms per day are too much in your opinion I wounder why you nominate 7 or 8 per day? I have already seen this. Beside of this: I don't nominate ten pictures every day, in deed I have no time to take part every day (real life has preference) here at Commons. I see not really a difference if I nominate 2 pics in 5 consecutive days or nom in 4 days 0 and on day 5 ten pics. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't tempt me. Spoken for myself: You can add add as many as you want. It won't be me, who is pursuing this rule any longer. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As I already tried to state multiple times, the main problem of QIC is that there are too few conscientious reviewers rather than too much nominations. If we want to keep this proportion more or less under control, each of experienced participants here should take time to review a couple more images than they nominate themselves. But it's enough to be on average, i.e. it's not necessary to review something each day; my view is: anyone who nominates, should also be seen review, at least from time to time. Nonetheless, I fully agree that it is not at all useful for Commons to upload ten pictures of exactly the same motif and session. I always shot several ones but select and upload just the best one, or - in exceptional case - just a couple more. That is amongst others the reason why my upload and QI count is relatively small. If everyone of us did so, we had perhaps much less problems with unassessed stuff here. --A.Savin 10:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--Jebulon (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Evaluating more pictures than I nominated was exactly, what I was up to at my last nomination. But evaluating and commenting on almost twenty pictures I ran in to an edit-conflict, that killed all my work. And I neather had the time nor the motivation, to do it all again - so a I just evalutated about six to ten in the second run.

To be honest, the technical background of QIC ist a mess. Even with the JS-helpers editing here is way to complicated to attract a general audience. Not only that its almost unavoidable to run into {- and |-Errors, the probability of causing an edit conflict rises with every aditional evaluated image.

If we want to attract more users to nominate and evaluate images here, we should make it easier to do so. Therefore reworking the technical base of QIC should not be a dream for the far future but an high priorty task. Is anyone of you on the WikiCON in Cologne this weekend, so that we could discuss this topic face-t-face? // Martin Kraft (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I have the same problem occasionally, but usually the e/cs are not with the section I'm actually editing. If that is the case, hit back, select the whole section and ctrl+c, refresh it and ctrl+v and save page. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should to two things. 1. Make the current rule less fuzzy such that we end endless debates on what is flooding? 2. Initiate an investigation on what are the possibilities for making the QI review process more lean and easy. Regarding the first point, let us discuss some concrete prosals for alternative formulations. It is not a vote.

I'm wondering why the discussion is reduced to the number of photos nominated. For me it is always the balance of nominations and reviews; i.e. if someone is nominating 2 or 3 images per day and doing no reviews it is more annoying for me than someone else who is "flooding" with 10 to 15 pics per day but doing lets say 20 reviews in the same time. --P e z i (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The whole discussion is pointless. What difference does it make if a user every day nominated four or five images and another user ten or twelve pictures, especially when it comes to different designs every week? Much annoying if users nominated a series of images of the same scene, which differ only in the section or in the circumcision. There are in any case always the same users who mutually postpone the QIs, often the images are not viewed exactly and only the name of the nominator is important. For lice are other users who do not belong to this circle, searching, the images - if they are ever reviewed - disqualify. You do not believe it? I have nominated four different images, for example, on September 26, five different images and on 27 September. To date (October 4th) just an image has been rated once. Even worse, it was on 2 September when I had eight different images nominated. Two were immediately given a contra - a remarkable way for an alleged dental disease of the player pictured -, five images were not reviewed and only one image was after eight days of grace with half promoted. Of course, I was promptly criticized because of flooding. Not the images themselves were important.
QI is for me nothing more than a platform to satisfy their own importance. More decisive for me is that of my 6624 pictures 3003 pictures are involved in various projects (= 45%). Overall, my 6624 pictures in 147 different projects involved 10,218 times [1]. That's what counts for me. I have opposed user with hundreds QIs found, where the proportion of images used is less than 10%. Therefore, I am very satisfied with many images used and only a few QIs. --Steindy (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC) (Please excuse my bad english)

Now

• Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is at least frowned upon or may even lead to immediate decline.

• Well "a couple" is usually 2, maybe stretched to 3 or 4, so this clearly needs changing. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative 1

• Adding more than n images per day is considered flooding. Any editor is entitled to remove any entries after the n first nominated.

• •  Comment I think we need to insert a specific number n, I propose n=7, as that is 'many'. The reason I propose to simply remove surplus entries is to avoid that the surpluss entires keep spamming the list, and to avoid the flooding declines, which turn nominators off it appears. Simply removing them is equivalent, to : "Sorry, try again tomorrow". -- Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • As 7 is the number I nominate each day, that seems reasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Mattbuck: : Ha ha, seven fits just perfect for you! OK, but what about my proposal to simply remove surplus nominations (and not oppose them). Do you think that is a good idea too? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

        I'm in two minds about that. I can see the argument in favour of it certainly, and it does seem like a better solution than mass-declines. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

        @Mattbuck: Hmmm, it actually appears to me you are "in one mind" about it, in favor of the proposal. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

        Well I don't like images just being disappeared like that. It annoys me when it happens due to /Discuss being changed to /Nomination, as that happens with no few days' wait, and no unassessed image categorisation. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

        I would like to understand just one thing: why users nominate 10 or more pictures? Even if they all meet the QI, why? It is useful for Commons? For the other Wikipedia projects? What would be the difference for such an user to nominate just one of their pool of pictures? --Ruthven (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

        Egocentrism? --A.Savin 06:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

        Thank you! So it wasn't me being cynic. If this is the motivation, I am afraid that something should be done to hamper it. Being active on Wikipedia, selfishness generally ends up in vandaling pages and this Quality images candidates is one of the very few places where such egocentrism takes place. Flickr is the right place for flooding and bothering users, not Commons! --Ruthven (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternative 2

• Adding more than n images per day is considered flooding [and is strongly discouraged]. Expect that several of your candidates will not be assessed if you flood the system. [The reviewers are volunteers, not robots.]

• •  Comment A different approach, which allows flooding in principle, but encourages reviewers to simply abstain from reviewing the floods. Such a silent non-aggressive 'ignore floods protest' will likely lead to some self-regulation. On the other hand, if someone floods the system with 20 FP-level quality images of diverse topics, someone is likely to review them anyway, because they simply look very interesting. The last sentence about 'robots' can be omitted. The part 'and is strongly discouraged' could also be omitted. I think we all know and appreciate that some of our very active contributors are also very active and constructive reviewers reviewing more images, than they nominate, and I think one is inclined to be more flexible in also reviewing many images from such users. Again just let it self-regulate. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds reasonable. However, I would also like to have sth that makes it very clear that also the number of reviews given to other images is important. If somebody nominates many images and also reviews a similar amount (with due dilligence), then the flooding tolerance is imo higher than the double-trouble flooding without contributing. --DXR (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@DXR: : On the project page today we have already the following stated under the section about evaluating images: Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.. This note somehow addresses your point. Is that not enough, or should the statement be refactored into something 'stronger'? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that, but I feel that a relative approach is perhaps more appropriate

Adding more than n images per day without reviewing a comparable number of other nominations is considered flooding and is strongly discouraged. Expect that several of your candidates will not be assessed if you flood the system.

. For sure it is far from perfect, but I feel this is closer to the actual issue. --DXR (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I like your revised proposal. Makes sense for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

With like, I mean it is a better formulation of alternative 2. I actually prefer Alternative 1 myself. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

+1 --A.Savin 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I still think that nominating 20 in a day, even if you review 100, is spamming. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

-1. A careless nominator is in general a careless reviewer...--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support To me, this is the only option. This project is about identifying quality images, not about identifying (and punishing) potentially annoying people. I would urge reviewers to review not more than two or maybe three images of the same uploader at the same time. This will lead to unassessed images for flooders. Declining a potential QI because of flooding seems really stupid to me. --MB-one (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative 3

• "Having more than m images in the page is considered flooding ...", etc
  • I think the model we have in FPC is a better option -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment Easy enough on FPC, where m=2, but very hard to keep track of if m is much larger (as I guess it should be). Say m is 21 (because it divides 7 :) ). I think it is better to spread that out over three days of 7 then in a single burst nomination of 21. But both would be allowed in you proposal. You get reviewers fatigue by nominating all at once - better to spread out over some days in my opinion. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
      •  Oppose this one, especially given images can stay here for weeks while others disappear without trace due to decline or going from Discuss to Nomination without a result. It's impractical to expect people to count every day though 15 sections to find all their own noms, while avoiding the ones they reviewed which would also have their name on. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Script?

Is a script conceivable for to say by days how many nominations and how many rewiewed images by users during the 7 last days (not the current)? Exemple for 2 days (numbers are false):

	September 21, 2014		September 22, 2014		Between the September 21, 2014 and the September 22, 2014
Users	Number of images nominated by this user	Number of images rewiwed by this user	Number of images nominated by this user	Number of images rewiwed by this user	Total number of images nominated by this user	Total number of images rewiwed by this user
Icountmynominations	7	6	7	12	14	18
Christian Ferrer	0	4	2	1	2	4
Idon'tcountmynominations	6	0	10	0	16	0
....

-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 11:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A precise count would not just considering the number of images reviewed, but the amount of contributions. E.g.: If I have to come back three times until my issues are handled, it is not just one review IMO. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In the measure or this script does not still exist, we should not too much ask to it. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 12:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I just want to mention this, because,if we do not consider this issue, it is easier for the reviewers just to decline or promote instead of giving hints, how to enhance a photo. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I understand the good intentions with such a table, I think it introduces unneeded complexity, bookeping and stimulates a blame-culture. I think most regulars here knows, who does good work and who abuses the system. I would propose instead to silently bypass nominations from those who abuse the system and let them pass through as unassessed nominations. Moreover, when I first started nominating at QIC I felt not at all competent at reviewing myself, until I learned from the feedback given on my own nominations. It is natural, that for new QIC editors, there is not a balance between nominations and reviews, and I think it would be very unhelpful for the process to state that they are supposed to review as many as they nominate in a 'blame' table such as this. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see the one-time results certainly, but as an ongoing thing I don't think it's a good thing to have. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• If I was able to write such a script, I shall certainly not have spoken about it here and I shall have simply written it to show you the result later. You would have made what you want with it. That says for my part I try to rewiew the nominations at the bottom of the page (the oldest ones) in the measure of my competences. I don't take too much care of the top of the page and of the flooding made by others. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 22:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Just briefly my point of view: I don't care whether Böhringer or whoever is nominating in a day, week or month 10, 100 or 1000 pictures, as long as he/she reviews at least as many as nominates. Poco² 20:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominating me, I nominate you! QI only works on this basis? Then I have no pictures for QI. --Böhringer (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. I just expect that when you or whoever drops x nominations expecting that somebody invest time to review them, at the same time, you (or whoever) should also take some time to review the nominations of others. I just expect this from everybody who has been around here for a while and is capable of judging whether an image is QI. Poco² 07:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Some remarks by a newcomer. I have made only some view nominations and a view more reviews up to now, but some observations really struck me. The comments may sound harsh, but are meant not offensive but to start some more discussion:

• Quite a lot images don't get a review and not only boring ones. Obviously there are more nominations than reviews.
• Some busy people here tend to nominate complete sets of one building from only minimally differing perspectives. Perhaps everybody should select images himself first (and at least up to his own reviewing standards).
• One question remains: how many similar (and what does that mean?) images of the same object do we need or want? I have seen wonderful shots pop up, that I disliked because the same person had nominated almost the same image some days or weeks before.
• What would it mean to find a reasonable amount of nominations. Who does more reviews, may have more nominations (I can agree to that). But nobody seems to have thought about a very simple means of politeness: When lots of us are trying to get reviews for their nominations for wlm, I perhaps could wait with the nomination of my beautifully coloured snail, the impressive car or whatsoever other things I have aimed my camera at till wlm has ended (meaning now).
• You can't get this by defining rules, but some code of conduct would be nice that we all feel obliged to follow.
• On obvious violation a reminder may be helpful, declining nominations only in really bad cases.
• Any improvement to the infrastructure would be welcome, since the present mode simply is a desaster.

Enough for now, waiting for your response: Johanning (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Johanning,

Thanks for telling about your experience an a newcomer to QIC. I think you are raising several good points, which is worth reflecting about.

• Regarding the unassessed images and the nominate review balance, I have decided to change my own habits. From now on, I will review two images for every one I nominate. I only nominate a few though, so the impact will be small.
• I think you have a point about nominating several almost similar pictures with different zoom levels from the same or almost the same vantage point og the same subject. I find that really off-putting myself, when I see it, and I do think we should consider doing something about it. Most simply, passively refuse to review more than just one of them - it will lead to self-regulation, and the problem is that they spam the nomination list.
• Regarding the limits to nominations, and whether we nned them, I think the reason for that is mostly due to the rather terrible infrastructure you mention yourself, with a huge page to manage and big risk of edit conflicts because all nominations are crammed into one big page. The infrastructure was acceptable when QIC was started, but the activity level has grown so large that it is not at all practical anymore.

-- Slaunger (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Slaunger that this page is terrible for reviewing. The image thumbnails are way too small, the page takes ages to load and refresh after an edit, and reviewing more than one image is likely to give an edit conflict. Really, rather than spend time discussing what the flooding limit should be, we should see if anyone can help write a better page UI. There is really no joy in reviewing at QI, just hassle. It needs to be a lightweight process. Though I also agree with the sentiments about people nominating very similar images. -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the thought had already crossed my mind. I did experiment with tools that edit on the users behalf a few months back, and could probably apply some of that knowledge to work on such a UI improvement. --Dschwen (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Dschwen: Is a system with one image per nom page under your consideration? I thought about if QICs could be done in a decidated section of the file talk pages. That would also make it much easier to find the review afterwards. A temporary compromise solution could be one subpage per day - it would at least decrease the probability of edit conflicts. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

One page per day would be OK IMO. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am convinced that a smart script could easily handle edit conflicts. For once the script could record the user input as a delta (i.e. as actions to be applied to the page). To commit these actions, I'd load the page source, apply the actions, and save immediately. The short turnaround would make ECs unlikely, and in case of an EC the script could simply retry (and actually resolve conflicts!). --Dschwen (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)