Vitaliy M wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:Since it seems most folks are sick of seeing the same photo for a week even if it is an amazing one (which is often, not always, is), how about this for a solution...

There are two spots currently. Lets use one for a random photo, perhaps with some criteria behind it (submitted less than X days ago and/or score above X and/or number of votes or hits above X). The criteria could be quite modest, or have none at all.

The other spot would show the POTD, and if a member has a photo that was there in the previous 30-45 days, they are ineligible to be there again.

But you do know, it will still be same people voting, and same people getting the votes..

I think these propositions won't help a thing...What we have now may be the best actually. With new proposition of random photos making it up, the quality of photos may be down. Pictures like one from today at times do make it to #1, but it is rare IMO...If Bob or whoever was actually picking the best photo(s), that would be a lot more work for him, give a guy a break!
You can't always please everyone. If things change, others will not support it.

Of course these propositions would help. Take a look at the POTD sorted by submission date, and thumb through a couple pages- link below. How many times do you seem the same names over and over, and see similar looking photos from these same people? If Bob thinks the photo quality would go down (I don't) then the time could be adjusted down to 20 days or some other perceived optimum. And more often then not, when you see a POTD here by someone new to it, it IS a really good photo, because they had to overcome the existing establishment. I like the two proposals I mentioned because once implemented, they create zero extra work for anyone (and you will have no elf that you can complain to if yours wasn't selected).

And it is not such a rare occurrence in my view. Rare that a bad one makes it, but not rare than an excellent one missed it due to an OK one. Maybe 1/2 of the time IMHO the best photo is not POTD. An ok one, but not the best. And I would think 1/3 of the time most would agree on a particular photo that is better (often it loses by just a fraction of a point).

http://www.summitpost.org/object_list.p ... _id=327989

MoapaPk wrote:Has a picture of scat ever made POTD? Not the Mel Torme kind, but the poop kind.

"I'm the Scatman...

Ski-Bi-dibby-dib-yoda dub dub
Yo dab dub dub..
Ski-Bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo dab dub dub...

I'm the Scatman!


Everybody stutters one way or the other,
So check out my message to you.
As a matter of fact I don't let nothin' hold you back;
If the Scatman can do it so can you."

Replace POTW with POTD, and POTD with random picture, over 87%, uploaded within the past 2 days. Maybe?

Thank you.

MoapaPk wrote:Has a picture of scat ever made POTD? Not the Mel Torme kind, but the poop kind.

... depends who is submitting it...

So, to sum it all up, it's a bloody popularity contest.

Reminds me of Queen's "Play The Game." Is Freddie Mercury still around ???

So when are the changes going to be implemented? We are already on page 3.

We could just make sure Afzal is in a different location 24-7. Would make things easier.

Afzal, your pics are great, just having fun.

The discussion turned out to be more constructive than I expected.
Bob I like your idea but do you really want to take on that load of work? I would imagine you'd get tired of it sooner than later. And you'd be subject to complaints, bickering and bribery - now that I think about it this may actually be the strongest sales channel SP has to offer: Sell the POTD/W spots! Likely to generate more $ than the ads. :p

I also like the idea of one spot for POTD and the other for a random one.

Another idea: Mix a selection (random or not) with POTD/W, e.g. take 9 (random) pictures, throw in POTD/W, and display a random one of those. This way the old fashioned POTD/W would still show up in avg. 10% of the time.
Those 9 images could either be picked randomly based on lenient criteria, or simply have 10 PsOTD/W instead of 1.

This idea of putting a "random" picture on the cover is insane! The majority of pictures I upload--and I think this is true for most of us--are not posted because they have any photographic merit, but because they provide a little snippet of information relevant to a particular page or a sentence in a route description. They may get a decent score, by the way, because they DO add to some little detail of the site. But they are meaningless and boring if viewed out of context. Just drawing on my own submissions for examples, you'd be posting pictures like this


or this



Now those are really going to draw people into the site! Oh wait, just the other day we had this:

chugach mtn boy wrote:This idea of putting a "random" picture on the cover is insane! The majority of pictures I upload--and I think this is true for most of us--are not posted because they have any photographic merit, but because they provide a little snippet of information relevant to a particular page or a sentence in a route description. They may get a decent score, by the way, because they DO add to some little detail of the site. But they are meaningless and boring if viewed out of context. Just drawing on my own submissions for examples, you'd be posting pictures like this


or this



Now those are really going to draw people into the site! Oh wait, just the other day we had this:

Atually, that sort of picture appearing on the first page may get people who would otherwise just look at pictures to look at the trip reports, mountain pages, etc. If they click on a strange picture to find out what it is about, they are likely to be led to the page that it is about and might learn a bit more about SP or a bit more about a mountain.

Buz Groshong wrote:Atually, that sort of picture appearing on the first page may get people who would otherwise just look at pictures to look at the trip reports, mountain pages, etc. If they click on a strange picture to find out what it is about, they are likely to be led to the page that it is about and might learn a bit more about SP or a bit more about a mountain.

I don't like the idea of random selections, either, but Buz does make a good point.

phlipdascrip wrote:Bob I like your idea but do you really want to take on that load of work? I would imagine you'd get tired of it sooner than later. And you'd be subject to complaints, bickering and bribery

Actually, if I really did limit things to new photos on new mountains, routes, trip reports, and areas, I don't think it would be that bad. Before going to bed, I would look through the day's new submissions, make the selections, and then post them the next morning.

Yeah, there would be gripes about favoritism and such, but they already go on, so it won't be that much of a change.

My worry would be the burnout factor, but if that started, then I could adjust the approach by narrowing the focus or changing pictures every two or three days instead of every day.

But I still prefer my idea about a self-updating POTH feature with some safeguards against abuse.