Commons talk:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Quality images candidates.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
Older: 2007-01, 2007-02, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2011-01, 2012-01

Corrupted file as QI[edit]

File:Marquee of the Senator Theatre in Chico (detail)-L1004109.jpg

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ RZuo (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you have already informed @Frank Schulenburg: ? --Smial (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Smial. Not sure what happened (Hamsters eating my images?)… Anyway, I re-uploaded the same version and now the servers seem to be fine with it. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the problem with subsequently(!) corrupted JPGs occurred frequently years ago, at that time due to server problems. Sometimes only thumbs and the reduced image versions were affected. --Smial (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations per day[edit]

Hi,

I would like to propose a change regarding the number of nominations per day. Currently, users are allowed to nominate up to 5 images, based on a decision made back in 2014 when there were many contributors. However, I believe it would be beneficial to limit the nominations to 2 per day, and not allow the same user to nominate both images. In other words, if a user nominates one image, the second image they nominate should be from a different account, to ensure a fair distribution.

This change will provide more time for thorough reviews and prevent the page from becoming overwhelmed with nominations. I welcome any suggestions or feedback you may have on this matter.

I would also like to notify some active users, @Ermell, @-Poco a poco, @Michielverbeek, @XRay, @Agnes Monkelbaan, @Tournasol7, @Rjcastillo, @D-Kuru, @Johann Jaritz, @MB-one

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This question comes up every few weeks ;-) I am against reducing to 2 nominations. It's important that everyone rates at least the same number as they nominate. Unfortunately, there are some people who rate very little over a longer period of time. --XRay 💬 14:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, I would even suggest a maximum of 2 nominations if no ratings are given, but up to 10 nominations if the same number are rated - within a few days. --XRay 💬 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support reducing the number per day to less than 5.
 Support reducing to 2.
 Oppose requirement to nominate other users' uploads.--RZuo (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this cheating? Both not signed.--XRay 💬 15:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three were left by @RZuo: in one edit, hope removing the line separation to make this clearer is OK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose reducing the number of nominations, would support increasing them (XRay's suggestion of making this contingent on rating is interesting!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nominations are certainly too many to be reviewed properly, as shown in the section #Corrupted file as QI above, a corrupted file with a large grey part could go unnoticed and become QI. RZuo (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Would rather increase than decrease the limit, probably to 7 or 10. And, it might be difficult to implement but we should require people to review other pictures, as already noted by others. Like, you can't nominate unless you voted for XX pictures in last XX days. Plozessor (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point, but I think it should be implemented with certain conditions for contributors who review the images. For example, they should have a minimum number of edits or possess a certain number of quality images or featured images. This would help ensure a minimum level of credibility for the reviews. Riad Salih (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose reducing the number of nominations. I try to upload only QI pictures, if the nominations were reduced I would upload less.The proportion of damaged images will certainly always remain the same because to err is human. XRay's suggestion to make this dependent on the rating is correct, but that would have to be controlled somehow. Ermell (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to encourage contributors upload good qaulity images, seriously you would upload less. The purpose of contributing is bigger than a QI stamp, as nice as they are. Gnangarra 02:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose the proposal and would support XRay's proposal, indeed interesting because it sounds fair. Who reviews more (and is also capable of doing so) should be empowered to nominate more. Poco a poco (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per XRay and Ermell. Although I encourage to nominate other users' images. MB-one (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I am not enough of an expert to review other users' pictures, but in the past I nominated some very few of my own, and it would be sad to me if I was excluded from nomination when reviewing becomes a precondition for nominating. I totally appreciate the work that the reviewers do and I try to contribute to Commons in other ways where I have more expertise. Having said that, I have no strong opinion on the number of nominations per day. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is ok. The issue is that we certain people have nominated hundreds of pictures without ever reviewing a single one, that won't work in the long run. Plozessor (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral I support and oppose this with pretty much he same amount. However, I would rather go with a redesign of a the website as better approach. Right now it's simply a good amount of work to vote even with the voting helper (that sometimes does not work at all). My suggestion rather is to make voting easier and make it possible to have more than one vote per image. I would love to contribute more, but at this stage in my life I can not even keep up with the images I make (having like way over 1'000 unprocessed images )-: ). However, if voting was faster and easier it would be possible since it wouldn't take that much time. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. if it can be as simple as for example the new way of replying, by clicking a button and then typing any comments and then clicking a button to submit. RZuo (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Clicking a button and then typing any comments and then clicking a button to submit", isn't that what QIVote does? Plozessor (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i arrive at Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list.
i dont see any buttons.
so i click "edit source" next to a date header.
in the edit window there's a red bar "Click here to activate QIVoter helper!".
i clicked. nothing happens. no buttons.
i've tried finding out how to use those qi helper gadgets before, but never succeeded, so i just gave up, and only nominated or voted by editing the wikitext. RZuo (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo, @D-Kuru Ahh of course that is complex as hell. Go to "Preferences", "Gadgets" and enable "QIVote". Plozessor (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately (or thankfully) written text on the internet does not have any tone of voice to it. So I (do not) wonder what you meant with of course that is complex as hell. "even with the voting helper" - the helper is better than nothing but not anywhere near a decent voting tool. "that sometimes does not work at all" - It simply isn't build to do anything else than promote and decline so other edits end up breaking the template. --D-Kuru (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D-Kuru Sorry, I didn't intent to offend you. I just was wondering 'why are they complaining that it would be so complicated, it does not seem like this to me', and when I found that RZuo did not know the QIVote gadget, I understood. I also mentioned you in my reply because you also said that it's complicated. I am aware that all these gadgets are poorly documented, so it's for sure NOT your fault if you didn't know them. Btw, QIVote works fine for me. Very rarely there are edit conflicts, which is why I usually submit my changes after a maximum of five reviews. Plozessor (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thx. indeed with qicvote it's easy enough. RZuo (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment what is the cause for the need to reduce the number of nominations, QI is here to encourage contributions? How can that be addressed through other means. Ancedotally I encountered a couple of outreach activities where Affiliates encourage or even require people to nominate submissions to QI, so perhaps a more successful solution is in another box. Gnangarra 03:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating and reviewing statistics[edit]

Prompted by the above, and because I've been thinking about doing so for a while, I've written a quick script that tries to count the number of nominations and reviews that users make. Caveats: it only looks through the current candidate page, so will undercount support/decline reviews that were already archived (maybe it should also count the last 7 archives?); and for consensual votes it counts each new line as a separate review, which may not be too accurate. I've put a sample table at User:Mike Peel/sandbox - what do you think? Worth working on further? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Peel
I really appreciate the concept of the script. It's worth exploring further for me. We should definitely ask the contributors to share their feedback. Thank you for investing your time in creating the script. Riad Salih (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mike! I also believe that it's definitely a plus. We could change the message to the top from "Please nominate no more than 5 images per day." to something like "Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here how you are doing)". That would be a first step. Not intrusive, but we achieve more transparency. I'd also check from time to time the stats and my behaviour would also change not reviewing images of nominators who don't review. --Poco a poco (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. It's now running daily, saving to Commons:Quality images candidates/statistics, let's see how that goes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Mike Peel, I really like it! The only issue is the missing archives, because promoted/declined nominations are archived earlier than others. So I might have promoted 20 pictures, 15 of which are already archived, while my nominations were not promoted and are still in the queue, then it looks like I would have nominated 20 but reviewed only 5. Including the last XX archives (at least 7, probably even more) would fix that. Plozessor (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Plozessor: I've updated the code today to include the last 7 days of archives, how does that look to you? It's easy to increase the number of days of archives it looks through. But as it stands, @Alexander-93, Nirmal Dulal, Grendelkhan, Sebring12Hrs, Another Believer, Nabin K. Sapkota, MB-one, and Llez: are in debt by 20 reviews or more. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always have one issue with these discussions - they assume every image should be reviewed. I believe it is totally okay for some images to just not get promoted without being demoted. Quite a few of my images in the past had this fate and I got the message. They are not horrible, but they are not good enough. I very rarely demote images, but there are also days, when I look at many images and think to myself - not really bad, but not good enough in my opinion. Others seem to agree as those are often the images that get filed away as not reviewed. For me this makes sense and is just the normal way of things. I would not want to change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kritzolina (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

I hold a different opinion. Sometimes, I nominate some images and they don't get a review. So what's the point of nominating them? I prefer to see a decline rather than having the images ignored, as this will not motivate contributors to nominate more images. Riad Salih (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that some people see this differently - but I also know there are more people who feel the way I do. For me the point of nominating images is to see, if they will pass the mark and get the QI status. If they don't, I don't need a decline. Sometimes a review is helpful, but not all reviews are. I prefer not to say anything, if I don't have anything useful to share. Kritzolina (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kritzolina: If any of my images don't get a review on the first time around, I renominate them again one more time. I find that about half get promoted on the second attempt, and the rest I view as being as declined. I think that the limitation here is getting someone to review an image, not that unreviewed images aren't QI. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel - I think we all know that the criteria for QI are not as hard as we like to think. Some images end up in the discussion section because of that. And some end up not reviewed, because no one feels confident to either promote or decline. I often look at pictures and think - "hmmmmmm, I'm not quite sure here, it is not bad, but it is also not up to the mark of some other images of similar subjects... and my screen is too small to show me all the details I would need to be sure this or that area is as it should be" and then I don't review. I think some of those images that did get promoted for you in the second round might be such images. With additional time, somone comes along who will have the right equipment and feel confident to promote - that is clearly more likely than someone coming along and rejecting. People who feel confident enough to make rejects are the kind of people who feel more confident to review in general. I will not re-nominate images from the "grey-range", as I would call it. They are not clear QIs, so be it. You think differently about this, which is also fine. Still, I don't think the real limitation is getting people to look at the images and form an opinion. But what would we win, if more people reviewed with statements like "This is not bad, but it is also not up to the mark of some other images of similar subjects" or "I am not really sure about this one"?
For me the real problem is that we have different wants or needs here by different users. The group of users who want every image reviewed is a lot more vocal then the group of users who is fine with images going unreviewed. Who actually prefer an unreviewed image to a rejection. That doesn't mean this second group is necesseraily smaller or less important. Kritzolina (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to give more visibility to Mike's stats, as mentioned above. Does anybody have a problem if we change the message in the orange banner from "Please nominate no more than 5 images per day." to something like "Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here how you are doing)"? Poco a poco (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO OK --XRay 💬 06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Sorry for this, but the link above is wrong and goes to Mike Peel's sandbox instead to Commons:Quality images candidates/statistics. And I do not really understand what Mike Peel's script does. For example, the version from yesterday [1] counted just two reviews for me. The version of the candidate list when the script ran, [2], shows five votes and one comment from me. There would be another vote archived on April 6. And I have severe doubts that there were 15 images nominated by me that were on the candidate list or in the latest 7 archives. My personal count is 10 nominations. Still more than my votes or comments for other images, but my monitor is substandard and that is not going to change any time soon. Anyway, the script should be corrected before it is made more public. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again, I corrected a sentence that was wrong because it was about images nominated by me instead of total images, of course. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because of the images you reviewed by 'Petr Chodura', who didn't sign their nominations with a link to their user page, causing the script to miscount. The code for the script is at [3] if you want to see what it does in detail. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand, even though I am not a Python script programmer. This is an unusual case. So I agree to the proposal by Poco a poco if the link is corrected. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Poco a poco (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

License plates and GDPR[edit]

Hi, not sure if this is the right place to discuss, but couldn't find any better, and couldn't find any relevant information from Commons help. My question is about car license plates on pictures. For my understanding, clearly recognizable car license plates combined with an exact timestamp and an exact location are 'personally identifiable information' per GDPR, which is why I have usually blurred them in my pictures. Now, several users tell me that this is an imaging defect (which may be true but still I won't violate the law to create better pictures). How do you (especially the users from EU) see this? Or can anyone tell me where to find relevant documentation or past discussions? Plozessor (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there is no need to blank out the license plates for images from Germany. Whether you are allowed to publish such photographs may depend on what your intention is, at least according to [4] and some similar pages. It is not allowed to take photographs of a car with readable license plates with the purpose of identifying a person (and their possible misbehavior) and publish it so that the photo can be accessed publicly, e.g. by taking a photo where the car is parked illegally and complaining about this. However, I am not a lawyer and I may be entirely wrong. And I don't know anything about other countries. So this is not an image defect IMO, but you should probably mark an image with blanked license plates as {{Retouched picture}}. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are worried about legal consequences because of license plates, do not take or publish such photos. If you anonymize them in a clumsy way, don't ask for QI status. Lothar Spurzem, for example, often put a lot of work into making license plates that looked "natural" but didn't actually exist. I'm not saying that everyone should do this, because it's still basically a fake, but it should be legally safe and some people accept the procedure for QIC. --Smial (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tecina - Playa Santiago - La Gomera 01.jpg[edit]

This file, posted today, seems to have been supported 5 times so far, which implies there's a bug in the system somewhere. What's going on? @Johann Jaritz, MB-one, ArildV, and Ermell: . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but there seems to be some kind of QICVote malfunction. User:ArildV complained that he had the intention to promote a different image and he used QICVote. I only found some possibly problematic blanks after the nominator's signature which I removed. But this might be a problem for QICbot, if any. I am not sure about this either. The only obvious similarity between the two images in sequence is that the file name of the second one (File:Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg, no votes yet, possibly the image User:ArildV wanted to promote) is a part of the first one with the multiple votes (File:Tecina_-_Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg). I do not use QICVote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was trying to use QICVote and change the second photo to promote. The preview was fine but when I saved it my support vote was moved to the first photo. I realize now that the same thing happened yesterday (but I just assumed then that I had forgot to save my vote. Strange since I have been using QICVote all day,--ArildV (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the second image manually now.--ArildV (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is very simple. The filename "Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg" is a part of "Tecina_-_Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg". The QIC script matches with the first filename containing "Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg". (See Robert's remarks too.) I had the same problem some months ago. The script should be fixed. --XRay 💬 05:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates&oldid=873005943"