Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 7

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Edit conflicts

Why not for to avoid a bit the edit conflicts, A QIC page made with several subpages like that:
November 5, 2014 Edit
{{Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list/November 5, 2014}}
November 4, 2014 Edit
{{Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list/November 4, 2014}}
November 3, 2014 Edit
{{Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list/November 3, 2014}}
November 2, 2014 Edit
{{Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list/November 2, 2014}}
November 1, 2014 Edit
{{Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list/November 1, 2014}}
....
..
Like that when you make a rewiew you edit only the gallery page of one day. Can the BOT works correctly with a system like that? -- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 08:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the bot could be altered to do that quite easily, though it might involve a full protection of QIC for an hour or two while images are transferred. Dschwen would be the one doing it, so ping. It would also require that all our {{/Nomination}}s be made into {{../Nomination}} (etc). -mattbuck (Talk) 10:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the templates, the obvious solution would be to move them into the normal template name space {{Nomination}}, etc. The subpage templates are rather odd actually. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, Dschwen is already working on a solution. Perhaps we should wait patiently? -- Smial (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A great disappointment for me is to have not enough of knowledge in programming for to help the competent persons or for to make this kind of work myself. -- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 20:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better way than QIC?

If this comes to the absurd point, where we blame other for uploading to many good pictures, it simply prooves that the QIC-System isn't functioning anymore. Imho it's time to develop a system, that is able to handle the task, QIC was made for, instead of just treating symptom (by limiting the nominations).

When I showed up here for the first time, somebody explained to me, that QIC is neither a competition nor an award, but targeted to establish an over all quality standard for pictures. That it is ment to be a feedback tool for the photographers as well as a guideline for the users unshure which image to use in there articles.

If the system, as it is, isn't even able to handle the majority of the good pictures uploaded by the small fraction of photographers active on this site, it simply doesn't fullfill its task. If you put away all the emotional stuff about flooding, there simply is no rational reason for leaving good pictures unnominated, just because they are to many.

It definitely is against our overall mission to create free content, if we keep people away from uploading good pictures and waste their time, by forcing them to splitting their nominations to small packadges over days and weeks, instead of creating new ones. QIC is only a means to an end. And if it doesn't fullfill it's purpose, it has to be changed or replaced. // Martin Kraft (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment -- It is implicit in your words that you consider that QIC should function like some kind of official system responsable for stamping all good quality images that are uploaded to Commons. Although this is a respectable opinion shared by some editors here, the model is far from being consensual. There are others, including me, who think that only the best images should be nominated to QIC. Along this line, the promoted images should represent some kind of quality models of a certain subject, and nomination a series of very similar pictures wouldn't make sense. Whatever model we adopt in the near future, the present interface doesn't allow us to deal with more than a limited number of images; that is why this discussion is being held. If and when a new user interface is developped which allow much more pictures to be nominated we will have to come back to the subject and discuss what we really want from QIC. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alvesgaspar: Where do you to draw the dividing to FPC and VIC, if you suggest to nominate only the best images here as well? In accordance with our guidlines, there are many images promoted here every day, who are neither the best images of their subject (which is not even named) nor in total. Therefore there is even a bigger difference between the reality and your concept of an ideal QIC, than mine. // Martin Kraft (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Martin Kraft: You are right that I did not express myself accurately enough for practical purposes. What I meant is that if you have a bunch of images of a certain subject to upload to Commons, only the best should be nominated. Please don't ask to me more precise because I'm not sure what the right path is... One thing we all know: that it will be always impossible to evaluate properly all images uploaded to Commons and identify the good ones, assuming that the reviewers are human. If that is the case, there will have to be some kind of limitation on the number of nominations. The more objective that limitation is the better. A good user interface will help but won't solve the problem. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is only impossible because we are stuck in this time consuming "you have to got to a certain place and use a buggy and not intuitive interface to nominate and evaluate quality pictures"-system.
I think it would be better to differenciate between the two purposes QIC has now:
  1. "To mark an image as a quality image" and "leaving notes what can be enhanced" should be an interface function available on each and every image detail page, so that it can be evaluated and altered by each (experianced) user visiting this page while categorising or looking for the best images to a certain topic. This could work like the like or star systems other websites provide and maybe target more than just the technical quality.
  2. "To discuss what can be improved and have a peer review of your work" is another, completely different task. This should be done on a seperate with way less images and the possibilty to discuss alternativ versions. The focus of this page would be to learn something, not to get some kinde of award. We have something like that on german wikipedia.
And imho especially the first functionality would enable us to have much wider and ongoing quality assessment, than we have now. // Martin Kraft (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for 2 we have Commons:Photography critiques, which is basically the same as de:WP:DÜB – only that it's currently in a deep coma. I'd very much like to revive that page but I'm not sure how to do that … --El Grafo (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always felt that QI was about finding all images that stand out for a given subject. They are below FP in that they are not the best-of-the-best, and they do not have to have any sort of "wow". So a QI may be excessively boring as long as it is valuable and high quality. This is not a tough standard, but there are so many subpar images on the commons, that we need a way to weed through the bad to get to the good. QI is that approach. With the ability to sort categories by "quality images", this serves that goal. The only issue is that apparently members of the reviewing system do not match the technical implementation (the QI nom gadget and the category sort). If the core issue is one of user interface, then redesign the process, don't restrict the nominations. Punishing nominators for things that are not their fault is just dumb. I will say this, it would be reasonable to restrict QI to the best of substantially identical images, to prevent QIs of 10 alternate views of the same thing. -- Ram-Man 01:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is merit in having an indicator of quality that is below QI but indicates that the image is still good quality. Because (according to the criteria) QI is really for "very good quality", though that isn't always maintained in practice. Such an indicator would apply to very many images so we'd need a very easy way of marking images with it. There are many people here and on FP forums who take/upload nothing but "good" images. There are others who we can trust to mark down their weak images, if they still feel merit in uploading them at all. And there are others we can trust to review other people's images. So we could have a system where some users images were automatically set "good quality" on upload, and also where users were given the rights to assess any image with just a button click.

Combined with better search/filter options, this could help filter out the poor images one gets when searching/browsing. It can be very hard, with the tiny icon sizes, to determine if an image is any good without clicking on a larger version -- this makes using search results a tedious game. But turning on the FastCCI to select only QI/FP raises the standard too high (very useful though it is). One could choose to not normally see the low-quality pictures (with a "show" button) or to have such pictures grouped separately from the main list. Having this "Good Image" marker might also satisfy some of our contributors who would like all/much of their input to be marked as being of good quality, when we clearly don't have the manpower to assess them all to QI level. -- Colin (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I declined for my part many images of experimented users and without talking about decline we all upload images with forgotten defects (tilt, dustspot, perspective, saturation...) so the rewiew are needed and from my point of view it's not a good idea to give automatically any status to the images of any users. However the right for somes experimented users to assess any image with just a button click is a real good idea on condition that this promotion can be easily questioned by a real nomination in QIC if somebody thinks that an image was too easily promoted. -- Christian Ferrer Talk / Images 12:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like at all the idea of some so-called experienced users having the power to stamp a quality star on photos. Assuming it was possible to implement such power in the platform, the process would have to start with some kind of election among the editors. We would then have two kinds of reviewers: first-class reviewers, the ones who could press the button; and second-class reviewers who could only participate in QIC. This model would contribute to trash one of the most valuable components of QIC - learning from the best - because our QIC forum would loose much of its importance and activity. Furthermore, how could we track and scrutinize the activity of the first-class reviewers? Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS -- I see one positive thing in the model though, which is the impossibility of a user nominating his own pictures. As a side idea, I wonder if most of the present problems we have in QIC would disappear as if by magic if the ceators were not allowed to nominate their own pictures... Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alvesgaspar, I was not suggesting anyone would have the power to select QI for themselves. This would be for a level much below QI but still good. The images that don't meet such a level would the the kind you and I would be embarrassed to upload, yet still fill up the image results and categories, and waste everyone's time when searching for something usable. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So confuse are you...
Well, why we do not have in the head of the QIC page one advice saying "Hey dudes, if you are not sure about the quality of your image review here Commons:Photography critiques", and we assume the responsibility to answer there, cause no one is doing that now.
More, we can change the submission not by number, but by the subject, "You can only send the fewer best photo of the same subject to be a QIC, if you have doubt witch are the best ones, ask in Commons:Photography critiques".
If one guy take a road trip, and upload all the photos that he took, but this guy is the a Art Wolfe's padawan, or is the Art Wolfe, why we cannot say, "hey bro, we really appreciated our 6x10²³ photos, here is a stamp for every single one to prove that, and as we really f* loved this 5, *-*, so this gonna be featured pictures in the community!!".
Volunteers (people actually) need validation, imagine how many days we will need to give our "ok" in this case...
Actually we don't need to picture that: Category:Evan-Amos, how many days to give all stamps? Answer:(1'420/5 = 280 days) Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will take me actually a bit longer to bring my candidates (2500) through the QI process (beginning today I would get those picture through by April 20172016). The main problem is that, at the same time, this situation lower my motivation to upload further pictures. Poco2 12:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my nomination script:
QInom status: 2905 images left to nominate: 1476 rail, 1358 other, 43 rail renominations, 28 other renominations. Current ratio: 1.09 : 1
-mattbuck (Talk) 12:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have hundreds of images as well to nominate. If it becomes too difficult to nominate, I just won't bother. I don't have enough time in my day to deal with that sort of headache. Restrictions will have the side effect of minimizing the contributions of prolific talented photographers in favor of the less prolific ones, perhaps even lowering overall quality. Is that what we want? -- Ram-Man 01:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see something in the first comment that worries me, QI wasnt never designed to be feedback tool, nor to decide which images are suitable for use in articles... Its intention was just to identify images created by locals that met specific technical qualities in a quick review process either an image uploaded is or isnt QI, when it isnt give a reason move on. There are way too many images with comments asking for adjustments, there are images with a request for species to identified, its 2 november there should be no nominations from before the 25th October still waiting for review. I know its sounds harsh to close them off but if you look at those before 25th I see two have been promoted a number have had adjustments but await further review and a couple are withdrawn after some discussion. QI worked because its meant to be a fast process there were other areas dedicate to in depth reviews and help getting making adjustments. I suspect that the number of images rejected outright has dropped to a very low overall percentage and consensual review at around 30 images is just adding to that backlog. I know QI has moved/evolved from what I created a few years ago IMHO too many images are spending more time being reviewed here than if they were at FP, the solutions isnt so much in shifting where images are reviewed or putting limits but rather by being more yes/no if someone post 10 images of the same subject pick the best 2 or 3 reject the rest people will get the message that they need to be selective in what they choose for review as such treat both the process and the people who are doing the reviews with more respect by valuing Qi and peoples their time. Gnangarra 12:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When late MBDortmund asked me to help reviewing QIC the project still worked fine. Meanwhile e.g. it has become nearly impossible to reject a picture because it is immediately moved to CR by the nominator. But this is only one aspect. The next is, some reviewers seem to operate a kind of competition to prove who has the authority over the QI criteria. Some raise the absolute perpendicular to their dogma, others complain about every little bit of noise, third zoom every photo to pixel level to find every little trace of blur, some critize and decline every image which is somewhat too tight cropped or has somewhat too wide margins or does not follow perfectly the rule of thirds. And they do it too often without regarding the circumstances when the photo is taken. This today results in a work environment that emphasizes personal preferences, and produces personal conflicts, whereby commons is actually no longer really improved. -- Smial (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin Kraft: , @Smial: , @Gnangarra: , etc...
Why we don't use the Commons:Photography critiques (PC) for images that's not clear QI?
For me QIC should be judge by two volunteers, if is not a clear consensus (clear: s + s , s + n; not clear: s + o), send to the CR. If it is a clear for "no", or two neutrals, send to the PC, and there we help the volunteer, giving the whys, and how to fix, not in the QIC.
That will you allow say "no" more easily, not sending tons of images to the CR, and, more important, could give a better feedback to the volunteer. After passed by PC the image can return to the QIC.
Of course, we will need some changes. Something like that:
  • Indicated by: Halavar Opinions: 1.   - ~~~~ 2. Result: Waiting one week from 2014-11-03
    Indicated by: Halavar
    Opinions:
    1.   - ~~~~
    2.
    Result: Waiting one week from 2014-11-03
  • Indicated by: Hydro Opinions: 1.   - ~~~~ 2.   - Hubertl 11:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Result: Classified as QI.
    Indicated by: Hydro
    Opinions:
    1.   - ~~~~
    2.   - Hubertl 11:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
    Result: Classified as QI.
  • Indicated by: Tobias "ToMar" Maier Opinions: 1.   - ~~~~ 2.   - Cccefalon 04:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Result: Forward to Photography critiques.
    Indicated by: Tobias "ToMar" Maier
    Opinions:
    1.   - ~~~~
    2.   - Cccefalon 04:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Result: Forward to Photography critiques.
  • Indicated by: Livioandronico2013 Opinions: 1.   -- Spurzem 20:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC) 2.   - Jebulon 22:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Result: Forwarded to Consensual review.
    Indicated by: Livioandronico2013
    Opinions:
    1.   -- Spurzem 20:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    2.   - Jebulon 22:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    Result: Forwarded to Consensual review.
  • Indicated by: Poco a poco Opinions: 1.   - ~~~~ 2.   -- Hockei 19:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Result: Forward to Photography critiques.
    Indicated by: Poco a poco
    Opinions:
    1.   - ~~~~
    2.   -- Hockei 19:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    Result: Forward to Photography critiques.
After one week, we can also send to the PC.
So what do you think? This a draft, but could be a option. And as you can see don't have the whys, cause this creates a lot of noisy, the description are in the image, so we don't need that in the QIC too. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I would highly welcome more activity at Photography critiques, I don't like the idea of images passing something there. Maybe I misunderstood your proposal, but I'd like to keep it free from rules, fixed procedures, and especially voting templates. --El Grafo (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
interesting but, the big issue is QIC ability to process the current/expected volume if 1 review isnt able to get things done 2 will on,y slow it down and consume more resources, I dont agree with QI dumping images out to another project to deal with the why its been rejected. Maybe drop the cr as a process and have the bot close 7 days after posting only promote those that get the support, everything else is declined surely if people expect a review within 7 days the photographers should be able to answer/resolve queries in that period as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs)
El Grafo, like I said above, in the other section, we go the the PC and give then our feedback, if they want, not merely throwing issues there.
Normally QI images are very easy to verify, two people could easily check if it is or not. This is not a voting, it's a simply confirmation, and this, Gnangarra, creates celerity in the process, you don't need to think in texts to not harsh the promoter of the image, the author will not be arguing if the volunteers in the QIC page, trying to prove that it's a QI, and improvements will be handle in the properly page for that.
And maybe the number of bad QIC drops, cause people will ask about the quality in the PC. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another point I just thought of. I may nominate a lot of images (20 or 30 at a time), but I try to promote or decline about as many as I submit, to do my part. -- Ram-Man 01:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think we can continue like this ?

"quote from CR in QIC"

Discuss|City Scales House in Nysa 4 --Jacek Halicki 22:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)|Sorry, but 70 nominations in 2 weeks is flooding.--Hubertl 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Comment Set to Discussion; IMO you can only withdraw images which you have nominated. --P e z i 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support If I am right we have no limit per nominator. -- Spurzem 18:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment STOP THIS ! Imo, QIC is becoming completely crazy ! Here we have a flooder, an illegal delister because of flooding, a CR pusher because of illicit withdrawn, and a support vote because "no limit per nominator" !!!!!! And what about the picture ? Does somebody have a technical opinion about it ? --Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"End of quote"--Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there were more than 472 nominations inbetween one month only from halicki. But I did´nt counted some suspicious other guys. --Hubertl (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that we were claiming abuse over 472 nominations in a month. So what was the success rate? The fact that it wasn't even mentioned in the talk page indicates to me that it wasn't even a consideration. I consider the abuse to be from the other side for not engaging in constructive discourse, but instead blaming and shaming. Assuming the success rate is high enough, we should be giving congratulations, not abuse warnings! -- Ram-Man 19:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator-supported nomination of contributors with large number of QIs in waiting

Hi guys, I see that Derek has made this page to collect the massive amounts of unassessed potential QIs by Poco and potentially others. I like the idea and will do the following: I'll pick some images and nominate and directly support them in order to increase efficiency (obviously after review). I obviously have no intention to falsely support any image here but I think that this is way more efficient than just nominating sth and waiting for somebody else to assess it. Please answer here if you think this is a problem. --DXR (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More in general, I think that nominators of others' images directly being able to support would benefit the project. In this way, we can directly make a good image that we randomly find a QI without much fuss. If necessary, we can make a qualification of some sort (50 own QIs or 250 edits or whatever), but I'd really like to see that implemented. Also, these nominations should obviously be "free", that is not count to the upcoming five per day. --DXR (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it would in general be a good idea to allow to both nominate and support the contributions from other users. Some caveats to consider
  • Two good friends on Commons make a mutual off-the-records agreement to nominate and promote each others pictures.
Yes, but they can do that already, can't they? Of course these nom&sups would be CRable as any other nomination --DXR (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is proposed to exempt from the five daily noms per nominator. Hmm... I do not know. I think we are many who are not even capable of producing five QI noms per day, and who have plenty of room to fill up with nominations from other users. If we accept unlimited noms of others works we still will get the congestion problem with the current user interface and setup. I do like the idea of a backlog page, where prolific and highly productive users can add potential QIC nominations, which exceed their own daily quota of five daily noms. It is likely that only the best and most interesting of such candidates would be picked by others.
Well the workload is created by nominations that have to be scrutinized by sb else, so nom&sups would create less effort. I'm more talking about some days here where both could be relevant. --DXR (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There will be the usual cabal conspiracy theories popping up, if we only allow users who have created x QIs or some other "maturity" metric to use the backlog system, and it complicates rules. So I am not sure imposing such criteria will be a good idea.
Yeah, I just considered that as a protection tool, but of course that is an issue. This is always a trade-off --DXR (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you see a picture and find it is good, it is likely that you are also blind towards its potential deficiencies. In the current system there is at least two set of eyes on a nomination, who find it QI worthy: The nominator and the supporter. I am concerned that by merging the two roles, the quality of such reviews will tend to fall. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possible, on the other hand it is more fun to review interesting images (which is often not the case right now!) and therefore an opposite effect could also be observed --DXR (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Slaunger (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I keep my nomination list as a text file in my IRC client, and use a script to pick ones to nomimate each day. I apparently have 2807 to nominate currently, so, were a 5-per-day cap not introduced, 401 days worth. A slightly outdated list is kept at User:Mattbuck/QInom, but I don't update this all the time. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it seems a good idea to build a backlog page of unassessed images and nominate them to QIC, the sacred principle that a nominator cannot support his own candidate should not be broken, as the eyes of a nominator are obviously biased. I went very rapidly through the list and found many images which, in my opinion, do not deserve the QI seal. That is an expected result because very often the reviewers don't bother to oppose a nomination which, in their opinion, are below the QI bar. Anyway it is a very sound practise to nominate the pictures of other users and this could help to mitigate the problem of those who have a large production. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the linked page is basically a collection of all photos. I'm suggesting picking a few interesting, relevant images, checking them properly, just like any other nomination. I think backlogs are mainly created by those who nominate boring images just to get the seal, this is why we need limits. But clearly there are people like Poco or Cccefalon that upload many good images (surely not 100% QI but perhaps 40%) and whose images will be stuck in the nirvana for months or years. My suggestion would help to create more interesting QIs and would also reward those that upload images that should be seen by others. --DXR (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the problem with nominating others' work is that you have to review the image anyway. At least I would never nominate an image which is not a 95% probability QI. But by doing that, I already have reviewed it. Yet under the current rules, sb. else has to double check so presumably this image has been checked three times... --DXR (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't nominating others work. Users collect their bulk nominations in a category and then that category is imported, but the decision to nominate is whoever put it in the category. -- Ram-Man 13:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is intended us as a proof of concept at this point. One idea was requiring 2 or 3 supports to move it to the main page where it would have to sit for a few days before being approved. This would eliminate the friends thing. If an image gets one or more oppose votes and the photographer wants to send it to consensual review, it is still capped at 5 per day. Only those images with 2 or 3 support votes would be sped through the process. Debated images would just have to wait. This helps eliminate bottleneck. -- Ram-Man 13:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as nominating goes, in the case of User:Poco a poco, the images were nominated by him (they were put in a category to that point), and I just copied them to a more formal location. So if I were to review (some of) them, that should be fine. I used "wget", "grep", and a find and replace text editor to produce the page. Not everyone can do this. Also, I was playing with the voting format that another user suggested on this page, but didn't get too far with it (re: the images under my user heading). -- Ram-Man 13:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only issue I ran into is that the page does not support javascript signature signing. I don't know how that is enabled, but assume it is a developer thing in the mediawiki parser. Someone else probably knows more about that. -- Ram-Man 13:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I have reverted those nom-sups since very few have actually responded. I still maintain that it is a good idea with relatively large potential and only reasonable risk. I see a key problem in nominating others' work in the fact that it basically doubles your workload, as I have said before, and that is probably limiting our motivation to do that (after all, very few images are actually proposed by somebody other than the creator, and in that case it is often topical curators like Paris 16 that are not very active as photographers). As far as I can see, it is also not in violation of our rules (though I may have missed something), but obviously not applied at the moment. --DXR (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand how can it be assumed that this proposal is consensual and was approved by the community. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I have reverted it, so no problem anymore, right? Please feel free to review the images. And I am just noting that as far as I can see, the rules actually have a hole here because they do never say that nominator must not be reviewer. But for sure, it is probably agreed upon implicitly... --DXR (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. User:Poco a poco puts all his images in Category:QI candidates by User:Poco a poco. Without looking at any of them, I automate the process of putting them into the nomination format and put them on a page. And this is a "Nominator-supported nomination"? Nomination implies selection. In what world does this not qualify as a nomination by the author of the photos. They were implicitly nominated when they were placed in the category, just like the ones in User:Mattbuck/QInom. So because I engaged in some logistics, do you really expect me to not review any of them? Or am I misunderstanding? -- Ram-Man 23:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ram-Man, nonono... The problem with the discussions here is that they always end up in a mess. Look at my first statement. I took some of the images you put on that site and nominated and reviewed them at the same time. I guess that is generally considered impossible, even though I personally think that it makes sense for the case described here (because we will never get the images through the pipeline if Poco makes more than 1825 images a year (likely) and nobody else nominates them). My proposal would speed things up a bit for everybody. Nobody blames you though (that would be insane). --DXR (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if you reviewed them and Poco nominated them, isn't that the two sets of eyes required? They still go on QIC for additional (optional) review for 48 hours. -- Ram-Man 23:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is basically my point... Poco has declared them candidates, but cannot nominate them himself (well I don't know if that was the case yesterday, but lets assume it will be in the future). So I think we should allow taking a declared candidate and nominating and supporting at the same time by another person and then treating them like any other QIC. --DXR (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am basically against others nominating my images without informing me, as it means I need to find whether a picture is in my QInom text file and, if so, delete it from there. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally we want authors to bulk nominate their work. I linked to your QInom page not because I was putting it on a TODO list, but more to illustrate the potential process. For instance, authors could merely link to a list of images and then someone from the bulk nominations page could import the list for them. I hope it's clear that I'm not construing the page as ready to go. I can add more text to the page to make this clear. -- Ram-Man 12:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using the format shown by User:Rodrigo.Argenton above, I came up with an alternative nomination framework. It's not super friendly for nominators, but for bulk nominations, that should be perfectly fine. It's very friendly for reviewers, which is the point of bulk nominations. See Commons:Quality_images_candidates/bulk_nominations#Nominations_by_User:Ram-Man. -- Ram-Man 02:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sentence is written in the guideline : Any registered user, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. I've nothing against anyone nominate images of others but I am personally favorable to keep this principle of to not rewiew your own nominations. -- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 06:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

personal opinion

QI is as serious as FP page. In my opinion the voting system could be identical, but QI only with the QI criteria.

Currently being approved QI images that are not suitable IMO.

Users, users who know, leave the work. Maybe I do not know, but I leave.

It's only a opinion--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 22:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point of view, is a way to replicate efforts and facilitate the arrival of new users to the section --The Photographer (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I is better to have 5-10% bad (or not perfect) QIs than have 1% but a quarter of the total images. We still have too little QIs due to our reviewing limits, so imagine every image requiring 4 or more control views. This would kill QI throughput. I could only accept this as reasonable if we create a lower level than QI, like the Useful Image (looks good at 2MPx) discussed above by me that would still be one vote only (in normal process). We should recognize that most users require far less perfection from an image than we pixelpeepers do, but QI should help them to find their way through large cats with tons of proper bad pictures (and there are many such images) --DXR (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...most users require far less perfection..." . -- Ram-Man 18:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poll - New rules for QIC

OK, since no one else seems interested in taking the initiative, I will do it. There are three parallel issues which need attention: the maximum number of nominations per day; the number of support votes necessary for promotion; and the rules for sending a nomination to CR. Below, you will find three separate sections each with various options. Please feel free to correct my English and/or add more options if you consider appropriate. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. Maximum number of daily nominations per user (please vote below each option)


B. Number of support votes necessary for promotion (please vote below each option)



C. Who can send a nomination to Consensual Review, after the first vote (please vote below each option)


Comments

Thanks for the initiative. I don't understand the different between B1 and B1 (copy&paste?) Poco2 22:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I think the vote is premature. If the UI was greatly superior to the current one, with fewer edit conflicts, then reviewing should be easier, faster and more enjoyable. In that case, a limit on daily nominations might not be necessary. I think two votes for promotion starts looking attractive with a faster UI but certainly not with current one. I disagree with the consensual review change -- this is a user problem with a few people abusing the review. I would like the ability to disagree with my reviewer's reason for opposing and think most people here accept a well-reasoned oppose -- so if you assume the nominator is absolutely sure they have a QI, then everyone would object, which doesn't happen. -- Colin (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Sorry to disagree. Some years ago, we did not have so many edit conflicts, and we already had "flooders". And regarding the CR change proposal, I'm sorry to notice that more and more nominators use this way ("another opinion, please ?"). Just have a look to the recent CR... And I don't understand why a vote is premature. The situation is clear and well known, the Alvesgaspar's proposals are precise and excellent. IMO there is no more place for an already complete discussion. But of course, to vote here is not a mandatory--Jebulon (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am ok with the rules as is, though if we were to introduce a limit on nominations I think it should be 6 or 7. 10 is too many, 3 too few. Regarding a change to promotion process, anything more than a single reviewer will severely impact our throughput and confuse everyone with rules regarding what is or isn't promotion worthy. This isn't FPC, we're not looking for incredible, just good, and usually one person is a decent judge of that. Regarding the discussion rules, I would rather they were left the way they are. If someone declines my image then I will look at it and consider what the reviewer said. Many times I agree with them, but sometimes I don't, and in such a case I'll ask for discussion. Not allowing nominators to request another look puts the onus on others to review reviews, and that causes the same problems as increased support levels requires. People do not, by and large, look at images which have been reviewed unless they are their own. Simple fact. This leaves the way open to abusive reviewers, as well as simple mistakes (declined wrong image, etc). Further consider what happens if someone declines an image, the nominator fixes the issue... well they now can't ask for another opinion, and quite a few of us don't do reviews every day. If this rule is implemented we will lost a lot of worthy candidates. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with mattbuck, the QI requirements are the same as FP but without the need for "wow" or to be among the finest. The reviews I see are very mixed with many QI little more than judging whether the camera focused and exposed, without considering the composition, lighting, etc. On the other hand, some reviewers are demanding pixel-peeping perfection. I do believe some of these problems would be reduced by double-marking and new reviewers would quickly learn whether their judgement is out of line. But a lightweight process demands lightweight tools. While I agree that generally people do not look at other people's reviews currently (which is why the nominator-can't-challeng idea isn't going anywhere) they would if it was required in order for a QI to be promoted at all. Better software could also make the process fairer -- hide the creator name, hide previous review even, making the review just about the image. -- Colin (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point, double reviews would be preferable, but we don't really have the eyes to review what gets nominated currently, and as you said, the setup at present is not suitable for it. It's a long-term goal, but nothing near. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OFF-TOPIC: We really need some AJAX tool to make the task a more friendly reviews, I'm really tired of performing reviews and then get a conflict message editing. When this tool exists, I will not have problems reviewing 100 images per day. --The Photographer (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the C section, appel should only be possible if a new version is offered. Should we add a C5 option? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I surely don't deserve such apraisal. The only thing I did was to start something all of you wanted but didn't dare to (the hell I understand why). I really hope the present consensus will have a significant effect. Anyway the important question I made above (what is QIC for) was not even discussed... Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a few comments to those commenting in section A:
    XRay, I wouldn't specify that one has to review images the same day, but overall you should aim for a balance. I personally nominate a fixed number (7) per day, and review images as and when I have the time and feel like it, usually 40 or so in a batch to clear out several days' worth of old nominations.
    For me it's the same. My reviews usually follow within a week. IMO it is good to give a (unspecified) hint to review images too. And it is not necessary to do the reviews on the same day, but within one or two weeks. --XRay talk 04:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Moroder, please do upload seven files per day! Upload seventy! Just don't nominate more than seven to QI! -mattbuck (Talk) 00:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus forming

It looks fairly obvious that the results of the votes for promotion and discussion limits are going to be status quo. The nomination limit however seems to be spread between 5 and 7 with a bit more support for 5. It's probably worth looking at how people voted on each, but perhaps a compromise at 6? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now done a bit more analysis. As of 21:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC), the vote totals for each are (from 23 voters):
Limit Support Oppose Aggregate
None (status quo) 5 24 -19
10 5 21 -16
7 13 15 -2
5 21 14 7
3 3 27 -24
Looking at a crosstab: For the purposes of this crosstab I have assumed that not expressing an opinion was the same as {{Neutral}}.
Vote for 7 Vote for 5 Count
 Support  Support 5
 Support  Neutral 3
 Support  Oppose 5
 Neutral  Support 9
 Neutral  Neutral 2
 Neutral  Oppose 2
 Oppose  Support 7
 Oppose  Neutral 1
 Oppose  Oppose 7
-mattbuck (Talk) 21:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial comment was without looking at any numbers, I didn't think it was quite as large a disparity as there actually is. I wouldn't say overwhelming, but clearly 5 has a significant plurality. Though the votes since seem to be pushing it slightly toward 7. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before documenting the result and due to the importance of this I think that, as we did above with the file description, it is required to ask as many QI users as possible to participate in this new poll, therefore (Slaunger, your effort above is of great help once more), new pinging wave: 1bumer, Alchemist-hp, Alurín, ArildV, Bellus Delphina, Berthold Werner, Bff, Böhringer, Cayambe, Chmee2, Chme82, Classiccardinal, Clément Bardot, Code, Colin, ComputerHotline, Coyau, Démosthène, DKrieger, Dnalor 01, Ercé, Famberhorst, Felix Koenig, Florstein, F. Riedelio, Generic1139, Halavar, Herzi Pinki, Holleday, Hydro, Ivan2010, Jacek Halicki, Jean11, JLPC, Johanning, Jonathunder, Kadellar, Kbh3rd, Kreuzschnabel, Kruusamägi, LC-de, Leit, Lewis Hulbert, Iifar, Lmbuga, Livioandronico2013, Llez, Mahmoudalrawi, Martin Falbisoner, Mike Peel, Natuur12, Ocdp, Paris 16, P e z i, PetarM, Pline, Ralf Roletschek, Rodrigo.Argenton, Simisa, Smial, Spurzem, Steindy, Taxiarchos228, Tobias "ToMar" Maier, Villy Fink Isaksen, The Photographer, Wo st 01, Yann, Yerpo, Zcebeci Poco2 08:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we making rules less open? We need to simply rules, make more clear, not create more barriers...
And how about special situations, as I found days ago this guy (Category:Evan-Amos), practically all images created are QI, how how we will handle that after this modification?
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will understand if you start by reading the discussion from the very begining. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah my comments are based in non sense... lets create a huge caaaastleeee, hooray!
See you, xoxo. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodrigo.Argenton: , this actually is about simplification, or at least the file limit section is. Currently the wording on how many images is appropriate to nominate is very vague, an actual number would simplify this. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate all your effort. Still, I will remain  Neutral on the modifications proposed. I'm simply not that actice on QIC, at least not on a regular basis. Usability is kind of a problem, I do freely admit that. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for new rules. I personally nominate only very few own pictures, but still occasionally a nice one by other photographers. We have more serious problems than these mass nominations, which can not be resolved by more rules or technical procedures. -- Smial (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to identify those problems so you can try to solve them as well? Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See below. -- Smial (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For me 5 is good... --LivioAndronico talk 16:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvesgaspar. As you opened the poll process, could you please tell when you'll consider to close it ? Thank you ! --Jebulon (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would give some more time the people pinged above. Anyway, and because I'm involved in the discussion maybe it would be better to ask another editor to close the poll. What about @Gnangarra: ? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Mattbuck: , if you create more rules, in a land that do not have one and this works...
We need to bring more healthy for the QIC, not more rules. Nowadays, looks like a game, who ranks more photos, who disapprove more photos/sec, whom deserves the QI (friends, not photos), bringing more rules not gonna improve the quality of that.
If one image is not a clear QIC, that you just glimpse and see fixable or basic mistakes, we can send to the Commons:Photography critiques, and there we take care of the volunteer and calmly say what is the problems, how can we (him and us) fix that, etc.
We can not punish the community for bring more QI, we need to encourage that. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. That's why we NEED clear and good guidelines, for better and more numerous real QIs.--Jebulon (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're in no way punishing the community by imposing a limit on how many images someone can nominate each day. In fact, the opposite is true. We each have a limited tolerance for how many images we can review (mine is low this week due to WLM commitments), and generally new people here don't review images (which is fair enough). Thus there is a limited number of images which can be reviewed. Furthermore, people who just dump a massive number of images are generally shunned anyway. No one wants to review 100 images by one particular person, that is clearly spamming and it does not in any way encourage participation. The problem is that the guideline was very vague about what does count as spamming (IIRC it just says "a large number"). Now different people interpret that different ways, and perhaps to some people 100 nominations isn't "a large number". Aside: as a mathematician, there are two definitions of a "large" number, 1: anything greater than pi; 2: a few orders of magnitude bigger than whatever you're working with. But to most people it is, and it's dispiriting. People who dump that many images by and large do not do much quality control, and probably don't review a single image. This means that more images go unreviewed, and that is no help to anyone. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
100 images is not spamming. It's exceeded the limits of the reviewers. Spamming is 100 images that obviously do not qualify as QI because they do not meet the guidelines. In that case users can be asked nicely to stop and can be banned if they don't. 100 images of quality work is just a lot of work, which we should not be discouraged. -- Ram-Man 19:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Results and decision

  • Two and half weeks have passed since this poll was launched and the activity has been null for some days. Thus I think it is now time to close the process. Here are the results (please feel free to construct a proper table, which I cannot...):
  • A. Maximum number of daily nominations per user: option A.4 (5 nominations) is the best with 21/4/14 (read # support/neutral/oppose votes);
  • B. Minimum number of support votes for promotion: option B.1 (1 support) is the best with 32/1/3;
  • C. Who can send a nomination to Consensual Review: option C.1 (anyone) is the best with 27/0/3.
I'm fine with every decision. Still, a change of the rule should also include a procedure, how to deal with violations of the rule. Delete the whole bunch of nominated photos? Change the status of all affected nominations to "Decline"? Change the status of all nominations >5 to "Decline"? Please don't impose the new rule without that clarification. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated the numbers. While 5 scored highest, I wouldn't call it overwhelming, with 7 in second. A majority of those who did vote for 5 were either neutral or supportive of 7. I still say we should go for 6, and also maybe exempt non-self-nominations? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding what to do: I have a simple proposal. Surplus noms are simple deleted from the list with an edit summary 'Surplus QIC nominations removed per "max 5 daily nominations per user" rule'. There is no value in a "refused" state. The refused ones will still spam the page until removed by the bot, and there is no need to archive those either as they can be renominated the next day. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Slaunger: Yes, that would be the easiest way. But I fear that it will make more difficult for the community to control since the only sign of the removal will be the edit summary. The "refused" template option would permit an easy scrutinity and the corresponding nominations could be removed by the bot withinh 24 houras or so. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alvesgaspar: I think it is unlikely that users will just removed noms out of the blue, and the page history helps to unravel such cases, should they arise. Since they will be removed in a single edit it is also very easy to revert if it was a mistake. I think one should try a simple solution first, and if that does not work, go for a more complicated solution. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider putting refused nominations into Commons:Quality images candidates/backlog and replace the original nomination with a template indicating that the file has been moved to the backlog as per the 5 per day policy. For example: {{QIrefused|File:Some Image Description Here.jpg}} which would point to [[Commons:Quality images candidates/backlog#File:Some Image Description Here.jpg]]. -- Ram-Man 22:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since I strongly dissent to this policy, I want to state the following points:
  1. Those who voted for this policy better take the time to actively work towards reforming the QI process to streamline it and eliminate this needless "blame the nominator" policy.
    Several here have acknowledged that the main problem is the user interface. With the current flow and setup we regrettably have to set a limit until a better solution is found. I think it is mainly due to lack of technical skill, that a reform has not been done yet. If you scroll further down the page, you will see there are several constructive proposals. Dschwen has previously reported he was working on a technical solution. I have just written to him on his talk page to query the status. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Someone needs to update the gadget to limit it to 5 nominations.
    Good point. I have asked Dschwen to do that. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ✓ Done. This also works if you open 6 image tabs and start adding them to the nomination list one by one. Once you've added 5 images the gadget UI will automatically change even on the already opened pages to disable adding further images and instead show a message to just nominate 5 images per day. --Dschwen (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For someone like myself with a 100% QI approval rate, there is just no compelling reason why I should be inconvenienced, as the review time has to be spent at some point. The only reason for this is "load balancing", which is just logistics. Unlike the FP policy of 2 nominations at a time designed to encourage higher quality which does not apply to QI.
    Your very high success rate is perhaps a little atypical. You are correct that the main reason for throttling is due to logistics and because the reviewers are humans and volunteers. There has been severe problems with massive number of images being nominated by some with almost identical views of the same objects. It simply becomes boring to grind thorugh. If the reviewers were on a payroll or robots, it would be different. Regrettably some nominators, even though they are capable, do not take the time to review an equivalent number of images, which wear out the regulars who diligently review more than their part. It produces abrasion. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This policy prevents me from scouring categories looking for QI from other individuals because the policy is written to inconvenience the nominator, not the photo's source. This has already happened today. This is actively harmful to the project. The policy should be reworded to limit the number of nominations to 5 images per source.
  5. I'm extremely disappointed in this discussion. That we would consider large numbers of nominations as abuse without even having a policy forbidding it is just plain bad faith. Have we forgotten en:Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Did anyone even try to ask nicely? I hope this does not represent the real reason for this policy. We have policies to deal with edit wars and abusive users, and none of those involve changing QI rules.
    It is a good point, and I do not think enough has been done to kindly ask nominators to throttle a little. I have asked politely a few times on users talk pages, and gotten a polite reply, but regrettably no permanent change in actual behavior. The previous guideline stating that "more than a couple" could be considered flooding were interpreted very different from user to user. That is why it unfortunately has been necessary to impose a more quatitatively rigid rule. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This vote should have been brought to a wider audience (commons wide) rather than just the regulars on this page. QI is a central feature of the commons (it features prominently on the main page and every category page as a filter) and affects all users and projects. I believe this policy is actively harmful to the project and thus the project should have a say in it. I find it hard to believe that a policy change would be preferred over a technical fix if it had been presented that way.
    I disagree. In several cases have people who has been active "recently" been mass-notified about the discussions. It is only a minor fraction of QIC participants who gets into conflict with the flooding rule. Seen from the community this is a minor detail, which only affects a small mminority of the users. There are loads of votes on the proposals, and at a quite high level relative to normal votes of this kind here on Commons. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While I disagree, I do take your point. What's done is done in any case. -- Ram-Man 19:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Despite some obvious dissent from a number of users, this policy has been pushed through without any serious discussion of alternatives. That's hardly a fair way to build consensus.
    I disagree, there are loads of discussion about alternatives on the talk page right now and in the recent history, unfortunately too little action as you correctly observe to make it work better. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have naturally preferred to work out some proposals before this vote, but I suspect when we develop a decent alternative, we can eliminate this policy at the same time. If so, that would certainly alleviate some of my concerns. -- Ram-Man 19:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-- Ram-Man 18:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I strongly disagree with some of Ram-Man’s statements. First of all I dislike the tone, as Ram-Man apparently puts himself in the position of someone from outside who has special rights, which are not being properly respected by the community. That is clear in his first point, where it is suggested that the supporters of the agreed policy should use better their time reforming the QIC process, as if QIC were some kind of official service. It is also present in the third point, where he states that there is just no compelling reason why I should be inconvenienced, as the review time has to be spent at some point (bold added), apparently insensitive of the fact that we are all volunteers, and that the time and work of any editor (whatever his skills and experience) is to be equally appreciated and respected. I finally disagree with the conclusion that the agreed policy has been pushed through without any serious discussion. As Slaunger has already explained, that is just not true, as this thread was started a long time ago and several alternatives to the present model were discussed. I hope that Ram-Man’s return to Commons can finally bring the necessary wisdom and technical skills to reform the system as it deserves. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your challenge and apologize for my manner. No offense was intended. My concern was not for myself (I spend more time reviewing than I do nominating), I just set myself up as an example so I didn't have to point fingers or generalize. I'm nothing special. Now to your points: QIC is a service to project (not the photographer). Quality Images have a central focus on the site from the main page to every category. The problem with this policy is that it targets the photographers and not the logistical problem (volunteer overload and page interface). If we assume that the nominators are photographers who just want to get useful quality images out there, then this policy restricts that and does not Assume Good Faith. -- Ram-Man 21:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Under this policy, Poco will not complete his pending nominations until April, 2016. All of those images will not be the beneficiary of the QI category sorting during that time. That harms the project. This is why those who voted for this policy have a duty reform the process, because were it not for the policy, those images could be evaluated sooner and be useful that much faster. If there are not enough volunteers to reform QIC, then the policy should be repealed to allow us to evaluate those images now. I don't see why every single one of those 2500 should not be available for review today. Put them on a special Commons:Quality images candidates/bulk nominations page. I'll prescreen them myself if no one else wants to do it. Let's break down barriers, not put them up. -- Ram-Man 21:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info -- I have changed the rules according to the consensus reached. Also, the implicit principle that neither the author nor the nominator can review an image was explicity written in the rules. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still I cannot see the consensus about the surplus nominations. I asked some days ago not to change the rule before having this consensus and you agreed. For now, I cannot see that there is an appropriate extension of the rules how to handle surplus nominations. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, I forgot! But that isn't a big deal. While a decision is not reached on this detail, the simplest way is just to remove the surplus nominations as Slaunger suggested above. In the meantime, maybe you could open a fresh discussion on this matter. However I would like to emphasize that the decision on the number of daily nominations was already made and that this new discussion should not be used to suspend its implementation, for the sake of clarity and respect for the majority of users who approved the new rule. Any new ideas, for example about the creation of backlogs and a self-nominating-and-evaluating scheme, should be proposed in a different thread without affecting the recent decision. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alvesgaspar, While we are at it: What about IPs? Can they nominate? They rarely do, but it is also a loophole. --DXR (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I hadn't realised it had actually changed. I shall go down to 5 from now on, grudgingly. That means another 6 months before I can run out of images to nominate. Unfortunately I seem to manage to take more than 5 QIs per day on average. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_7&oldid=708170870"