Event picture at venues

It seems we have the same old issue of photos related to events that are uploaded as Venue Photos being flagged and removed from venue pages.

As I have said, LT clearly encourages the addition of special event photos to venue pages.

Secondly, the guidelines do not indicate that event photos should not be put on venue pages.

The usual "not a picture of the venue" or "still not a picture of the venue" does not reference the guidelines and is not a justification to flag an image for removal.

The guidelines state:

Logged in users can flag pictures they view as inappropriate or irrelevant for reasons of content. 

Such reasons might include: 

not the author or venue the image is listed under 
sexually explicit 
the image is a duplicate 

That is, an author image that is not of the author it is listed under or a venue image that is not of the venue it is listed under is justified to be flagged.

A correct image of a person speaking at an event at the venue it is listed under or a correct image of a book being signed at an event at the venue it is listed under does not contradict this rule and is not otherwise inappropriate or irrelevent for reasons of content.

Repeating "not a picture of the venue" over and over doesn't make it a rule.

So until someone can show how LT is more enriched by a blank venue image rather than a correct event related venue image and how they can justify the removal of user's well meaning contributions to LT, I will re-upload correct event images that are removed from venue pages at least until after the date of the event.

So that the discussion is not lost:

make primary picture | edit | delete
Garry Thomas Morse: Speaking at SFU 19 December 2012.

A member has flagged this image for removal under the Terms of Service. It is now up to members to decide whether the image stays or goes. Before voting, please be familiar with the picture guidelines.

Should this image be removed?

Vote: Yes | No | Undecided Current tally: Yes 7, No 0
Comments

private message

marq wrote:

Yes it is.
Dec 6, 2012 on 9:39pm (EST) | delete
rybo wrote:

Not a venue image. Sheesh.
Dec 6, 2012 on 8:57pm (EST) | delete
marq wrote:

The relationship is that he is going to speak at an event at the venue. There is no explicit requirement in the guidelines that a "Venue Photo" be a only a photo of the venue. A Venue photo is a (relevant and appropriate) image for a bookstore, library or special event.

not the author or venue the image is listed under means an image may be irrelevant because it is not an author or venue image for the author or venue it is listed under. So if it was not an image of Morse or he was not speaking at a special event at FSU, then it would not be relevant and should be removed. If you argue that the image is not appropriate, you will need to show where else in the guidelines that is defined.
Dec 6, 2012 on 3:22pm (EST) | delete
r.orrison wrote:

But what's the relationship between this picture of an author and the venue? Is this him speaking at the venue? No. Is that the venue in the background, all blurry and unrecognisable? Probably not, and if it is it's a horrible picture of the venue.
Dec 6, 2012 on 10:23am (EST) | delete
marq wrote:

Not irrelevant because it is an accurate photo of the person and he is actually going to speak at the it is listed under. Not inappropriate because venue images are defined on LT as "Venue Photos for help adding photos to bookstores, libraries and special events".
Dec 6, 2012 on 6:06am (EST) | delete
BarkingMatt wrote:

Logged in users can flag pictures they view as inappropriate or irrelevant for reasons of content.

Such reasons might include:

not the author or venue the image is listed under
Dec 6, 2012 on 3:38am (EST) | delete
marq wrote:

Please indicate the reason for flagging this image with reference to the guidelines (see the link above). Please read and understand the guidelines before flagging and voting on images.
Dec 5, 2012 on 10:41pm (EST) | delete
lilithcat flagged the picture:

Not an image of the venue.
Dec 5, 2012 on 8:58pm (EST) | delete

Shall we put it to a vote? There's a good test case up for a flagging vote at the moment:
Here's the venue: http://www.librarything.com/venue/72908/Simon-Fraser-University-SFU-Harbour-Cent...
Here's the picture in question: http://www.librarything.com/pic/3620990
(It has been voted off multiple times already, but keeps getting uploaded again.)

The guidelines say one of the reasons to flag is if a picture is "not the author or venue the image is listed under" -- I interpret that to mean that for an author picture it should be a picture of the author the picture is listed under, and for a venue picture it should be a picture of the venue the picture is listed under. Just because an author has once been to a venue, doesn't mean a picture of that author is appropriate for the venue page, nor would an otherwise unrelated picture of the venue be appropriate for the author page.

Edited to update the picture link again, as it has been posted for a fifth time after being voted off four times.

I interpret that to mean that for an author picture it should be a picture of the author the picture is listed under, and for a venue picture it should be a picture of the venue the picture is listed under

Ditto.

Ditto here.

Of course, if we could add images to event listings, we might not be having this discussion.

And for a second time that author image has been voted off the venue page.

Firstly to the technical point: with respect, you are taking the phrase out of context. The context is:

Logged in users can flag pictures they view as inappropriate or irrelevant for reasons of content.

Such reasons might include:

not the author or venue the image is listed under
sexually explicit
the image is a duplicate

The word "of" is not here. There is nothing here that says what an image has to be "of". It has only has to be relevant to the venue it is listed under.

There is no need to "interpret" this. It is very clear. "Irrelevant" means "not related to". It does not mean "not of". The word "of" is conspicuously absent from these guidelines.

"not the author or venue the image is listed under" is one of the three examples given of how an image may be irrelevant or inappropriate. It therefore obviously means "not relevant to the author or venue it is listed under". The guidelines do not say "not of the author or venue the image is listed under".

I don't think anyone is arguing that the image referred to above is not relevant to the venue it is listed under. To be clear, there is an event at the venue. The image is of the Poet Morse who will speak at the event. That is the relationship. That is how this image is relevant to the venue it is list under.

Secondly, if you conclude that a venue image has to be related only to the venue, not the event at the venue, how do you explain the following description beside the helper badge for "Venue Pictures"?

"Venue Photos for help adding photos to bookstores, libraries and special events".

It is not possible to add an image to an event (other than the image of a book referenced in the event). The only way to add an image for an event is to add it to the venue.

Thirdly, I consider removal of someone else's well meaning contribution to LibraryThing to be a serious issue that needs a very strong justification. How is LT improved by the removal of a correct image related to an event at the venue better than no image at all?

I suspect many people vote on image removal without even reading the discussion below it. The fictitious "not an image of" statement being sufficient to justify destroying another user's contribution.

Fourthly, the most important point. A site like LT is considerably enriched by the addition of images. For authors and venues, many relevant and interesting images could be uploaded that considerably enrich LT for it's users.

For example, wouldn't a picture of a house where Charles Dickens lived his childhood enrich the Charles Dickens author page? Will people vote it off because "it is not an image OF the author"? Sure, the primary image would best be an image of the author but what of all the possible relevant and interesting images that could also be added? (appropriately captioned), his wife, his autograph, the places he lived, his tomb, even the woman he had an affair with etc. etc.

What a tragedy that the powerful images recently uploaded by the author himself to depicting his life in Iran have now (probably) been removed. How is LT improved by their loss?

I don't know what satisfaction people get from this rigid attitude but it considerably impoverishes LT. Where possible, I will try to repair the damage.

The guidelines, with context:

"Logged in users can flag pictures they view as inappropriate or irrelevant for reasons of content.
Such reasons might include:
not the author or venue the image is listed under"

One of the three reasons for a photo to be considered "inappropriate or irrelevant" is because it is "not the (...) venue the image is listed under". It doesn't say "not relevant to the author or venue it is listed under" (quoting your interpretation) but simply "not the venue". As it is stated in the guidelines, that reason clearly applies to this photo.

Should the picture of Waterstone's in Carlisle (http://pics.librarything.com/picsizes/8d/d6/8dd6e82f47f9055636f49504167434b41716b42.jpg) be the primary picture for Chris Bonington? There's nothing inappropriate about the photo itself, nor by your logic is it irrelevant as he once did speak there.

It is not of the venue it is listed under but it is the venue it is listed under.

In other words: no image is a venue. An image is an image. A venue is a venue. You need to insert a word here:

not (...) the venue the image is listed under.

You insert "of", I insert "relevent to". Which of these is supported by the guidelines?

Which of these is supported by the guidelines?

Both - neither. Both are interpretation.

Let's try "relevant to" with respect to author pictures. Surely you agree that no cover picture of any book by an author is ever entirely irrelevant regarding that author. So now, for Shakespeare, all Shakespeare covers ever published in any language are acceptable author pictures?

how do you explain {...} "Venue Photos for help adding photos to bookstores, libraries and special events".

I always interpreted that (there we go again, I know) as referring to photos of venues that have occasional book related events - but still pictures of venues.

p.s.: Doesn't mean I don't agree with you other types of pictures may be genuinely interesting. I wish author and venue pages had some kind of sub-folder for those.

Both - neither. Both are interpretation.

No. "of" adds a restriction not stated in the guidelines. "relevant to" comes from "Logged in users can flag pictures they view as inappropriate or irrelevant for reasons of content."

Images can only be flagged where they are inappropriate or irrelevant. If someone flags a relevant and appropriate photo, it is an error.

And don't get me wrong here. I don't think every image that has some vague relevance to an author or venue should be allowed. I am saying that the question of relevance is something to be discussed and voted on.

The problem with the flagging of the image in question is that it is not being flagged because it is inappropriate or irrelevant. It is being flagged because it is not "of" the venue. That is not stated as a justification for flagging in the guidelines and is therefore an error. A serious error because it results in the removal of someone's good faith contribution to LT.

Author image for discussion (please don't flag it).

http://www.librarything.com/pic/137399

Right, leaving as is for the duration. But I would certainly have flagged this picture if I had noticed it before. Just some picture from some edition of a work attributed to this "author".

I certainly would not flag it. It is highly relevant. The cow jumped over the moon, dish.. spoon etc. is the image that comes firstly to mind when I think of Mother Goose. It shouldn't be the primary image but its presence here enriches LT.

It has been there since 2006. Obviously longer than people have been in the habit of thinking author images are only images of authors and venue images are only images of venues.

(Note, as I think it is safe to assume a goose isn't the author of "Mother Goose" nursery rhymes, none of the author images for this author are actually "of" the author).

as I think it is safe to assume a goose isn't the author

Well, it's allegedly a goose, it seems. ;-) But that isn't really the point.

I see such images as clutter, not as enrichment. Do you have any idea how many illustrations there are of works by Lewis Carroll, especially the Alice books?

Marq -

What you seem to be missing is that "not the author or venue the image is listed under" is an example of an irrelevant image.

And the image you posted in #14 is definitely flaggable as it is "not the author . . . the image is listed under".

I think part of the problem lies in the wording "inappropriate or irrelevant" - it's not just about being irrelevant. This picture may not be entirely irrelevant, but I'm still convinced it inappropriate for the page concerned. It simply doesn't represent the author in any way - as I see it. To some degree it represents the "work" yes, but that's something else. (And I would love to see more options for attaching pictures to works than just covers - as long as they remain a separate group from cover pictures. But that's more a feature request).

I would (grudgingly - but that's personal) admit the goose pictures for Mother Goose. The picture referred to, however, applies to (an edition of) the work, not to the author. So, in my view, it's inappropriate for the author page.

p.s.: > marq: Don't think you're talking to a brick wall though. You are making me rethink these things - you've merely failed to convince me so far.

18: What you seem to be missing is that "not the author or venue the image is listed under" is an example of an irrelevant image.

Again, you are presuming that "not the author or venue the image is listed under" means "not the of author or venue the image is listed under.

Please show me where in the relevant part of the guidelines is the word "of".

If I were being this pedantic; I am yet to read a book written by a photo or walk through the front door of an image to browse for a book. No author or venue is the image it is listed under.

19: appropriateness is a different kind of issue. The example given is "sexually explicit". If you want to justify the removal of an image because it is inappropriate, I think you would need to reference the terms of service.

"Logged in users can flag pictures they view as inappropriate or irrelevant for reasons of content.
Such reasons might include:
not the author or venue the image is listed under"

"appropriate
adjective
1.
suitable or fitting for a particular purpose, person, occasion, etc.: an appropriate example; an appropriate dress.
2.
belonging to or peculiar to a person; proper: Each played his appropriate part."
- Quoted from dictionary.com, assuming most other dictionaries would give similar results

As I read it inappropriate can thus also refer to "not the author or venue the image is listed under".

Yes. But still:

1. Image was not flagged for being innapropriate.
2. Image was not flagged for being irrelevent.
3. Image is flagged (again) for "Not a venue image".

and again:

As I read it inappropriate can thus also refer to "not the author or venue the image is listed under".

But it IS the venue it is listed under. He is going to speak at that venue.

Note also, after of 19th of December as the event will have passed, the image may become insufficiently relevant to the venue it is listed under. If after that date, someone flags it as “no longer relevant to the venue it is listed under”. I will probably agree unless someone comes up with a good argument to keep it.

So far, the image has been flagged and voted on in error without reference to the guidelines.

Also, to address the side issue of “primary picture” mentioned above. This picture was never marked as the primary picture and I don’t think it should be. It has only secondary relevance. Being the only picture did not make it the primary. Your idea of a “folder structure” to hold other relevant images is a good one and I think is partially satisfied by the primary image system. Marking an image as primary means it is the one that appears in the main picture on the venue page. If you click on the venue in question, you will see that I have now uploaded a picture OF the venue. You can still see other relevent images at the bottom. A picture OF the venue or author will (I think) always be the most relevant image and should be primary.

It is interesting how the photographer places Morse slightly to the right side of the frame. As if he or she intended an observer, familiar with the location, to notice something over his right shoulder.

Or maybe it's that they're a proper photographer and know that sticking something in the center of the frame is not the way to draw the eye where you want it to go, and makes for an incredibly dull photograph.

> 24, 25

All of which is irrelevant to the question of whether this is a venue image.

I think he was maybe trying to claim that the blur behind the guy was supposed to be the venue, making the photo somehow applicable to it.

Sure. But that doesn't alter the basic question. Are pictures of persons appearing at some venue actually valid venue pictures? I happen to think: not so.

> 28

If the venue is the primary focus of the image, if it can clearly be seen that the setting is "Bookstore A", then I don't have too much of an issue with a photo of an author event. I do object to uploading a photo of an author, and calling it a "venue image" because the author is going to appear there sometime in the future. That's just wrong. Might as well upload a cover image because the store sells that book!

Right - that is part of why I said: I think not. How many pictures would be counted as somehow appropriate for Amazon for example? Cover and author pictures of everything they ever sold?

Oh, and apparently every possible illustration form any such book should be okay too.

>28 Nicole_VanK: I agree, which was my point in the response. I don't agree with marq that the photographer was even aiming to have the building be an actual thing in the photo, just that s/he was doing as a good photographer should and making it a nice interesting shot, not framing the person smack dab in the middle.

Yes, I'll gladly agree it's not a bad picture.

29: I do object to uploading a photo of an author, and calling it a "venue image" because the author is going to appear there sometime in the future. That's just wrong.

I would be happy to remove they image when it is not longer specifically relevant to the venue, i.e. when the event is over.

So far, it has not even been flagged for being irrelevant though.

30: Do you think every possible illustration from any book sold at a venue is relevant only to that venue? I would think necessarily, a venue image should in some way be specific to the venue it is listed under.

A picture of the person soon to speak at the venue, showing the venue in the background, seems pretty specific to the venue.

In your example from Amazon, are you saying that every picture of every book that Amazon sells is specifically relevant to Amazon? That is, I would only find that image in a context that includes Amazon? Perhaps you can explain your example.

27:I think he was maybe trying to claim that the blur behind the guy was supposed to be the venue, making the photo somehow applicable to it.

Well, no. What makes the photo applicable is that the person is the speaker at an impending event at the venue. It is however my opinion that the photographer also intended to show the Vancouver Harbour Centre tower in the background. Although blurry, I think anyone familiar with Vancouver would easily identify the landmark behind. I suspect that the photo was specifically composed for this purpose. For example, a cropped version is also used here:

http://www.facebook.com/SFUVancouver

> 33: That is, as I see it, the ultimate implication of your stance. Some picture from some edition of Mother Goose is fine as an author picture for Mother Goose. Some picture of some person appearing at some venue is fine as a venue picture. I don't see it. You explain.

So far, it has not even been flagged for being irrelevant though.

You don't know that. It has been flagged, several times.

Also, if you wish to get into semantics, the quote is: "Logged in users can flag pictures they view as inappropriate or irrelevant for reasons of content". Well, I for one, happen to view it so.

Flagging does remove pictures. The picture in question has been removed at least three times by flagging, and just gets re-uploaded. The vote on its current incarnation is currently at 8-1 in favor of removal yet again.

35: That is, as I see it, the ultimate implication of your stance. Some picture from some edition of Mother Goose is fine as an author picture for Mother Goose. Some picture of some person appearing at some venue is fine as a venue picture. I don't see it. You explain.

Specific relevance.

A picture of a "the cow jumped over the moon" etc. is specifically relevant to the author "Mother Goose".

A picture of a person soon to speak at at an event listed on a venue page has specific (if temporary) relevance to the venue.

A picture of a book sold by Amazon, is not specifically relevant to Amazon.

If it happened to be a book ONLY sold by Amazon and in some way represents Amazon, then yes, it is specifically relevant to Amazon. Is that the kind of book you meant?

http://www.librarything.com/venue/72908/Simon-Fraser-University-SFU-Harbour-Cent...

Any comments on how this image actually appears on the venue page in question, and how it might LT users might experience it?

40>

Sure. There's a random picture of a random guy that's clearly not an image of the venue. It's not the primary image, which makes it less objectionable, but it's still baffling and irrelevant, your semantic games notwithstanding.

Also,

35: Also, if you wish to get into semantics, the quote is: "Logged in users can flag pictures they view as inappropriate or irrelevant for reasons of content". Well, I for one, happen to view it so.

Yes, I realise that is how you view it and you are free to do so, but how would the person who originally uploaded this photo know that people would view it as irrelevant or inappropriate so that they don't waste there time and effort uploading it, (or perhaps even being a member of LT).

The guidelines or the terms of service need to state what is meant by irrelevance or inappropriateness, and the person flagging the image should indicate HOW it is irrelevant or inappropriate with reference to the guidelines or terms of service.

"not a venue image" means nothing. What is the definition of a venue image? The only one I can find is "Venue Photos for help adding photos to bookstores, libraries and special events".

And to repeat myself "not the author or venue the image is listed under" does not include the word "of". It does not mean "not OF the author or venue the image is listed under". The image has to be uploaded to the correct author or venue. It has to be specifically relevant to that author or venue.

And to repeat myself "not the author or venue the image is listed under" does not include the word "of". It does not mean "not OF the author or venue the image is listed under".

Yes, it does mean that.

I have, perhaps erroneously, been assuming that English is your first language. I apologize if that is not the case. But the word "of" the way you have used it is redundant. The phrase "the image is not the author or venue it is listed under" means, in this context" the same thing as "it is not a photo of the author or venue".

English is my first language, and no, it does not mean that. Especially in context. That is a presumption.

The person who originally uploaded the image for the event at the venue did a perfectly reasonable thing.

And of course, I am sure Eljay's Books at 3233 West Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15216, United States doesn't look like this:



Are you saying that this is a photo of the venue?

41: Sure. There's a random picture of a random guy that's clearly not an image of the venue. It's not the primary image, which makes it less objectionable, but it's still baffling and irrelevant, your semantic games notwithstanding.

Please explain how it is a random picture of a random guy. If I ask you to take a guess as to why a person would compose the photograph of this person in this way and upload it to this venue, you wouldn't be able to think of an answer?

46>

You asked "how LT users might experience" the picture, and as an LT user, I told you. Of course your explanation "This is an author who once did a signing there" is plausible, but so would be "This is my cousin Joe who works there" or "This is me, and that's it waaaaaaay in the background". Absent context or outside knowledge, it is, in fact, a random picture of a random guy. You're not saying "Could LT users come up with a reason why someone might post this, if prompted", you're asking "How are people going to interpret this image"?

Author photos should *not* be set as venue images. They are not photos of the venue. Just because an author is going to appear at the venue (or has appeared there in the past, or whatever) does not mean that their photo should appear as a venue photo. (Would you add a book cover photo to a venue because that book can be purchased there? No. Or even if the author of that book was going to speak there? No. Same idea).

This is not to say that photos of author readings or other events AT a venue might not be appropriate (they may well be, in fact) but simply uploading an author photo (or a book cover, for that matter) as a venue photo doesn't make sense, and the photo can be flagged for removal as a venue image.

This is, as far as I'm concerned, similar to the rule that book cover images &c. should not be set as author photos, something that's fairly rigidly enforced around here.

So, simply put, no, author photos should not be set as venue images.

>48 by jbd1, THANK YOU. I was wondering (fearfully) if we were all going to keep playing this -vote off the image- game over and over until the event passed. ack!

>48 jbd1: and everyone else except the OP.

Oh god. It's back. What is wrong with this guy?

The mind boggles.

Yes, well it seems that certain parts of LT are ruled by a small group of rigidly pedantic people who get great pleasure from "policing" other user's contributions. I remind you that I did not originally contribute this photo. It seems natural and reasonable to add a photo specifically related to an event at the venue to the venue page. And LT would be significantly enriched by images specifically related to authors and venues being added to those pages in addition to the most relevant primary image of the author or venue. My point is, it is removed without justification in the guidelines or terms of service by a small group of people who do not seem to be able to think about how LT might be improved and enriched for its users but simply play some game of following fictional rules. Even though I have devoted many hours to improving LT, it seems that there are other sites that value user's contributions more.

looks to me like Jeremy has made a ruling.

End of discussion.

yes, I see. Sorry I had not realised it was the kind of site that had rulers. Sorry for wasting your time.

>52 marq:/54 - LT value users' contributions extremely highly. The site is based on users' contributions! But the key is that those contributions are appropriate for the particular place they're made. That specific photo is appropriate for an author page, but not for a venue page. Had it been, as you say, "specifically related to an event at the venue," it would have been fine, but it is just a generic author photo. It was removed based on the guidelines' requirement that venue images be "of the venue."

Trust me, I don't like to have to jump into a discussion and make a "ruling" - typically these are handled by consensus among the group. That was proving not to be the case here.

Firstly, helps if you read the discussion above.

1. Image is actually "specifically related to an event at the venue". The photo is composed to show the speaker at the event at the venue with the tower of the SFU harbour centre in the background. The photo appears on another web site (see 34 above) also specifically related to this event.

2. When you quote "of the venue", from where are you getting that exact quote in the guidelines?

3. This was not the primary image. The primary image was a picture of the venue, so on the venue page, this picture only appeared as a thumbnail near the event unless you clicked on it. I have since removed both photos.

4. What does this mean in the helper badges page: "Venue Photos for help adding photos to bookstores, libraries and special events (26)". How do you add a photo to special events by adding it to the venue?

I did not originally upload this photo but it is was specifically relevant to the event listed on the venue page so I was defending another user's contribution that was unjustifiably removed. I gave my arguments above and asked many questions, most of which remained unanswered (see post 45, 39 etc.).

That you call consensus, looks like mob rule, inconsistency and bullying to me. As I said, I had not realised it was this kind of site.

Marq, Jeremy (jbd1) is LT staff. He works on/for LT. Where he is "getting it from" is that it is what was intended and what has now been clarified explicitly for you.

Jeremy, could you please add the word 'of' to the guidelines when you get a chance so that marq's semantic nitpickery will no longer be possible? Most people understand what it means, but as we can see from this thread it only takes one willfully obtuse individual to create difficulties for all.

That you call consensus, looks like mob rule, inconsistency and bullying to me.

I'm sorry you take it that way. I thought we were merely having a discussion on how to interpret certain guidelines.

57: I did realise that. Thanks for pointing out who sets the rules in this "community" web site.

58: good idea lorax. Then you can conduct a mass purge of the thousands of author and venue pictures on LT that are not of authors or venues.

You can start with the one I already mentioned above: http://www.librarything.com/pic/137399

Added back in 2006, obviously when LT was more open minded and creative. I assume you will flag it as it is definitely not "of" any author and lilithcat and barking matt have already agreed above that is should be flagged.

59: I didn't see much discussion. How about your answer to my question in 39? And out of interest how did you vote while the discussion was going on? I didn't see any undecided.

BTW, I see someone has uploaded a picture of a book to be signed at an event at the venue. How stupid of them. What an obviously ridiculous thing to do. Already flagged and 7 votes to remove. How much richer an experience for the LT user visiting that venue page when it is gone.

Right, okay.

# 37:

A picture of a "the cow jumped over the moon" etc. is specifically relevant to the author "Mother Goose".

No more so than a picture of "the mad tea party" is to Lewis Carroll. By this reasoning we could (should?) upload hundreds of thousands of illustrations from books to author pages. As I said before, I see your point but I think it's clutter.

A picture of a person soon to speak at at an event listed on a venue page has specific (if temporary) relevance to the venue.

True, and I think it would be an improvement if we had a sub folder for such. Or simply some way to link pictures to events. But we don't. It doesn't alter the fact that the picture does not depict the venue.

A picture of a book sold by Amazon, is not specifically relevant to Amazon. If it happened to be a book ONLY sold by Amazon and in some way represents Amazon, then yes, it is specifically relevant to Amazon.

So, by analogy, you think all that speaker will ever do is to appear on that location? You're suddenly narrowing down your usage of "specific".

# 45:

I had noticed that picture and obviously have my doubts about it. But it just possibly might be their logo, which would - in a sense - be a picture of the venue.

# 60:

For the duration I simply didn't vote on those pictures at all.

> 60

BTW, I see someone has uploaded a picture of a book to be signed at an event at the venue. How stupid of them.

Yes, it is. Because if they touchstoned the book title when they entered the event, the cover image would appear with the event information.

Anyway, marq, are you suggesting we flag pictures to be mean to people? Get a grip! We had a difference on interpreting the guidelines. Fine, no problem, can happen. I, for one, am glad that LT staff stepped in to explain what they meant - because we were starting to go around in circles. And if your interpretation had been supported I would have accepted that too.

As for "How much richer an experience for the LT user visiting that venue page when it is gone" - okay, get your point. But now imagine some LT user seeking info about some venue (or author), who suddenly has to wade trough all kinds of stuff only vaguely (secondarily if you prefer) related to such a page. I happen to think that would be worse. Hence: clutter.

p.s. concerning your precious Mother Goose picture: I merely said I probably would have flagged it. "Authors" like these are a case apart though - no way to properly display them. I would, personally, prefer to see such without any author picture. But, granted, that's merely personal opinion.

No, I'm not suggesting that people are flagging images to be mean and I do see your points.

I suppose the question can be rephrased slightly as "do all author and venue pictures have to be images of the author or the venue?".

Your idea of a folder to hold other relevant pictures is good. When we look at an author page or a venue page, there is one large picture which is the either the primary picture or if there happens to be only one, the only picture.

I have always agreed that the primary picture should be of the author or the venue. Other pictures appear as thumbnails at the bottom of the page. The user has to click on them if they want to see them. I don't think they would ever have to be waded through to find anything.

If they are clutter, not sufficiently relevent, inappropriate, in bad taste not just not good pictures, good reasons to remove them.

There is another point to be made about images in addition to the point 7 above. (Unfortunately my main point (number 4) was lost in an argument over semantics).

This point is about traffic to LT. Traffic (people finding the site) is the raw material of growth. I don't know what LTs strategy is for this site but the options are really growth or death. We have to ask the question, why does Goodreads have more than 10 million members compared to LTs about 1.5 (?) when compared to LT, in terms of the quality of its data, Goodreads is pathetic. Worldcat reads reviews from Goodreads, so anyone who finds a book on worldcat now also discovers Goodreads. More traffic = more growth.

A few months ago, I uploaded a unique image of the Author Andre Migot. It took about a week and a half to appear on Google images and is now the third ranked image (it is the one with the dog). I noticed that the author page for Andre Migot also increased its rank to about 5. So not only do images make potential traffic from google image search, they also seem to improve the normal search ranking of the page. (BTW, text in the biog field in the common knowledge seems to help too).

Now, I am not saying we should load rubbish images to increase traffic to LT. But a diverse range of quality, interesting and relevant photos can only help traffic and growth, as well as of course making the site more interesting and rich.

For authors, the primary picture should be a picture of the author. But some examples I gave above like, pictures of the house the author lived in, monuments dedicated to the author, the author's grave, pictures of a festival celebrating the author etc. all thumbnails unless someone is interested.

And again with venues, yes, primary picture a picture of the venue but what is really so wrong with images relating to events at the venue. The people going to appear, speak or do signing there. There is space for many images to be added to a venue listing. Do they ALL need to be photos of the venue? A bit boring isn't it?

And, I can imaging someone doing a google search for an author and clicking on the image that appears, bringing up an LT page of a venue where the author will speak soon, thinking what a valuable site this is. Something no other site has. No image, no link.

>64 marq: - At the moment, we're not set up to add extraneous photos (authors' houses, &c.) to their galleries. It's not a bad idea, and we may, in future, add space for such categories, but they're not there now, and for the time being those types of images should not be added to author pages. Likewise for venue pages. As I've said above, pictures of the venue (events at the venue, for example) are fine, but simply posting images of authors who will be speaking there (or books that are sold there, or whatever) doesn't make sense and should not be done. Particularly for authors, they're speaking there and then the event is over, so the addition of an author photo to venue images just doesn't make long-term sense. That said, since we log events, we could fairly easily build (if there was any call to) a gallery of authors who have held events there. May be something to think about as Tim works on Local, and I'll mention it to him.

I understand what you're saying about additional pictures, and as you know we often add features &c. to the site. Additional categories of photos for authors may be one of those in the future. But for now, author galleries should be images of the author, because that's what the galleries are, currently, intended to show. Likewise for venue pages - the venue images should be images of the venue.

Directly to your question: I suppose the question can be rephrased slightly as "do all author and venue pictures have to be images of the author or the venue?".

At the moment, the answer to that is yes. Should that change in future, you'll be the first to know. But for now, the answer is yes. So please, understand that that's where things stand for now, and let's move on from this.

Yes, just making the suggestions. I see that there is another batch of authors (and musicians) photos added to a venue, so there is a demand for that feature. I copied one of them into the author page. The others have no listing. Not aware of a venue gallery, but agree that the author galleries should be authors. As I have always said, primary pictures (those that appear in the gallery) should be authors.

So where are we on this issue in 2019?

Are event photos acceptable on venue pages?

New member added three here:

http://www.librarything.com/venue/2168/East-Hampton-Library

>67 2wonderY:

I don't mind event photos if they actually show the venue, as opposed to "gee, this could be anywhere".

So I'd be inclined to flag this one: http://www.librarything.com/pic/6792170 but not, perhaps, the other two event photos, as they more clearly show the actual venue space.