wbdent I did a rebuild on the photo gallery this morning because some users were saying that a lot of the photos were missing. After the rebuild it said that there were three photos missing. I have listed the photos below. So if anyone recognizes the name as theirs then if you could please re-upload them.


536lobster_boat_2.jpg
20monty3.jpg
20monty4.jpg

wbdent I also made a big mistake and deleted the photo album called "<TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=catcolumn>Other interesting non Appalachian Trail pictures (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/658/password/)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>". So as of right now I have disabled any uploading to that album until I can work on it tonight and try and bring it back if, I can.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Rick,

If you want my vote,... I don't come to WhiteBlaze for non-AT pics anyway. I'd be just as happy if they weren't allowed. Or, perhaps, if they weren't cycled in the random selections for the four pics posted on the home page.

Besides being non-AT, I often find that whoever posts them doesn't even bother to post dates, names, or locations, which makes 'em about worthless anyway.

Sorry to bitch, but if I want a pic of a glacier or some place in Nepal, I'll go to a site for those. Thanks fer listenin' ... AND for ALL the hard work you do on the WhiteBlaze site!!!!
:sun
Rain Man

.

wbdent Yes Rain Man I agree. It looks like eventually they will come down. We have over 4,000 photos on the site now. There are some that are not labeled at all. Some people just post pictures with now explanation. When I look at pictures that users upload I would like to know at least what it is. If we can not keep a description in our AT photos then I don’t think we need non-AT photos. The other reason is with the amount of space we are allotted on the server. Photos take up a lot of space. So eventually we are going to have to get picky with what we allow for users to upload. One day soon it is going to have to be AT photos only. But for now we will leave it as it is. We need someone top monitor the photo uploads and make sure that they get put in the right category and have some type of description in them.

I would like to see a water category. If there is a photo of a pond, falls or stream, I have a hard time determining what category to place it in. Usually I put it in the views category or Points of interest. But a water category, might be nice, certainly refreshing. Just an idea while you are monkeying with the photo page.

I would like to see a water category. If there is a photo of a pond, falls or stream, I have a hard time determining what category to place it in. Usually I put it in the views category or Points of interest. But a water category, might be nice, certainly refreshing. Just an idea while you are monkeying with the photo page.
That is a good idea. I will look into that later. I have been trying to figure out a way to better organize the galleries lately. I have done a little reorganization of them. Right now maybe a good place to put the water pictures would be in there proper state galleries. State Galleries (http://www.whiteblaze.net/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/504/password/). This is just and idea.

Well you know what I think about this...

I would like to see a Fungi category.

Fungus amongus?

**** Yes Rain Man I agree. It looks like eventually they will come down. We have over 4,000 photos on the site now. There are some that are not labeled at all. Some people just post pictures with now explanation. When I look at pictures that users upload I would like to know at least what it is. If we can not keep a description in our AT photos then I don’t think we need non-AT photos. The other reason is with the amount of space we are allotted on the server. Photos take up a lot of space. So eventually we are going to have to get picky with what we allow for users to upload. One day soon it is going to have to be AT photos only. But for now we will leave it as it is. We need someone top monitor the photo uploads and make sure that they get put in the right category and have some type of description in them.

I think if folks reduced photos size to a maximum width of 500 pixals before uploading that it would help on the server size. 500 pixals is the width that the software reduces larger photos to for 'normal' viewing so you don't lose much of anything.

Descriptions of and how to segment photos get more important as the number of photos increase. I tried to go back and reference most of my photos to 'trail miles from Springer' to help in the descriptions... that was pretty easy for me since most of my photos are within 150 miles of Springer, it won't be that easy for others but maybe they/we could come up with something that would help sort/organize the photos a little easier.

Youngblood

Well, you could post pictures of old decaying but fun male hikers in there, but I do want to separate out my mushroom pictures from the plants. It just doesn't seem right. When I took biology, it was plants, animals, fungi, monera, and protista.

In my personal photo gallery of the AT I have sorted them by State and approximate Mile Marker (south to north). I am now thinking about also sorting them by shelters, ie: between "spence field and derrick kn". This type of ID can be established from field notes and dates etc, along with approx mile markers.
I too could care less about non-AT related pictures, or even non-AT post. But, it doesn't really matter.

Mine are gone forever now :( I had a problem with my computer and left my vacation online with you and now they are also out in computer space.

:-? :confused: There is a reason for everything that happens in life........


Darn :(

The photo's are not lost. I still have all the photos. The only problem is that I would have to upload them and then they would fall under my name. I don't know what all the photo's are of. I could not put a description in each photo for that reason.

Catsgoing

If you want your photos I have them I am sure. We can work something out.