These pictures were uploaded before the requirement for title and description, being enforced in LG.

Was just using them as examples of what no title or description looked like....

I've put in place several additional requirements.  The title must now contain at least one two-letter word and as before, be 5 or more characters in length.  The description must now contain at least one three-letter word and as before, be 10 or more characters in length.  You must also fill out at least two pieces of information besides title, description, and category.

I expect that it shouldn't be too much trouble to provide this information for any photos that are focused enough to be considered on-topic.  For off-topic photos, a title and description of any length must be present, but those are the only requirements.  You can mark a photo off-topic, and add in additional details after the fact.  Our goal is to keep quality up and ensure pictures are searchable. 

Let us know if you encounter any difficulty.  We may make further adjustments in the future as we see fit.

I don't know why it is important to fill at least two columns of the light information. There are pictures that don't requires this information (Night scenes, and pictures that don't show specific lamp, lantern, fixture or gear). The title and the description requirement is enough, as before the enforcement about them, several members uploaded a lot of nonsence to LG. There was no problems before the new requirement for filling at least two columns of the light information.

I ACTUALLY HAVE A REQUEST....


 So, how I usually upload things is I throw all my files from my phone into an album named "SORT" which is private and Enter some gibberish random text, since I cannot easily or quickly type out descriptions on my phone, then I go into my computer, add actual descriptions, and transfer them to their proper albums... I basically use my private album as a temporary holding tank...

could you make title and description not required for private albums? so its easier for people to upload that way if they do? and especially since nobody but the owner sees the images anyway...

@HomeBrewLamps good idea because I do this sometimes

싫어요!!!!I hate new rules.

Ok this new requirement is stupid. If you want to know the lamp information, ASK IN THE COMMENT. I mean, what other purpose does the comment section serve? Communication between users should be encouraged. With all the file info entered, the comment section is just "cool" "nice" "awesome".

I refuse to enter the info in the categories. I always display the information in the picture description (where it belongs) and what I don't cover I'm happy to provide in the comments section upon request. It takes too long to type it all into categories and the categories are often too vague or not specific enough for a particular photo.

I ask that the lighting-gallery admins consider multiple perspectives before making executive decisions like this that make uploading more difficult and turn users away. I feel that forcing things down users throats takes away from the principles this site was ran by until the past couple of years...

Please consider reversing this decision to require the info categories to be required, as other more relevant means of expressing this information are available.

Thank you.

Ok this new requirement is stupid. If you want to know the lamp information, ASK IN THE COMMENT. I mean, what other purpose does the comment section serve? Communication between users should be encouraged. With all the file info entered, the comment section is just "cool" "nice" "awesome".

I refuse to enter the info in the categories. I always display the information in the picture description (where it belongs) and what I don't cover I'm happy to provide in the comments section upon request. It takes too long to type it all into categories and the categories are often too vague or not specific enough for a particular photo.

I ask that the lighting-gallery admins consider multiple perspectives before making executive decisions like this that make uploading more difficult and turn users away. I feel that forcing things down users throats takes away from the principles this site was ran by until the past couple of years...

Please consider reversing this decision to require the info categories to be required, as other more relevant means of expressing this information are available.

Thank you.

Agreed 100%. While I used to use the info section a lot more, recently I just started putting all of the info in the description itself as it is faster and I can copy-paste while uploading multiple similar photos. Maybe if not reverting the change completely, at least make it so we can have presets when uploading multiple photos at a time.

Is anybody in favor of the new requirements?  Ultimately the site is for the members, so if the majority of you guys don't agree with a certain rule, we can change it.  We don't need to require any of the fields, nor do we need an upload limit either.   The goal of these restrictions was to emphasize quality over quantity.  Also, by gathering more details it makes the photos easier to find in searches, which helps keep them relevant even after they have dropped off the first few pages.

Is anybody in favor of the new requirements?  Ultimately the site is for the members, so if the majority of you guys don't agree with a certain rule, we can change it.  We don't need to require any of the fields, nor do we need an upload limit either.   The goal of these restrictions was to emphasize quality over quantity.  Also, by gathering more details it makes the photos easier to find in searches, which helps keep them relevant even after they have dropped off the first few pages.

I am split, I like the idea, because it does force you to think a bit about what you're posting, but at the same time it is somewhat inconvenient .. especially when you're trying to post from a phone... KEEP THE UPLOAD LIMIT PLEASE!!!

Part of it depends on what we want the overall vision for the site to be.  Should it serve as an organized reference catalog, that people can utilize to find details about specific lamps and fixtures?  Should act more as a social sharing site for people to swap their latest fun lighting-pics, even if they don't have long-term value besides showing off what you did on a particular day?  We've tried to accomplish both, and sometimes those two goals conflict.

Part of it depends on what we want the overall vision for the site to be.  Should it serve as an organized reference catalog, that people can utilize to find details about specific lamps and fixtures?  Should act more as a social sharing site for people to swap their latest fun lighting-pics, even if they don't have long-term value besides showing off what you did on a particular day?  We've tried to accomplish both, and sometimes those two goals conflict.

I can understand to a certain extent why you did this, Patrick, and I support the overall aim, but I wonder if there is a better way to achieve it..?

For me, the site is a mixture of both social sharing site and reference site; I like to see what other collectors have, and I also want to be able to find out more about them. I agree that there is sometimes a plethora of similar photos uploaded, which is why I completely support the daily upload limit, but at the same time it can be a drag filling in the information fields. Maybe if there could be a way of copying the fields from one upload to the next, when uploading multiple pictures, to save having to type them in each time..?

My browser actually makes a drop down list of previous things I've entered in fields... very helpful... not sure if that happens for other people... or if it is actually part of the site...

I would agree that there is a subset of photos where the majority of fields do not apply.  I'll pull the restriction for now.  If any of you see that certain photos are lacking adequate details, or there's any other quality requirement you think might be possible to automate, let us know.  It's better to have the software enforce standards whenever possible, since it's tough for the moderators to catch every case.

Thank you very much Patrick. It is my hope that people will one way or another provide details in their future uploads, making it unnecessary for enforcement. Like Homebrew, I noticed that my browser (Google Chrome) will remember what I put into a field and it will appear in a dropdown menu next time I go to fill in that field on another picture. This applies to picture titles and forum topic titles as well. Fortunately it doesn't apply to large-body text like forum responses, gallery comments, and photo descriptions lol.

I would agree that there is a subset of photos where the majority of fields do not apply.  I'll pull the restriction for now.  If any of you see that certain photos are lacking adequate details, or there's any other quality requirement you think might be possible to automate, let us know.  It's better to have the software enforce standards whenever possible, since it's tough for the moderators to catch every case.

Indeed. As I said, the ability to auto-fill description fields from one entry to the next, where they're the same or only slightly different, would be a help.