Re Johnbod's comment about Catalot and uncategorised templates, there have
been big improvements to both Hotcat and Catalot this year and the
situation is somewhat improved. The problem now are the images that have
been bot categorised. But Catalot now removes the uncategorised template if
you use it from a Catalot grid ref category to copy otherwise uncategorised
images to another category.
As for finding and searching, sometimes the descriptions are fine,
sometimes you need local knowledge, and sometimes a bit of Googling and
looking the geograph images up on the map identifies the place - its a mix
and categorisation is helpful.
Re Andy's suggestion of creating Geograph categories for places, we could
just categorise the categories of the individual grid squares to the
relevant villages and towns. Of course some will match to multiple places.
But now that Catalot has been improved I'm not sure I see the benefit.
WSC
On 14 April 2012 14:44, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
A simple solution would be to create new categories, such as
Geograph:West Sussex and Geograph:Barnes.
Bots could then upload images to those, which could be subcategories
of the respective parent categories, without clogging the latter, and
images could be switched manually, as they're checked (simply by
deleting the prefix were applicable).
On 14 April 2012 14:30, John Byrne j...@bodkinprints.co.uk wrote:
Yes, many of us are aware of the issues with Geograph, above all WSC.
I agree the categorization side of it has been the real Achilles heel,
and
in my experience the problem is often worse than WSC suggests. When I
filled up the Commons category for Wimbledon Common,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wimbledon_Common, I found
that a
significant number of images were categorized in West Sussex categories
(what, 80 miles away?) and several others as Barnes (only 5 miles out,
but
that's a lot in London). But the good news was that I was able to find
these images easily enough through the basic Commons search, as the
original
Geograph text info had enough detail. I've had this sort of result
doing
other categories.
I understand that because templates were mostly used to record images as
uncategorized etc, and categorizing with cat-a-lot doesn't remove these,
and
they are a pain to remove when you're doing bulk, these tend not to get
removed. So a good number of the images categorized with uncategorized
or
category query templates are actually ok, and we don't have any reliable
numbers for what is still a problem.Many of the ones supposed to have
problems don't, and many of the ones supposed to be ok aren't.
If you want images for a place in the UK, you should always do a basic
search as well as looking at the category. But actually that's true of
most
things on Commons.
Johnbod
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
