What would it take to require fields be filled out when uploading a photo or image?

Question

It's been my experience that 90% or more of uploaded images -- whether they be sources or photos -- have nothing filled out on their photo/image page. in addition, people rarely change the image name so it remains Smith Image 1 instead of something more descriptive such as John Smith (1882-1969).

One way to encourage people to fill out these fields would be to require it upon upload. What would it take to do this?

Thanks.

Comments

Update: Did you see that the form for uploading an image now includes fields for source, title, etc?

Thanks for suggesting these valuable improvements, Jillaine.

---

I have been filling out the source information on pictures I upload to my biography pages; a bit tedious, but I personally want to document who is in the picture and time, place, etc.

Answer 1

Thanks for the reminder.  Just fixed my images.

Answer 2

I like this question.  I've taken a lot of tombstone photos and have been uploading them as part of the Cemetery project.  I have been including the name and location of the cemetery in the Location field for each photo, adding the certainty of the location (since  took the photos), and changing the name to something more appropriate, such as Joe Smith's Tombstone, Joe and Anne Smith's tombstone, Smith family monument, etc.  I've added only a few comments, such as indicating that a person is not buried in a location even though his name is on the tombstone, such as a man buried with his second wife who also is listed on the stone with his first wife, or a cenotaph for a soldier buried at sea.  The information  associated with photos, like the rest of the information in the profile, is meant to help ourselves and others who are researching the same person.

Comments

Star, thanks for all you're doing to make the image pages complete. Your practice is rare but should be a model for others.

Answer 3

Jillaine,

I LUV this question!  I, too, have thought it very strange that most graphic files on WikiTree don't have any data other than the default assigned name.  You made me scratch my head a bit about what it would take to get people to enter data and I admit that most of my thoughts were sarcastic at best, with some that are not appropriate for the respectable grandmother that I like to think I am.

I finally did come up with an idea, though.  There is no reason why the upload process can't include data fields, in addition to having the person select a file to shove across cyberspace.

Instead of assigning a default name, WikiTree could easily REQUIRE that a title be filled in on the same form as the file is selected for upload.  If the title is blank when the form is submitted then an error message would appear instead of the file being accepted for upload.

While they could probably do the same for other data fields, that might not be a good idea to enforce all data being required.  They could, however, encourage entry of that data by including fields for it on the upload form, even though they would accept the upload if they are left blank.

One other thing - the fields for the data (other than the name) are way down at the bottom of the page.  I suspect that a lot of people don't ever scroll down that far even if they do any editing at all.  Perhaps if they above the photo, it might help.

Comments

Exactly, Gaile; this is why I'm suggesting the fields -- or some subset of them -- be filled out during or as part of upload.

---

That would take a little extra coding, but not a big deal at all, from a technical stanpoint.  Here's the work that would be entailed:

1. No changes to the database because these fields are already there.
2. No changes to the editing page because these fields are already there
3. Very minor change to the upload form to include the extra fields, plus a very simple javascript to detect whether the required fields have been entered when the "upload" button is clicked.  This would be done client-side and would prevent the upload from occurring unless those fields have values in them.
4. Change to the file that processes the upload to write the additional fields on the form to the database.  Again - not a big deal at all, since a database entry is already being made to enter the file in it.

My guess is that it's about 1/2 hour of programming work and has no additional resource load.

---

The "1/2 hour of programming" is not the full story. :-)

Yes, this is feasible and I think it's an interesting idea. Jillaine I think it's a good answer to the question on image sources: http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/121093/what-would-it-take-to-add-a-source-field-to-the-photo-page

The field we should probably require is a comment, and it should say that you need to put in the source.

Titles, locations, and dates on photos are nice, but should they be mandatory? Requiring a date and location would mean that a lot of images couldn't be uploaded, or we'd be forcing people to make stuff up. This connects to the long discussions on requiring a date for new profiles, but I see less of a compelling reason here.

Would we require a title? Pros and cons of requiring a title? It might just be viewed as a hassle for people.

What do most photo sharing sites require?

---

Chris, I set these up as separate topics on purpose. (I was going to put them together but anticipated you'd ask me to post them separately <grin>)

As I wrote in the other thread, I would not suggest that the source field be an extra comments field but a dedicated field like name, location and date. (And therefore not subject to the limit of 20 comments per day.)

maybe not all fields should be required but some?

OR if the fields are at least prominent during upload, it would encourage people to fill them out.

I'm not sure comparing wikitree to other photo sharing sites is relevant. Images uploaded here are tied to specific people and facts. Just as we promote source citations on profiles, we should do the same on photos.

l also thinking it's not a bad idea to slow people down in the uploading of images.  There are SO many images on wikitree that are copyright or user license violations. Requiring people to fill out some fields (especially a source field) will I believe slow that flood.

---

Just having the fields there will definitely help them get noticed and used. That's a good point. And I like your point about slowing people down a little being a good thing.

I still don't know about a new source field. What do you expect people would enter there?

A lot of the time I would think it would be things like "I got this from Gramma's shoe box" or "Aunt Jill posted this on Facebook last week. I think cousin Bill took it." That's why I'm envisioning a free text field making sense, and why I think there is natural overlap with the comments field.

---

Chris,

I'm so glad you joined this discussion.  Your input is always the most valuable on issues like this one.

I probably didn't make myself clear enough.  My thought was to include all the data fields on the form, but only require that the image name (what I think of as title) not be blank when the photo is uploaded.

That way, we would never see stuff like John Doe's Image 1, John Doe's image 2, etc. on a long list of images on a page.  In addition, by having the rest of the fields conveniently availabe at the time the person is going to upload a graphic, they are encouraged to enter that information.  A simple client-side javascript snippet, triggered by the upload button event, would detect a blank name field and display a message saying that name is required instead of passing the upload through.

I don't know what "most photo sharing sites" do ibecause I have never used any of them, but I don't think that's  relevant.  They are intended for use by masses of people who want everyone to see all their photos.  We are about something very different from that - we want to document people's lives in a historically accurate and meaningful way.

---

One more thought, Jillaine, on comment field vs. source field (from the other G2G question): Asking for a source invites a URL. That would be a logical source in many cases. Allowing URLs, as we do in most free text fields, means considering the same issues regarding spammers. There are many considerations here; I just don't see how they're different from those for a comments field.

Gaile, I agree with Jillaine that the most important field to require would be the one for sources. A name/title would probably be the second most important, but should it be required? I don't know. It seems cosmetic.

Answering these questions is the first step.

---

Jillaine - Are you reading my mind?  I went to refill my coffee cup in the middle of writing my response above (I start most mornings a pint low on caffeine).  When I finished it, I saw that you had said the exact same thing I did about other photo sites, except that you said it more elegantly!

Chris - one other thing that might encourage people to add information would be to move things around a bit on the graphic editing page.  If those fields were immediately below the name field, with the actual graphic displayed under them, I think that might help.  The graphic tends to take up all remaining vertical space on the page and people don't bother scrolling, so they may never even realize that those fields are underneath.

---

How about just changing the name of the "comments" field to something like "Description and Source", but I would also like to see it not count in the daily comment limit.

I recently uploaded 94 images in one work session.  These are the portions of Holocaust documents that were cropped to include only the information applicable to each of 94 profiles I manage, all of whom died in the Holocaust.  I cited the source in the profile narrative where each was used.  I was VERY glad that it did not occur to me to put that information in the comments field of each one - it would have taken me a lot of days to do this if I had a daily comment limit.  As a mea culpa, I ONLY designated them as sources and gave them names of "John Doe Holocaust Record".  Please see Space:HolocaustSourceDocuments.  A sample of how I used them is Lilienstein-12.  Of course, I know very little about what I'm doing here - please let me know if I should be doing this differently.

---

To summarize, if I may ... We all appear to be in consensus that the following would be good to do:

1. Put the Date and Location fields immediately under the Title field on graphic editing pages.
2. Add the Title, Date, Location, and Comments fields and a radio button for the Photo/Source selection to the upload form.

I also recommend that Title and selection of Photo/Source should be prerequisites for the upload to take place.

I think the use and nature of comments and or a new field for sources has not yet been firmed up.

 

---

Speaking for the Global Cemeteries Project, I would like to see a source field not count towards the daily limit of comments. Members of this project frequently upload dozens of tombstone photos in a day.

One, rather minor, argument in favour of a separate (non-comment) field for a source is that it could be saved at the same time as the other photo info. While I always try to add a comment with the source for a photo from Wikipedia, etc., when I upload photos I took I often don't get around to it just because it has to be filled out separately from the rest of the info.

---

Very good point Lianne. Thank you  

Chris, we'd encourage people just like we do for any source information.  There'd be a link to the source help page popping up in a separate window. We would add a section to that page specifically focused on photos with examples. I'll draft this. It should go on the photo/image help page as well  

re your URL / spamming question, how is this different from any other place that spammers would target? And don't you have to be a registered user/honor code signer to upload photos? If not, we should be.

I concur with Gaile's idea of placement of the fields on the image page to encourage people to edit existing image pages.

I concur with the idea of adding fields to the upload process but I would add and even require the source field.

The instructions somewhere should also make reference to permission. Do you have permission to share this photo? Or do you own this photo? Elsewhere I've suggested wikitree follow WeRelate 's model of requiring people to indicate what kind of permission a photo uploader has. They do this to protect themselves and their users.

---

I have been filling out the grey squarish box that is directly under the photo once loaded.  Sometimes I have 2 sentences, sometimes a small paragraph.  A person should remember to SAVE in the  <save>   box under that,   and again at the bottom of the page to connect it to the photo.  Then if the photo is used whereever, if you click on the photo, that grey box of info is there...

 

I thought all were filling the atribution field.

---

Replying to bring this back up... I still think it's very relevant. Chris you wanted answers to questions:

"One more thought, Jillaine, on comment field vs. source field (from the other G2G question): Asking for a source invites a URL. That would be a logical source in many cases. Allowing URLs, as we do in most free text fields, means considering the same issues regarding spammers. There are many considerations here; I just don't see how they're different from those for a comments field."

Maybe, technically, it's the same as a comments field, but a) has a "Source" title/ header; and b) is required upon upload.
 

I'm not sure what the other outstanding questions are.