This page is for discussing the contents of Apartments.

I had put an 'Advert' include on an apartment page. My stated reason was "The 100 staged photos :P" to KP when asked why. If he doesn't mind the cross-post, he responded:

2011-10-14 12:49:45 aha! interesting point... I can't recall ever seeing any discussion about "how much is too much?" when it comes to photographs. I do think that the same standard should be applied across the board for all users e.g. there shouldn't be different standards for business owners.

Two thoughts: 1) As a renter, I like the idea of seeing as many photographs as possible... interiors, exteriors, amenities, location etc. 2) Hosting images is data intensive, should the "health" of the servers be considered and a limit set? -KemblePope


Some apartment pages are a bit stark (Davisville Apartments, Chateau Apartments, Davis Townhouse Apartments) while others are a manager/owners dream, complete with floor plans and staged photos: Anderson Place Apartments, Casitas, Greystone, some with textual overlays. ("A better lifestyle"....)

I was going to respond to Kemble with "Representative pictures is always the goal, preferably user contributed, not cherrypicked by owners/managers." Additionally, the standards do differ - the wiki has Wiki Community/For Profit Restrictions that mean there is a heckuva difference between business pages and personal pages.

Thought I'd open it up to discussion, might be a good project to organize and update the pages from this Apartments listing. Are promotional staged photos crossing the lines into advert territory? Are having *some* of those photos (maybe not all 30) good or bad for the wiki, especially for pages lacking photos? Thoughts? -ES


You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

2011-10-14 14:50:19   There is no discussion on the "For Profit Restrictions" page about the number of allowable photos. Basically, the rule now is "go with your gut". I don't think that there are too many photos on the Anderson Place Apartments...

I don't think that "user contributed" images are inherently better than those submitted by owners/manager. In my mind, a good photo is better than a poor photo... no matter who submits it.

I think that professional, staged photos are better than photos of empty spaces. And I think that any photo is better than no photo.

I would also prefer some consensus on how many photos are too many, and what exactly constitutes "representative".

Any thoughts on the "impact on the servers" angle? —KemblePope

2011-10-14 14:56:43   With a layout like that, and so many photos, I end up feeling it's not much different than a vertical scrolling brochure. At the least, the photos are promoted by the management/owners and should be marked as they're clearly trying to show the place in the best possible light. They're not neccessarily representative, and in many cases (both now and in the past) they seem to be deliberately misleading using interesting angles at best, editing photos at worst. (In this case, they're the same photos from their own website, so are we even allowed to have those up with CC?) I popped this page up to get input from other people on whether we can try to draw a line somewhere, or somehow standardize formatting/mark up throughout ALL the apartment pages, even if my example is focused on one. —EdWins

2011-10-14 15:58:08   I just want to mention that "too many photos" or "too many staged photos" has definitely come up before, the former with Elizabeth's pet sitting, the latter with other apartments. As ES suggests, the staged photos can be misleading and geared towards showing things in the best light, thus promotional. —CovertProfessor

2011-10-14 17:44:03   Some pages simply say "Photos by Management" and leave it at that. Perhaps a couple of the Anderson Place photos could be removed as duplicates. As to "interesting angles", I assumed that a fish lens was used because they were taking a photo in a very small space that doesn't allow much perspective.

I think a line should be drawn somewhere, but let's not lose sight of the fact that this property manager (and most business owners) are trying really hard to be active, positive users that follow DavisWiki culture, guidelines, protocol (whatever you want to call this amorphous collection of consensus decisions) and we need to ensure that we encourage their participation. —KemblePope

  • Fewer pictures that were clearly labeled as management photos would certainly help. The common-area pictures are in fact helpful to prospective tenants, I think. As for the others, I added labels based on the filenames and reorganized a bit so I could see what was what. I think we could delete pics that are just alternate perspectives of a room that don't add anything. There are also two pictures that were not given meaningful filenames and so I could not label them meaningfully; those might be deleted as well. —cp
  • I use the term "traditions", because it connotes to me the most honest portrayal of the situation. I think any photo that is misleading should be edited in the same way text that is misleading should be handled: either clarified or removed. Pretty simple. It is, of course, nicer to have photos provided by a wider spectrum of the community, but I do think that having photos is better than none, and in many cases that's the situation. Of course, I've captioned some photos in ways that make it clear they are more artistic than representation — what's the one where they photo edited them and cranked the saturation to 11? That happens with photos taken by anybody else, too. -jw

2012-07-23 10:25:10   Is it just me or is this category page getting a bit on the promotional side? I like having an example photo for each section, but I don't like that they're coming from self-interested parties and I don't like that they feel so promotional. Ideas on how to clean it up? —TomGarberson

2012-08-02 16:17:37   Ugh. Anyone else have any input on this page? I'm really not a fan of increased commercialization of it. —TomGarberson

2012-08-02 16:41:50   Doesn't really bother me that much yet to be honest. One of the photo captions came across as a bit promotional and obnoxious, but for the most part I'm okay with it, unless I'm missing something. —ScottMeehleib