taun's idea is exactly the same thing I was thinking earlier (but wasn't at a computer to post it 
)
)Closed ZooChat Photos
- Thread starter Arizona Docent
- Start date
I've said this many times on this forum, but hardly anyone cares about photos of common zoo animals. Whenever I take a trip to the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle I upload another couple of hundred photos onto ZooChat and there is a large response and so that is why I continue to add to the photo album. Within a day the exhibit photos have at least 10 viewings each, and 6 months later most of them have a minimum of 50 viewings. If I take some close up shots of common animals (hippos, tigers, lions, etc) I limit them to only a handful simply because no one cares to look at them and thus there are never any comments and they are viewed maybe 5 times each. For those of us that have been to loads of zoos we've all seen hundreds of tigers and so unless the animal in question is doing something spectacular we simply do not care.
The situation with the recent Marwell photos is ridiculous, as there were pages upon pages of big cats in every conceivable pose. Rarely anyone clicks on those photos, and us ZooChatters would rather have shots of the big cat exhibits at Marwell rather than the animals themselves. Overall the 81,000 photos here at ZooChat are a bit cumbersome, but it would help enormously if everyone put labels on their photos rather than leave them blank. Also, a date of the zoo visit would also be nice so that I don't have to bash some "outdated monstrosity" when in fact it has already been thankfully destroyed.
The situation with the recent Marwell photos is ridiculous, as there were pages upon pages of big cats in every conceivable pose. Rarely anyone clicks on those photos, and us ZooChatters would rather have shots of the big cat exhibits at Marwell rather than the animals themselves. Overall the 81,000 photos here at ZooChat are a bit cumbersome, but it would help enormously if everyone put labels on their photos rather than leave them blank. Also, a date of the zoo visit would also be nice so that I don't have to bash some "outdated monstrosity" when in fact it has already been thankfully destroyed.
Says the man who uploaded 1/8th of them!
I have another theory that contributes to animal shots having fewer views than exhibits - an animal shot can generally be seen much more clearly in the thumbnail, so fewer people bother to click! (though I don't think you're wrong to say more members are interested in the exhibit shots overall)
I'd agree with the latter point Maguari, because I go to the zoo to see animals! 
Perhaps those who have Aspinall Parks high on their list have a stronger opinion like that too.
Though I do think dividing each zoo's gallery into animals/enclosures/miscellaneous would be a good idea.
Perhaps those who have Aspinall Parks high on their list have a stronger opinion like that too. Though I do think dividing each zoo's gallery into animals/enclosures/miscellaneous would be a good idea.
Meaghan Edwards
Well-Known Member
I guess I'm the odd one out then, I prefer the animal shots myself
taun
Well-Known Member
Am personally sick of seeing shots of the shame exhibits over and over again! 
Yes post some more if they have changed but I find this just as bad as uploading loads of shots of animals. I prefer seeing nice animal shots as I generally don't look twice at the same picture I saw of an exhibit 3 or 4 times before!
Bring on the animal pictures, for myself they are much more interesting and also why I go to a zoo. If I wanted to visit beautiful buildings I would go into Chester city itself. Or if I wanted to see a woodland I would visit a wood/forest instead of going to a place thats pretending to be one!
Yes post some more if they have changed but I find this just as bad as uploading loads of shots of animals. I prefer seeing nice animal shots as I generally don't look twice at the same picture I saw of an exhibit 3 or 4 times before!
Bring on the animal pictures, for myself they are much more interesting and also why I go to a zoo. If I wanted to visit beautiful buildings I would go into Chester city itself. Or if I wanted to see a woodland I would visit a wood/forest instead of going to a place thats pretending to be one!
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
As someone who has uploaded a lot of photos to the site (and not all of them good, for which I apologize), I would much rather see photos of exhibits. I can see a tiger at just about any zoo I go to, but I can't see how that tiger's exhibit is designed. The photos from here have given me a much greater appreciation of how great zoo exhibits are designed. I've been going through snowleopard's most recent updates of Woodland Park and am amazed at how great these exhibits are. That said, I don't mind seeing animal photos, especially those of rare and rarely seen animals. I doubt we can have too many Sumatran Rhino or Jentink's Duiker photos on here.
the date the photo was taken is recorded in the stats under said photo (or conversely the date an original film photo was scanned, in which case its meaningless)snowleopard said:
Unless of course it's dozens of photos of the SAME duiker or rhino as it adjusts its sleeping position, as has been done with too many animals here. There are a million places to go to see good/great animal photos; and only one to see comprehensive coverage of exhibit design and zoo layout (that would be here). Down with the redundant clutter!
I think it is clear that some people like exhibits/enclosures while others prefer to focus on the animals ... I think we need to continue to cater to both, but separating them out would be a worthwhile exercise.
More thought is required on my part on how to do this the most effective way - the software is already struggling to cope with 850+ zoo galleries ... if we were to effectively double that by splitting out enclosure/exhibit photos into a separate gallery, it will only make things worse. I'll have to look at redesigning how it all works to see if I can improve performance and achieve a more elegant gallery design.
More thought is required on my part on how to do this the most effective way - the software is already struggling to cope with 850+ zoo galleries ... if we were to effectively double that by splitting out enclosure/exhibit photos into a separate gallery, it will only make things worse. I'll have to look at redesigning how it all works to see if I can improve performance and achieve a more elegant gallery design.