Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Improving Mindat.orgPhoto Upload Rules - We want your views.

27th Jan 2016 13:11 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

As mindat.org has matured the management team and I have tried to adapt the rules to improve the quality of content on this site, over the years we've changed the requirements for what information as a bare minimum needs to be provided with photos, for example.

A discussion has been going on in the management group about whether these rules should be tightened even more - and I felt this was such an important discussion that I should open it up to everyone who contributes here to have their say.

We want the information on mindat.org to be trustworthy. We want people who see a photo of a rare mineral to have some confidence that they are actually seeing what they are told they are seeing. But at the same time we don't want to put unnecessary extra burden on photographers to have to provide evidence (eg XRD) that what they have actually is what they say it is. Do we insist that all photos have information about the identification of mineral species (even if it is to simply say 'identity not confirmed, as labelled by dealer') or do we leave it open to the uploader to say this if they want. If we do insist where do we draw the line? If someone's uploading a photo of an amethyst geode do we need them to confirm it really is amethyst? Is it any more important to confirm mineral species then it is to confirm locality of origin, which is much harder to prove?

We also have problems with some (usually mineral dealers) uploading images that are quite small compared to how we would normally like it. This is usually simply because they photograph for their own websites where the size of the image is fixed to their own needs, and are reusing the photos for mindat. Do we reject these small photos or do we simply accept that some people will never be able to give us bigger photos and take what we can?

We also have "guidelines" that say we prefer images NOT to have any additional text such as copyright messages on them, but there is no outright ban it is just a preference. We are improving systems to reduce the risk of unauthorised sharing of images, but that may not be enough for everyone which is why we do not ban them. But we do not want to see advertising text (eg company website names, logos, etc) on images. Many of these have slipped through in the past. Do we ban those now? Do we un-approve any older photos that contain these?

I would like views from everyone whether you are here to view other people's images or here to share your own (or both). What works for you? What is best for mindat and for the future of this database?

All your views will be listened to, and any rules we propose based on your feedback will be discussed here before enacted.

Jolyon

27th Jan 2016 13:21 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

This is an example of a great description:

http://www.mindat.org/photo-728986.html

This is an example of a very poor one:

http://www.mindat.org/photo-720521.html

(yes, that was mine, and yes, I should have to follow the same rules as everyone else)

27th Jan 2016 13:32 UTCDale Foster Manager

In terms of reliability of identification - where you are dealing with mineral species that are readily identifiable visually, there should be no need to require more detailed evidence.

Where a visual id cannot determine species then further proof is warranted - I believe that is rational and common sense.

From a personal perspective it would be good to encourage more detailed descriptions of the specimens to be added. i.e. describing the nature of the matrix as this can help other collectors find specimens. Also where a matrix may be particularly distinctive to a locality to assist in verifying other material. Maybe even encouraging child photographs showing host matrix to be added.

I would consider this sort of description to be more immediately relevant to a mineralogy database than the technical information about how a photograph is taken and the equipment used.

I am probably equally as guilty of not giving such a description in the past, but I am going back over my pictures to add extra info where I can.

27th Jan 2016 13:54 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

For rare minerals if one does not have definitive proof of ID I think at the very least one should have to explain why you think it is what it is, that does not need to cost any money. Time and time again I come across pictures of minerals that do not fit the published data such as color or cleavage ( among other things) and no explanation, there is no excuse for this. Admittedly something such as color is not reliable but if it is different then that needs to be explained. For example the recent post of yellow chrysocolla, that needed proof and fortunately with some digging was provided. However I don't thing other people should have to do the digging, that should be the poster of the picture.

27th Jan 2016 13:55 UTCDebbie Woolf Manager

I do like the info on photographic equipment but prefer to see it in a much smaller format

27th Jan 2016 14:43 UTCLarry Maltby Expert

Jolyon,

Thanks for this post, it sounds like a huge job. There are a lot of problems with the current data base.

Is the plan to revise the entire site to a new standard or start now with new rules affecting new up loads only?

27th Jan 2016 14:47 UTCJamison K. Brizendine 🌟 Expert

This is going to sound harsh and direct, but I have very strong and passionate views on this...

My biggest concern when it comes to people uploading photographs is that individuals who uploading photos that aren’t their own, are not putting appropriate citations where needed. I mentioned my views, quite plainly and strongly on this thread (http://www.mindat.org/mesg-6-372075.html). In my opinion, whether or not a photograph belongs to “fair use”, if the uploader fails to provide basic source information (Wikipedia, a postcard, museum, book, article, etc.) it should not be allowed to go the public galleries.

Also, one thing we have to remember is that English is not the first language for many members (I also stressed this before last March [http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,6,350394,350431#msg-350431]).

I would also like to see a sentence or two describing what I am looking at in a photograph, not just a mineral photograph, but all photographs uploaded to Mindat. Photographs that have no text at all should not be approved for general galleries, especially for “other” photographs that show no obvious correlation to minerals or mineral localities. If it is for a Mindat article, a link for that photograph should link to the article as well…

Jolyon, since you provided your own examples, I am providing three more that you uploaded…

First example: http://www.mindat.org/photo-711586.html , Map of Lutetia (18th – century rendition)

There is no description at all for this photo:

A. What am I looking at? Does this connect to an article? Show report? Mindat locality page? To me it is a random photo…and has nothing to do with minerals whatsoever. The lack of text doesn’t help a viewer.

B. Where is Lutetia? Europe? Africa? Asia? Is this city real or mythological?

C. Where did you get this photo? Wikipedia, an atlas, a museum, etc. ? Again, despite being under “fair use” a basic citation should be provided here.

Second example: http://www.mindat.org/photo-720137.html , Canon PowerShot A460

A. There is no text for this photograph, nor is there a link to an article. Why is it included in the public galleries? The photograph clearly has nothing to do with minerals, mineral localities or a show report…it is just a picture of a camera.

B. In this case, the photograph is copyrighted to “Canon”. Yet a citation is not provided in the text, nor the small copyright option. Without proper citation, this is considered plagiarism.

Third example: http://www.mindat.org/photo-717315.html , Diamond from Karowe Mine

A. The first thing I noticed here is the lack of description. What am I looking at here? Why is this diamond considered special?

B. The second thing I noticed is that this photograph clearly belongs to “Lucara Diamond”. Again the photograph was taken from a secondary source, without permission, nor was it properly cited from this source. This is exactly the behavior that I stressed last week. Uploading photographs with no citation (or at least permission) is considered plagiarism and you are taking credit for someone else’s intellectual property.

I am going to stress this again to everyone on this site, please take the extra few minutes to cite sources, especially those that aren’t yours! I strongly believe that the management team needs to buckle down on this issue. If an uploader fails to this then either the photo should be deleted or sent to the user gallery.

I really appreciate the work and effort that goes into Mindat, but by not providing citations where appropriate severely ruins Mindat's and your reputation.

27th Jan 2016 15:05 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

I actually dislike the Photographic spec/equipment info being displayed so prominently and taking up so much space, In my mind it's utterly superfluous to the subject at hand.

Sad and all too telling that we now display more info about the photographic technique/specs, than we have provided any pertinent information by unloaders about the species and it's character, incidence or era of production at these specific locations. Please at least hide it away under a tab, for the benefit of those few who actually care one wit about it.

Also agree, images posted with no information or context provide at all, ought to be "user only".

MRH

BTW, As for postcards or any previously published image over 100 years of age, they are "out of copyright" and free for usage. By all means provide what sources you can for these images, but the vast majority of the old postcard images posted here are "fair game" without any such source information required. They are also very much appreciated by "some" of us.

27th Jan 2016 15:15 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

Quality - is the first mineral listed clearly visible and the primary subject matter of the image. Image is in focus, good color balance, suitable number of pixels, no distracting objects/annotations in image

Accuracy - somewhat subjective, especially for what constitutes a rare mineral. Means of identification should be clearly stated, with no exceptions, regardless of the mineral. Examples:"amethyst - sight ID", "widgiemoothalite - appears as described in reference A", "linarite - not typical, but confirmed by XRD". Supporting references and analytical work should be given, in child photos as appropriate. Perhaps over than for the most common 200-300 minerals, each image should be 'peer reviewed' by a least two approvers prior to wide distribution.

Description - clearly state the color/texture/habit of the primary mineral, secondary minerals if present, and any rocks/matrix plus other defining features or notable observations. Prior owners, significant prior labels, who collected and when, etc.., as appropriate. Supply child photos showing associates, matrix, labels and other supporting information. Descriptions should be brief, to the point, and pertinent. Additional information can be in a mouse-over/pop-up window.

Usefulness - do we already have 1/10/100's of mineral X from locality Y - if so, this new image better be literally breathtaking for widespread use; or, if this is the first image of mineral A from locality B, then we will take it, even if scored lower on some of the other points listed above.

Uploader and/or managers and/or approvers should score each image accordingly, having a quantitative score will then help determine how images will be used within MinDat.

27th Jan 2016 15:47 UTCDaniel J. Evanich 🌟 Expert

I agree with Jeff W. on most points he makes, especially on the inclusion of provenance for mineral specimens collected long ago. This helps a collector at least look in a possible direction for pinpointing the locality of some of the minerals in his/her collection when labels are missing or too general.

27th Jan 2016 15:58 UTCJamison K. Brizendine 🌟 Expert

I’m glad Mark brought up the example with the postcards (another example here could be a mining stock certificate) and other objects under “fair use”. This is what I would l like to see for photographs that are uploaded that fall under this category:

For example, if you upload to the database a one hundred year old postcard of the Tsumeb Mine that is in your personal collection, a simple, “This postcard is in the collection of Mary Sue” would suffice, however if you upload this same postcard that you found on Wikipedia that falls under fair use, I would still like to see, “photo courtesy of Wikipedia”.

I don’t think I am asking much of people to provide citations where needed and it greatly annoys me that people are choosing not to do this and are making excuses for not doing it. This practice is not tolerated in academia, either at the secondary school level or university and it shouldn’t be tolerated on Mindat.

27th Jan 2016 16:17 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

RE: “Lucara Diamond” photo

"Again the photograph was taken from a secondary source, without permission, nor was it properly cited from this source."

These photos were released by their press agency and are therefore free for use. As I recall there was no specific instructions for citing copyright for this, and as it's often unclear in these cases whether the copyright belongs to the press agency or to the company in question it would be unreasonable to just assume that the copyright belongs to Lucara (although it may well do).

I will update the description however

27th Jan 2016 16:19 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Second example: http://www.mindat.org/photo-720137.html , Canon PowerShot A460

A. There is no text for this photograph, nor is there a link to an article. Why is it included in the public galleries?

It isn't in the public galleries. It's listed as "Other" which is not included in the public galleries at all (ie those images that appear on locality pages or mineral pages). To find it in the galleries you have to specifically search beyond the default public areas.

Jolyon

27th Jan 2016 16:40 UTCJamison K. Brizendine 🌟 Expert

Thank you for citing the source for the photograph of the Lucara Diamond.

As for the photograph of the camera, we seem to have two definitions of "Public Galleries". By "Public Galleries" I should have been more specific by referring to the photographs approval status:

27th Jan 2016 16:42 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

One area where context for photos is often lost is when photos are added simply so they can be attached to an article. In this case the photo is often properly in context within the article but is not within the rest of the site. This includes a great deal of the photos I have uploaded for show reports. however these are usually not included in the "main" galleries so are of less importance to me.

ps regarding postcards, etc. it may not be as simple as you suggest.

Sometimes people post online scans of old postcards and then claim the copyright (incorrectly) for them. If we then reuse this image (which we are fully entitled to do) we cannot and should not list the copyright as belonging to the person who scanned it, and it may simply cause us more problems than not to actually list where the image came from. The source of a scan is far less important (in my mind) than the source of a photograph - a scan is simply a mechanical reproduction of an object without any artistic or skill involved in its creation (unless you call cropping and colour balance a skill, which I don't).

So, by all means I think that scans taken from Wikipedia need to acknowledged as such (indeed there are clear guidelines on wikipedia about how to do this), but I do not think scans of postcards, mining certificates etc need to REQUIRE this information.

27th Jan 2016 16:43 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

> As for the photograph of the camera, we seem to have two definitions of "Public Galleries"

What we have there looks like a bug in the photo gallery! Let me investigate that.

Jolyon

27th Jan 2016 17:02 UTCChristian Auer 🌟 Expert

Why is there not the possibility when you upload a pic to add an "analytic identified" button? Then you could add a small text field which method you used.

If you could search then more specific for analysed stuff - this would be great!

27th Jan 2016 17:09 UTCAndrew Debnam 🌟

I think when it comes to photo size dealer or not some restrictions should be put place to keep a level playing field for quality purposes. I see plenty of images of 0.200 mpix which makes close up viewing almost impossible. I agree for non-mineral photos the source info should be included- post card -photo/stock cert in my collection etc.

27th Jan 2016 17:42 UTCMatt Courville

I like Christian's idea of an 'analytic identification button'. From the perspective of someone who is not formally educated in geology, I see things slightly different. Reiner's point about only rare minerals or oddly colored varieties needing further description is valid. On the other hand, this site has to decided whether it is only for trained professionals or for everyone interested. If it is to be for everyone, as it is now, analysis and informed descriptions will always be inevitably lacking.

I like the site as it is. The biggest improvement that could be made in my opinion is the clairity of the system for how an approval manager communicates with the poster of a photograph. Most of the time I need to guess at what is happening and use private messages, because the flagging system always seems to be either glitchy or invisible to me.

I feel as though preferences rather than rules should prevail. If I was politely asked to expand/change any photo with a simple explanation, I would easily comply. Hopefully others would as well

Matt

27th Jan 2016 18:18 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

For those rare species whose identity is in doubt, just clicking an "analysed" button is pretty useless and doesn't tell us much. One would need to know who analysed it and what equipment/methods did they use (hoping it wasn't Guru Rainbow using a dowsing rod)? And what were the numerical results? Was the method adequate for the mineral in question? (Not all methods work with all species.) Would an alternative method yield a better confirmation? Are there alternative explanations for the results obtained? The more info we have, the better we can judge the reliability of the ID. No info = low reliability. :-S

PS: Note that I'm not necessarily talking about high-tech equipment at a university, although that could be necessary for many species. Sometimes just a "Visually identified by Rock Currier with a 10x loupe at the Tucson show 2012" can be sufficient ;-)

27th Jan 2016 18:22 UTCMaggie Wilson Expert

Regarding the copyright concern of old images that no longer fall under copyright - I agree with Jamison that citing the source of the image (eBay, Wikipedia, Sabina field guids) is a common courtesy.

However, even though it has been my intention to do so, I have sometimes forgotten to change the copyright information on the upload input page. Since the field is automatically populated by the last used data i.e. Copyright: © Maggie Wilson, I have discovered that I mistakenly claimed copyright for a 100 year old photo from some mining journal, for example.

I will have to be more vigilant in the future.

27th Jan 2016 19:01 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

I have not yet uploaded photos, but hope to do so. I agree with comments saying that more obvious minerals (that can be visually identified with certainty) should not have tough restrictions, although a "Visually Identified" or "Dealer's Label" statement is fair. For minerals not so obvious, I think it is sensible to require some information about identification, even if only "ID determined by J. Ralph", etc. Most of us will never have our minerals analyzed, and depend upon the expertise, experience and integrity of others.

More information regarding the matrix and/or environment for each mineral would be excellent, if known. I would very much appreciate more information about lesser-known localities, some of which have no information at all about the geology of the site. I hope that we do not restrict photos of common and average mineral specimens to "breathtaking" examples or photos.

Regarding our members and contributors for whom English is not a first language - I would be very willing and happy to proofread and correct photo captions for them.

27th Jan 2016 19:01 UTCMatt Courville

Note to self: 'Guru Rainbow using a dowsing rod' is not a complete test and should be supported with other tests(tu) Alfredo I had a laugh. You might be right on the 'analytic button' idea. I had originally imagined all of the tests in a drop down menu, but with units, uncertainty of the right test, etc.. this might end-up looking like a LIMS system:-S

27th Jan 2016 19:52 UTCFrank Ruehlicke 🌟

Consider adding some additional fill-in boxes to gather information related to how the identification was determined: eg visual identification, physical tests performed with space to list what they were, chemical analysis with space to identify what they were, dealer label with name of dealer, whether an "expert" was involved, etc. While not perfect this type of approach at least provides a consistent way to capture this info and share it with the community. Based on this info and its quality a rating system could be applied to give an indication of how confident we are in the identification. A similar set of fill in boxes could help with the locality info - for example, a check box if the material was self-collected or obtained directly from someone who said they collected it, or locality provided by a dealer with space to name the dealer, etc. Another rating system could be applied to indicate based on that info how confident we are in the locality.

In a perfect world contributors would provide full and complete info that would satisfy everyone's questions about how the identity was established and how good the locality data is. Given our world, let's make it easy for folks to provide the info they have and based on the info they provide we can assess how solid the identity and locality info is. And then take it for what its worth.

27th Jan 2016 19:59 UTCDoug Schonewald

I think that Mindat should be the "Go-To" site for mineral information. It has become that for me. There are times when I worry that Mindat will become a site for the elite; then, when I post an ID question and receive many productive and thought provoking replies, I breath a little easier. There is a place for amateurs and beginners here, and the site should be maintained and run so that is always true. Everyone started somewhere and the more help they get on a site like this the quicker they will become proficient in identification and photography. I never take it as an insult to have a photo listed as "User Only". I use that as a learning experience. Sometimes it is easy to get huffy when you are certain you are right, but then it is up to me to 'prove' I am right. Enough said on that.

I think there are two facets here. 1) Acceptance of photos into the database and 2) Acceptance of a mineral into a locality in the database. They are different beasts under the present criteria.

1) If the ID determination of the photo is done correctly, then that can become one of the the references to accept the mineral into a locality. I think that is done to some degree already, but it seems to be hit-and-miss and needs to be formalized. I believe that there needs to be something to allow admins to review not only the photo quality, but the mineral ID at the same time. Reviewing a large amount of text isn't obtrusive and the managers do a great job, there just isn't anything to look at many times. Admin has enough to do without vetting a bunch of noon-existent information. I think the ID methodology, photo credit, and photo comment sections should be populated or the photo auto-rejects (with a warning). In addition, if I want to see all of the camera, ID, and comments information, I don't want it to cover the photo. I could use this information to review the photo as I read HOW the ID was achieved (OK, I admit to being a novice). Perhaps this information needs to be on another page (or sidebar) that can be viewed without obscuring the photo.Camera information or lighting information should be strictly optional and at the discretion of the poster. At this point it is probably too late to move all the ID references, analytical testing, and comments from the locality pages to the photo section. So, for the sake of everyone, it is probably best to leave it as it is for now.

2) In its present state (assuming we are going to keep things as they are) I think there are way too few mandatory selections to determine how a mineral was identified for input into a locality (and I think this should be done on the photo section anyway). Case in point: Wet Chemical. There is nothing else. You select that option and then you go to another page and fill in the blanks in a text form. I have been guilty of not explaining, in detail, how the 'wet chemical' testing was done and the results. Filling in the analytical field and comments field should be mandatory and the mineral should auto-reject unless the fields have text. In fact, I think the selection box on ID methodology shouldn't even be on the first page but, only on the second. No mineral will be accepted for review without the 2nd page being completed, and will auto-reject (with a warning) if they are not populated.

Cheers

Doug

27th Jan 2016 23:47 UTCEd Clopton 🌟 Expert

My two cents' worth on some of the issues raised:

1. By and large, there should be guidelines as opposed to hard and fast regulations covering most of what has been discussed. It isn't possible to anticipate all eventualities, and the managers need some discretionary wiggle room, for example to approve an outstanding upload that fails on some very minor point that doesn't affect its overall value to the site.

2. Jeff Weissman raised the concept of "usefulness", which I heartily wish more posters would consider. Granted, that is subjective, but the point of the site is not to illustrate every mineral specimen on the planet! Before I upload something, I check the locality to see whether anything comparable is already there. If nothing else, checking ahead of time would prevent duplicate entries of the same specimen if it had been uploaded by a previous owner. If my specimen is not different from or an improvement on what's already there, I skip it and move on to the next. Some time ago a dealer uploaded some three dozen essentially identical pink tourmaline crystals, one at a time, from a single find in Brazil. Is that a useful use of Mindat's resources? It would not be out of line for the manager reviewing a batch like that to say "Which three or four of these would you most like us to approve?"

3. Yes, minimize the space devoted to photographic data. It is of interest--even useful to--a few users, but I'll bet not to very many. And photos with no descriptive caption at all should not be approved--they are not complete.

4. I don't think this has been mentioned, but it would be good to provide an option for upgrading one's own photo with a better one of the same specimen. Now that I am older and wiser and have figured out how to better use my camera, there are several that I would like to do over. The change still should be subject to manager approval, but currently I think is it is a matter of special request and requires some additional manipulation on the part of the manager, who already has too much to do.

Thanks for consulting the community about these issues. I hope you are able to distill some useful guidance from all the different contributions to the discussion.

28th Jan 2016 01:01 UTCDebbie Woolf Manager

Ed, regarding point 4 you raised, you can do this just upload the new photo this automatically generates re-approval as does any edit to a photo and we then check the old against new photo to make sure its the same specimen.

28th Jan 2016 04:07 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Hi

Should rules be tightened?

Maybe – maybe not. If the rules are tightened too much then people may, or will, lose interest in uploading photos. I have often questioned many photographs that have been uploaded but in the end they all contain mineral information (other than those wretched camera photos!! – sorry Jolyon).

Whether a photo is of a great tourmaline or a grain of sand I think that the only relevant information for a photograph is:

• identity (whether known or presumed); and

• location (whether known or presumed).

There are literally thousands of photos on Mindat that we accept as being accurate but are they? Just because someone says a mineral is what it is, or is from locality X doesn’t necessarily mean it is. People make mistakes, dealers make mistakes and often people are just wrong. That is simply the way we are all made – hey even Jolyon makes them … sometimes!!

The same goes for the identity of minerals. If you simply look at one mineral group - Tourmaline – almost anything goes. The group keeps getting bigger as time goes by as a result of scientific discovery/analysis. A single crystal can even be different types of tourmaline! Life was easier when we simply said it was tourmaline (I think I’m with Alfredo on this one) and did not have to worry whether it is now elbaite, foitite, magnesiofoitite, dravite, oxymoron dravite !!!! or whatever, the list goes on.

I believe that the simplest way is to basically keep the current system. Let someone upload a photo, for example of a Dravite, call it that and provide details of where it is from. When it comes to identity – indicate visual id or dealer id unless fully analysed, in which case provide that info. If a manager later questions it, and it is not rebutted, it can be simply renamed by the manager with a note to that effect. When managers review photos let them have a small box to indicate that the identity or locality is questionable. Then leave it at that until further information provides otherwise. A simple box on the upper right or bottom right with a question mark could indicate this. No box – no question. Where a question mark is recorded, it remains there in a box until removed following “proof”. It may mean that a lot of questionable entries will exist but that doesn’t matter at the end of the day.

Trustworthiness

This is a given. As I have indicated above, a simple statement/box could indicate that a specimen has not been confirmed beyond doubt. We have all seen specimens of some mineral or other that we all thought to be one thing and it turns out to be something else. Someone comes along to research on a particular species and end up with something new altogether. That’s the nature of life - science is constantly evolving.

We all want to see a photo of a rare mineral and to have some confidence that that is what we are actually seeing. Again, a simple box with a question mark can indicate some doubt to anyone that views it. I think that most dealers make an effort to correctly identify mineral species – and yes in most cases this will be visual or simply reliance on the “former dealer label” (which is probably worse!). For rare material and let’s face it that includes probably 80% of mineral species, ids are still often based on visual ids, I consider that it is acceptable to include “dealer id”, “collector id’ or “id by the miner” etc.

I don’t believe that insisting on absoluteness is an option. I think it is wrong to place unnecessary additional burdens on photographers/collectors to have to provide evidence (eg XRD) that what they have actually is what they say it is. Even museums get ids wrong all the time. You can go to any museum and find specimens incorrectly labeled either as to identity or locality or both. If someone takes a photo of such a specimen in museum and uploads it to Mindat it may not be questioned, but that doesn’t make it right.

As Jolyon mentioned, it is much harder to prove a locality id, especially when over time the mine has changed its name or expanded its operations and now includes additional mines in the one pit.

Size of photos:

I agree that this is an issue and I believe that all dealers and photographers should be required to provide a minimum size format. With cameras and phones the way they are today and given the fact that Mindat no longer has an upper size limit, I don’t believe that this should be an issue. I suspect that this may have something to do with listings in minFind – maybe.

Copyright messages on photos:

I don’t have a problem with a copyright notice on a photo– I would just restrict the size and position of the notice to the bottom RHS. At least be consistent. Currently they can be anywhere and that is a little annoying.

Should the copyright notice contain advertising?

That would depend on the owner of the image. The image may be owned by the person who took it or the employer. If the employer’s name is used then that would be advertising anyway. Similarly, if the photographer was a dealer and traded under his/her own name then that would be advertising as well. I don’t believe that we should try and ban this. Perhaps the copyright format should simply be limited to name and date. Rob Lavinsky’s photos, for example, just have his business name – and that is advertising – his photos generally do not include the actual photographer unless it’s one by Scovill. Rob’s photos have been a great boon to Mindat, just as those from many other dealers have been and I certainly would not want that to change. Photos from dealers help to keep Mindat up-to-date with what is happening in the mineral world.

I also have no problem with an image that has a copyright notice on it being selected for the photo- of-the-day. There are some absolutely great shots with a copyright notice emblazoned that should have made it to POTD but for this “breach of policy”.

Placing unnecessary (in my view) restrictions on photos just deters people from bothering to upload perfectly good photos of minerals and that’s a shame.

Matrix info:

Dale wrote that “it would be good to encourage more detailed descriptions of the specimens to be added: i.e.: describing the nature of the matrix”. This would be great, and I think the word is “encourage”. A simple box in the identity section could simply request – matrix ID – and if know the uploader could provide details – but don’t make it mandatory and don’t be too hard on the uploader if they fail to distinguish basalt from dolerite or whatever.

ID Proof:

Reiner wrote: “For rare minerals if one does not have definitive proof of ID I think at the very least one should have to explain why you think it is what it is”.

I agree with Reiner and think that is all that is necessary – a brief explanation. If a manager then still believes that it is questionable, then simply attach a box to the photo with a question mark and move on.

If any aspect of the photo is questionable it can simply be raised at any time by a manager with a question mark. Let that result in a message to the uploader or expand the question mark in the commentary under the photo and if further info comes to hand, from the photographer/collector or anyone else, it can be included with the photo and the question mark removed or remain if there is still some doubt.

Yes it may mean that a photo has a questionable status for a long time – maybe – but at least it will be in the system. Once more is known the status will no doubt change over time.

Copyright:

Jamison and Maggie referred to photos not taken by the photographer including from postcards and books etc.

In my opinion every such photo should clearly indicate the source, irrespective of whether it is from an out of copyright source. I think that this is a must, and a common courtesy that should be enforced as an in-house rule.

Number of photos:

Should the number of photos be restricted? Ed Clopton comments that “some time ago a dealer uploaded some three dozen essentially identical pink tourmaline crystals, one at a time, from a single find in Brazil. Is that a useful use of Mindat's resources?” I believe it is. There is no difference in the dealer uploading each one, or once sold, each owner uploading their own photo of each. In which case, the same number of photos would exist anyway. If the dealer has uploaded a great photo then the collector doesn’t need to upload possibly a lesser photo of the same specimen. In years to come (let’s say 100 years) when those specimens have been circulated around the globe, it may prove useful in identifying where the specimens came from, based on visual identification and minIDs!! Especially, if the minID has been attached to the specimen by a collector.

In addition, we encourage collectors to upload photos of their specimens from their collections. If someone has 100 or more natrolites from a given locality, I see no problem in all being available on Mindat. Why only the best, or two best? To me it is better to see as many as possible. Ed, you may feel that it is wrong for a dealer to upload tens of photos of one mineral from a particular locality, and I can understand your reasoning, but this is a database resource and I consider the more the merrier. If you use minID for cataloging purposes then you will end up with many of the same kind from the same locality and the information is preserved for future collectors and for study.

Jolyon has indicated that we have minIDs that can cater for a billion or so specimens or more. Once we reach that number, maybe then we can worry about the numbers !! Won’t be a problem in our lifetimes !!

Updating photos:

Jeff, it is really easy to replace a photo of a specimen to a better photo, just not so easy to remove a specimen altogether.

Mindat Manual

Perhaps the best place for changes to be made is to update the Mindat Manual on a regular basis so as to provide better guidance for uploading information (both photographs, localities, articles) and to outline “rules” more diagrammatically.

Cheers for now

Keith

28th Jan 2016 04:40 UTCMatthew Stanley

I am not a geologist and never will be. I do love minerals, and I learned most of what I know right here. I have my collection here online with (sometimes really bad) photos for each one. It is for me. Not the public. If some of my photos get into the public galleries, great! I feel like I've contributed. But in the end, they are for me. The following are my suggestions.

1. Jeff Weissman has a great idea. Keep all the information optional, but prompt for it, and then score the photo based on it, and only make public those that hit a certain score. Ask the user to input how it was ID'd. Ask the user for a source of the photo. Ask the user for previous owners. Ask the user for X, Y, and Z. Assign a score to each, score the quality of the photo, and score based on the prevalence of already existing photos of that species from that locality (diminishing returns). If a user chooses not to enter the data into certain scored fields, the photo would not score high enough to make it into the public galleries.

2. If I had my way, only photos taken by the owner of the specimen (or by the person/user visiting a locality) would be allowed in public galleries. Relegate other photos (postcards, wikipedia, etc.) to another status where they can be used for articles, but not in the "mineral" database.

3. I am of a mixed mind on the copyright/dealer info on the photo as I would like to start my own business, and this seems like a great way to advertise. Regardless of the photo, the copyright will still be included in the text/description area, so it seems moot to me; but again, I may be biased as a future user of such technique.

4. I also agree with Matt Courville. If a photo is lacking, a simple communication from an approver is all I would need to fix the phtoto or add the required information. Communication is key.

5. Finally, on photo size, I am all for a minimum file size or dimension requirement.

Thank you for this opportunity to be heard.

28th Jan 2016 07:19 UTCDale Foster Manager

Keith Compton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Matrix info:

Dale wrote that “it would be good to encourage more detailed descriptions of the specimens to be added: i.e.: describing the nature of the matrix”. This would be great, and I think the word is “encourage”. A simple box in the identity section could simply request – matrix ID – and if know the uploader could provide details – but don’t make it mandatory and don’t be too hard on the uploader if they fail to distinguish basalt from dolerite or whatever.

Just an extra comment on this one, I am not implying it should be a chapter and verse geological classification of matrix types.

However to add a sentence to give a brief overview of the rock type perhaps along the lines of 'the crystals of whateveritisite are sitting within a matrix of a dark, basic igneous, medium crystalline rock' would suffice to give another collector visiting the site a heads up on the sort of material to look for.

Obviously if more is known about the material share that info because it adds relevance.

28th Jan 2016 07:31 UTCDale Foster Manager

As to the number of photos of material from a site as mentioned by Ed and Keith.

I lean towards Keith's perspective.

It would be very easy to just show the best specimens form a locality and I have no issue with photos of the best being uploaded.

However to balance the point, I see one of the reasons for Mindat as a means to encourage new blood into mineral collecting - hopefully to get at least some of these newcomers to go field collecting as well as just buying specimens.

From this latter perspective I believe it is fully worthwhile showing the lower grade examples as when collecting in the field you cannot automatically expect to find the top grade specimens - particularly if you are collecting from the dumps of long abandoned mines which have been looked over for years.

In that respect I consider it to be totally valid to show the newcomer the quality of material that is likely to be found if they visit a site now, if that means lots of extra photos, so be it.

Now it is possible for some really good finds to be made, I have made some of those myself, but it should be pointed out these tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

28th Jan 2016 08:36 UTCChristian Auer 🌟 Expert

Alfredo, it seems you didn`t read my whole answer. I asked to add an "analysed button" when you upload a pic AND a small text field where you can give more infos about the method.

I just see another problem, a problem caused by many collectors including me. You have a certain species analysed by an expert and label 20 others too!

This can be true but quite often its absolutely wrong. I have seen already an anglesite labeled with analysed by XRD and also a beginner could see it was cerussite.

Many years ago I swapped a lot of self collected micros with others around the world. Now that I have the possibility to do at least EDS on such specimen I recieved, how many would you guess were wrong?

The failure rate at really rare species is about every 4th! This means the chemistry does absolutely not fit to the labeled species.

I guess this is also the case when you buy a rare species without ID of exact this specimen you buy. How can you be sure this will not happen? Well that`s another and most times expensive story.

So you add now such a purchased rare species without ID here on mindat.

How many hidden ducks (as we say here in Austria) do we have here on mindat? I`m sure a lot.

So I still think when you have a button "analysed" when you upload a pic and you use it just when you have the ID papers in front of you this would be a good idea.

28th Jan 2016 13:47 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

Christian, there is always this problem with analytical testing.

When we test a specimen we usually remove a small piece off the back, or off a second rate specimen and crush it or mount it to test, so it's effectively destroyed; unless you photograph it first you don't usually post a picture to Mindat. Then we assume that everything we collected from this site that looks vaguely similar is exactly the same, plus everything anyone else has collected from the site gets labelled with the same analytical result. It does require a bit of discretion and reality-checking, as you cannot analyse every tiny crystal (or at least not keep it too).

28th Jan 2016 13:50 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

> I actually dislike the Photographic spec/equipment info being displayed so prominently and taking up so much space,

I have now added the option to hide this. If you go to the 'More' menu and click 'Device Settings' you can turn this off.

Jolyon

28th Jan 2016 14:04 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Jolyon & Katya Ralph Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > As for the photograph of the camera, we seem to

> have two definitions of "Public Galleries"

>

>

> What we have there looks like a bug in the photo

> gallery! Let me investigate that.

>

> Jolyon

Now fixed!

28th Jan 2016 14:51 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Jamison K. Brizendine Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I really appreciate the work and effort that goes

> into Mindat, but by not providing citations where

> appropriate severely ruins Mindat's and your

> reputation.

Agreed - and that's the minimum requirement. I'd go further and suggest that the Mindat database should only consist of photographs the reproduction rights for which are owned, directly or indirectly, by the poster. Even where copyright free, in almost all cases the photographer can have no certain knowledge of the specimen but only of some image (and write-up) he chooses to copy. (Sorry to be a party-pooper :-( ).

Photos of old maps etc. If the map is an original, say so. If the 'map' is a reproduction photoed/scanned from some book, say so, giving source.

Agree also that if the details of photography are given, these should be optional and entirely subordinate in layout to a good and concise write up of the specimen.

I have a private database of about 2,000 (and growing) pics of gem minerals either cut, rough, synthetic or interesting fake (doublets etc). I'd guess that maybe 25 % of those would be of interest (with a concise writeup) to quite a few Mindat members. I don't upload these because, for almost all, I either have no or else unsatisfactory locality details. Fair enough and no argument. But why then allow into the database images of specimens that the uploader has never even examined and whose 'knowledge' of such is usually entirely second-hand - including any write-up details of the locality? :-/

Keep it pure, bro's.

28th Jan 2016 14:55 UTCJamison K. Brizendine 🌟 Expert

Is this bug still present? :-S...Now all "other" photos say "User Gallery", I would assume that these camera photos would have been sent to the "User Gallery Only".

28th Jan 2016 15:49 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

AS a follow-up to my comments. Having a score for each photo can help in assessing the usefulness of the photo. It is another discussion entirely determining to what use the photo should be put to, once that score is in hand. As others have pointed out, there are also some subjective factors as well - hence the use of managers and moderators in the final selection process.

28th Jan 2016 15:57 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

Getting back to the basic questions of this thread "Photo Upload Rules", I would like to present the topics along with the respective current Mindat rules for clarification.

A) Is naming the base of identification required for the approval of all mineral photos?

Or should this information be only provided in certain cases, or on request?

Example: If somebody says "identified by dealer/collection label" or, in the case a mineral of another collector is photographed, "method of ID not specified by owner of specimen", the photo would be approved, because we can now assess the reliability of the mineral species information.

Current Mindat Rule: Naming the method of ID is required for rare specimens. It is at the discretion of the expert or manager to decide what is rare.

This question is about whether we should have such a rule or not and the criteria to be used. The question is not about finding a method to enter such information (drop down menues, buttons, etc.), which will have to be adressed, of course.

B) Is a description of the specimen required for the approval of all mineral photos?

The description must be about the properties specimen on the photo, naming the photo setup or the owner or the photographer does not count.

Example: "A small amethyst I got as a gift from my aunt" could be called a valid description (amethyst is a set of properties), whereas "Konica 55mm F8" all by itself is clearly not, because it has nothing to do with the specimen.

Current Mindat Rule: Descriptions are mandatory only when more than one species is visible. Then the photographer is asked to help distinguishing the individual species ("blue specks of X on a massive white matrix of Y").

Photos of specimen with a single rare species nevertheless require a description because of rule A: it must name the method of ID.

C) Should mineral photos with copyright notices on them be approved?

Current Mindat Rule: Copyright notices on photos are permitted.

Advertisements are forbidden, and photos with disproportionally large text on them will be sent to the user gallery.

D) Should there be a minimum size for photos to be approved?

Current Mindat Rule: There is no strict rule. Images less than 0.5 megapixels (about 800x640 pixels) may be rejected. Images in galleries can be displayed sorted by size, with biggest images first.

E) If any of the rules listed above would be in force, how should old photos be treated?

28th Jan 2016 17:23 UTCHelen Wilkinson

I'd like to see some indication of why people think their specimens are from a particular location. I think we have way too many mislocated pieces and no way to make a sensible judgement about how reliable the info given actually is for locations we are unfamiliar with

Eg I dont think any of the 3 quartz photographs featured as Nentsberry Haggs Mine are actually from there although quartz does occur there.

29th Jan 2016 00:47 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

Excellent point Helen, and it is a real problem, I probably spend more time querying locations than identifications! And it's much harder to prove. So yes we should ask for that information: self-collected, other collector, dealer, museum, etc.

29th Jan 2016 02:46 UTCDoug Daniels

Looking at the POTD for 28 Jan 2016, I guess there can be a reason for text on a photo (faces on a complex pyrite crystal identified).

29th Jan 2016 04:25 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

Doug Daniels Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Looking at the POTD for 28 Jan 2016, I guess there

> can be a reason for text on a photo (faces on a

> complex pyrite crystal identified).

Such annotations are of great educational value and always welcome, they are not copyright notices and the like.

Here you can tell somebody wants to help and has the viewer in mind.

The POTD is one of 3 photos:

- The first shows just the crystal, so the photo can be used elsewhere as an example for a specimen from that locality

- the second has annotation + legend, if the legend was in the caption, one would have to jump back and forth to check what is what.

- the third is a different view of the specimen.

29th Jan 2016 17:10 UTCPeter Tarassoff Expert

Hi all,

I don't have anything to add about mineral photo uploads. A lot of good suggestions have been posted. The most important thing is quality - quality of photos, and quality of accompanying information.

On a related topic, I think that some tightening of rules regarding locality photos might be in order. A couple of examples come to mind: cases where someone has apparently taken X photos of a locality, and uploaded all X photos, regardless of whether they all really add anything; a so-called locality photo of someone's boots standing on the floor of what I presume is an adit (apologies to the author). And it would be nice to see more photos showing some of the geological features of a locality related to the mineral occurrences.

Peter

30th Jan 2016 16:25 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

I have to agree with Reiner and disagree with Amir. Photos have to have a description unless they are of a free-floating crystal with a size specified. The complaint forms we have specify that we expect the poster to tell us what is the object of interest in the field of view when they haven't. In some cases, such as dominant crystal, on or off matrix, there is no ambiguity. There are far too many photos at Mindat that have two or more salient minerals in the field of view and for which there is only a size specified. Even the most rudimentary directions would be preferable to nothing. The "white crust on the right is amirite while the white crust on the left is "mielkeite" would at least be helpful. Just substitute any two common minerals into the same description. We might pride ourselves in being able to distinguish white rhombohedral calcite from white rhombohedral dolomite in a photograph, but not everyone who comes to Mindat can tell them apart. The knowledge of the poster has to be in the caption. If there are people who who have English as a second language or no English at all, I still think a drop down menu would help them (and Mindat) immensely. The requirment would only be able to be enforced on new photos. BTW Why was the offending dioptase photo put into the sitewide gallery rather than user only gallery? When I'm in editing of photos mode, I frequently deLavinskyize photos as well as add to the description, even for common species.

30th Jan 2016 17:02 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

Van King Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have to agree with Reiner and disagree with

> Amir.

Interesting.

I didn't state an opinion. :-S

30th Jan 2016 17:42 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

One thing to remember about photos that may not seem to add value is that they may have some important context in an article here on mindat that you haven't seen.

One thing I will add *sometime* soon is a link back to articles that use a particular photo, so you can see where it is used. It's not an easy thing to add which is why I haven't done it so far.

Jolyon

30th Jan 2016 17:46 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Also...

I want to thank everyone for their comments. It is an excellent addition to the debate on what to do and I will come back with more comments myself once I am back from Tucson, however right now I am preparing everything to leave so cannot really give this my full attention.

Jolyon

3rd Feb 2016 15:22 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

Actually, it was pointed out to me that I am actually in rather close agreement with Amir. The bottom line is, Mindat expects people to describe the minerals present in their photos. Size is important, but the color should be mentioned even if it seems redundant. The fact of the species shown as crystals, even if redundant is easy to do. "White dolomite crystals on calcite matrix" may be enough, except it leaves an ambiguity about which mineral is the calcite if there are several minerals in the "matrix". For a rare mineral, which part of the specimen is very important, as well as naming as many of the visible species in the photo as possible/practicable. I don't think it is necessary to list decimal places for millimetric crystals, but some like that degree of precision. More than likely, a reasonably useful description could be made in about 20 words. Doesn't seem like much of a burden.

14th Jan 2018 18:49 UTCJason Evans

The descriptions are important but more important to me is being able to see what a specimen from a particular locality look like in the field, as collected, the entire specimen not just a close up of the crystals. so many photos are done with microscopes and its incredible the quality that can be achieved, I certainly have no objections to micro photos, I hope one day I can take photos as good as them. I also understand that many minerals have crystals so small that they can only be appreciated with magnification but it doesn't really help someone who might want to collect at a particular location if they doint want to be lugging a microscope about with them! or if someone may be considering purchasing a specimen, they might look it up on Mindat first, thats what I usually do, just to see if that particular mineral does occur at the location stated and then to see if they match visually, now when I see a magnified photo, even though i know its magnified i know that the specimen i get ill not look like that. For example one of my most recent additions, juansilvaite, the seller had some great photos which oi knew were magnified but I dint know exactly how much magnification was used, later found out it was about 150-200X my microscope only has 20x magnifiaction so i was not able to see it like the photos showed. So I would like to see photos of the whole specimen, I don't think that is to much to ask. Also i really wish that when people upload pictures with additional minerals present, if they know what they are can they please include that info.

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 23, 2024 14:35:04

Go to top of page