SUPPORT US. If mindat.org is important to you, click here to donate to our Fall 2019 fundraiser!
Log InRegister
Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsBooks & Magazines
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
Keyword(s):
 
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice Settings
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryMineral Photography

GeneralOne Million Images Posted on MinDat

19th Sep 2019 22:48 BSTJeff Weissman Expert

I am surprised no one noticed this before. Sometime on Sept. 15th the millionth photoID was assigned to an image posted by Rob Lavinsky, who certainly deserves the honor as he is responsible for an amazing 16.6% of all images posted to MinDat, far exceeding any other single source of photos.

I wonder how long it will be until 2 million or even 10 million images are posted?


20th Sep 2019 00:14 BSTMatt Courville

From my understanding Timothy Greenland has been doing a lot of Rob Lavinsky's photo uploading, so he also deserves a shout out for all his hard work!

We might get to 2 million soon with my 500 or so massive quartz photos I still need to post...;) ;)

20th Sep 2019 13:23 BSTDebbie Woolf Manager

Timothy Blackwood but I'm not sure Tim is still doing this. I've sent him a message for an update.

20th Sep 2019 12:36 BSTTony Peterson Expert

I'm going to be in a minority here but.......the caption for this specimen, which looks pretty scruffy to me, is an advertisement. Numerous child photos, with the specimen rotated a few degrees, to no apparent purpose. And it's at low resolution, so zooming in reveals nothing.

I admire Lavinsky's tremendous specimens (well, not this one), it's great to see so many pictures of fine minerals. His photos were vital to getting this site started, and attracting eyeballs, including mine. But they are like fuzzy portraits. A quick peek, and you've seen it all.

It's almost 2020. Can we please get captions that give information, instead of patterned on Louis Vuitton ads? Is it not possible for the Lavinsky photo factory to upload some hi-res pics? Please?

20th Sep 2019 13:48 BSTDavid Von Bargen Manager

If we relied on having good captions for our photographs, we might be able to squeeze 20,000 photos on the site.

20th Sep 2019 12:58 BSTEd Clopton Expert

And as always, before uploading, check to see whether the photo--each one!--you are considering for upload would add something to the coverage of that species at that locality:  is it a better photo, better specimen, or somehow new & different from what's already there?  If not, think again about uploading it.

Tony and I are a minority of at least 2.  I, too, appreciate Rob Lavinsky's generous and long-term support of Mindat, and I have been following his auctions and occasionally doing business with him since before Mindat came to be, but I don't think this guideline, or Tony Peterson's requests, are unreasonable.

21st Sep 2019 16:59 BSTJolyon Ralph Founder

As long as the important information fields are filled in I have no problem with the quality of descriptions in this case. Generally the more significant the specimen the more detail we would hope to see in the description. This is a nice specimen but i think everyone will agree it's nothing that warrants special attention. 

22nd Sep 2019 11:11 BSTŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

Wow - that's a score!

I must say I agree with the idea of mainly uploading photos of minerals that either have none or minor photographic representation. I sometimes follow this idea, as shown by my very recent photo of olgite, also very recent re-corrected photo of labyrinthite, or photos of species like silhydrite.

Personally, I do not like a 1000000th photo of quartz - massive or not - but the question is if we can or should block people to upload such photos.

22nd Sep 2019 13:28 BSTHarold Moritz Expert

Mindat isnt just about minerals, but also about localities, and there are far more of those than mineral species, so more photos of quartz are needed if they document different localities.  I had noticed that the millionth photo was coming soon, glad someone pointed out the one. It may be mundane, but mindat is a database, not a beauty contest. This is quite a milestone.

22nd Sep 2019 23:02 BSTRalph Bottrill Manager

It’s quite a nice specimen and the description is ok though a bit flowery. But I’m inclined to agree with others here that to have 10 images of one specimen is an advertisement more than a scientific contribution. Luke and Harold are correct, it’s sad to see locations with lots of rare minerals but few images of any. We can of course flag mundane photos as user only, but Robs are added automatically, so a nuisance to change. We could request just a couple good photos, unless supplementary photos show specific details, but if we have capacity and the extras don’t clog up galleries I guess it’s not a big problem. I’m sure Jolyon could renumber photos if we really wanted something unique for the millionth photo. 

25th Sep 2019 23:04 BSTMatt Courville

Apologies to both Timothy Greenland  and Timothy Blackwood - the  messages I was attempting to retrieve on the subject were beyond the mindat history cut-off.  The names do have an  similarity, ripe for mixing-up.

No worries, I don't actually plan on hundred of massive quartz;)

In my own experience, a simple polite private message (from the approvers) explaining the philosophy on what and how to post in order to actually give proper value to mindat helped me years ago.  It may seem like criticism, but it is only positively constructive, and I would even suggest managers have a template they can pop-into a message each time there is a fuzzy photo, or an ultra common, over-posted type at any given site.

I'd guess that most new posters, given the chance to understand the reasoning, would begin asking advice on how to improve photos instead of leaving mindat altogether.  Kind communication is key I believe:)


 
Mineral and/or Locality  
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Public Relations by Blytheweigh.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2019, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us Current server date and time: October 16, 2019 11:17:53
Go to top of page