Image Editing Guidance - Poor Quality Images Being Re-Uploaded

[vivigamer]

Hello,

I've already made note of this issue before but it is still happening - https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,12144.0.html

I am not just referring to PS1 titles either. I recently added a bunch of sports titles with clear stock images, yet soon after I find they have been replaced by poorly taken images from eBay. A lot of the time this is often justified by hologram stickers over the games sealed packaging... All I see is it brings the quality and effort I put into the site down and it is frustrating.

I can understand if the photos have more details but if they're going to replace a clear stock image it needs to be clear also, meaning:
- Not taken at a poor angle.
- Not taken with light reflecting on the packaging, ruining the image.
- Not taken in a low light making it unclear.

When I use images for the site I do make effort to make them presentable, I put them into photoshop, crop and resize where needed. So it is annoying to see that work put aside to see a shoddy image in its place.

Like everyone contributing, I want the site to be a great resource and look presentable. But there are times I am now hesistant to work on the site as i expect the details to soon be replaced by less quality material. I know the Admin team here works hard and I am glad there are people who check all details to be approved to stop any ol' junk appearing on here but this is something I feel needs a closer look upon.

I see on the topic about Styke Gudies this is to be addressed next, so I wanted to put this forward for consideration:
https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,10837.15.html

[dhaabi]

When discussing database items, link to which items you're referring to. 249568 is one item you're concerned about. The original submitted stock art looked something like this.

The above item has acceptable quality and adds important information lacking from the stock art. If you are making such efforts for incorrect stock art, then you may as well do the same for actual art—but that is your prerogative.

For the EA sports titles in particular, the label is not outside of sealed copies. Instead, the label is directly placed on the keepcase itself. This is why one may find preowned games with EA labels, because the case has been swapped.

There was some consensus that image editing can be be made in certain specific circumstances, but that allowance is not yet formally in effect or detailed with guidelines. But, a post has been reserved in the Advance Style Guide for those rules.

[tripredacus]

More information is needed before that placeholder post in the Adv Guide can be done. Including the specific examples of PS1 arts before and after that used to be in that other thread. In addition to any sort of instructions on how to do those changes and with what programs. I personally use Fireworks MX 2004, which is likely to be unique among database contributors or perhaps even site users, so information relating to that is likely to be not viable here.

In regards to art being replaced, the priority list in the Images post still stands either way. But any time a stock image gets replaced by an actual representation, that doesn't mean that the new image cannot be replaced. It just has to be better quality. I want to make clear that just because a DB Mod or other staff replaces a picture doesn't mean that the particular image is set in stone. So in the example posted, the current art is better than the stock art, but the current art isn't as good as it can be. If you want the art to be better, you need to contribute the better art. It doesn't do any good to demand others find/make the better art.

[vivigamer]

The problem is I do offer better representations yet it is denied or instantly replaced by a shoddy image as mentioned before. I can find countless examples of this:
https://vgcollect.com/item/249267 - Light in the Image
https://vgcollect.com/item/244393 - Poor Lighting
https://vgcollect.com/item/231970 - Poor angle/framing

I'm all for getting authentic images, but not at the expense of quality - Especially if it comes to a peelable sticker or a photo taking priority because the item is sealed.

When discussing database items, link to which items you're referring to. 249568 is one item you're concerned about. The original submitted stock art looked something like this.

The above item has acceptable quality and adds important information lacking from the stock art. If you are making such efforts for incorrect stock art, then you may as well do the same for actual art—but that is your prerogative.

The image I posted for that listed wasn't Provisional but of the items packaging as is. Your image you have taken/retrieved has an extra Hologram, but the lighting reflection and angle is poor. Where as my image was a clear depiction of the front cover. i don't mind if there is an image which replaces the one I offered aslong as the quality isn't diminished.

[dhaabi]

https://vgcollect.com/item/244393 - Poor Lighting

I'm all for getting authentic images, but not at the expense of quality - Especially if it comes to a peelable sticker or a photo taking priority because the item is sealed.

If I remember correctly as your submission for this item was about a week ago or perhaps even longer, you attempted to replace the front art for 244393 with incorrect, outdated stock art. It looked something like this. The stock art has an English ESRB rating which doesn't exist, whereas the actual item has an English/French rating. This was explained in the admin comments when your edit was rejected. If you can offer higher quality art that is correct, it will be approved.

If it helps makes sense, submitted art is for a physical product and not the cover design. So, if that product includes labels or some other exterior additional information, an image featuring those details is more accurate.

[tripredacus]

I'm all for getting authentic images, but not at the expense of quality - Especially if it comes to a peelable sticker or a photo taking priority because the item is sealed.

Some sites have solved this issue by allowing for user images. Basically images that a user would upload that would only appear to the user when viewing an item in their collection and would never show up for anyone else viewing a collection or using search/browse.

Then again, sometimes a bad image on the site may make people want to get the item in order to get a better picture or scan to use. I had done this in the past and still think about trying to find this particular game to do that.
https://vgcollect.com/item/173175
Which I'm sure we can all agree that entry has a terrible picture, but it is the best quality picture while showing the specific item that is currently online. Of course, this is an extremely rare variant and not a common release.

[dhaabi]

Then again, sometimes a bad image on the site may make people want to get the item in order to get a better picture or scan to use. I had done this in the past and still think about trying to find this particular game to do that.

This has been my exact thought process regarding image quality. For items I personally own, I've scanned plenty of quality images to replace poor or incorrect art because I don't want that representing my collection.

[vivigamer]

The problem is that the images which are being replaced aren't of better quality but justified because they feature stickers/holograms. The Madden one I mentioned wasn't a photo from a personal collection, it was taken from eBay:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/166185177403?hash=item26b168913b:g:qx8AAOSwoF1kd1Iq&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4LliXnm958Oh5MaqqE12MoHBD8%2BIN6%2FpeAcpCcJXr91kfBZNd3K%2FBSo9fJ3%2FalnTBvRwR83GHWY9O2jx%2BW8Jv%2FjsmYy20Cfd8AaWmXqkws8GJPwU0pk0HgboOeae3IqUfKxiPPo86nRFaBRV1QlyKY2Ll4knd2Pm7au%2FVOht1zLTjIBUcpJA3nJrnnvWgkIhywFcGvSqKs8KuJHlZlCKURcqWGp5iNox90QXNGKEUuuYfVgrWSMwfJo33kEjFfBCtwGoHINA9AgnH4q8YauVQ0TvPz4kz%2BesvxF7qpnK%2Bmv%2F%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR4qOuLCpYg

I don't mind if there is an image which replaces the one I offered aslong as the quality isn't diminished.

[dhaabi]

The problem is that the images which are being replaced aren't of better quality but justified because they feature stickers/holograms. The Madden one I mentioned wasn't a photo from a personal collection, it was taken from eBay

Anyone can submit an entry, so long as that item is relevant to what the database tracks. If that weren't the case, then the database population would be approximately halved. The same goes that anyone can also supply information to any existing entry.

Neither you nor I own 249267 as part of our collections—in fact, nobody currently does. You still submitted the entry with an accompanying image for it, though, just as I replaced that image with a more accurate one. The existing art is more desirable, which the style guide mentions in in the Item Images post.

We prioritize the best quality image for each slot, however if a better quality image is submitted that is a tier below the existing image (even if the existing image is poor or lesser quality) it will be rejected.

1. Sealed
2. Not sealed but complete
3. Not sealed but missing labels and/or obi strip
4. Any picture of the physical item
5. Post release stock photo
6. Pre-release stock photo

We are going in circles, and it is clear that you are firm in your opinion, which is fine. As has been mentioned, we know that the quality of the art could be better for certain images, but at times they are most representative of the item such as with the aforementioned entry. We can only hope that perhaps someday a feature such as the one tripredacus mentioned before is built.

[tripredacus]

So what is it that you are asking for here? To get other people to find/make the better art to put onto entries? Are you not willing to do it yourself?

Just to prove a point, I went and found better pictures and uploaded them
https://vgcollect.com/item/249267

The images were from here: https://ebay.co.uk/itm/404327980064

And you can do this too if you want to make pictures look nicer on entries.

The problem is that the images which are being replaced aren't of better quality but justified because they feature stickers/holograms. The Madden one I mentioned wasn't a photo from a personal collection, it was taken from eBay:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/166185177403?hash=item26b168913b:g:qx8AAOSwoF1kd1Iq&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4LliXnm958Oh5MaqqE12MoHBD8%2BIN6%2FpeAcpCcJXr91kfBZNd3K%2FBSo9fJ3%2FalnTBvRwR83GHWY9O2jx%2BW8Jv%2FjsmYy20Cfd8AaWmXqkws8GJPwU0pk0HgboOeae3IqUfKxiPPo86nRFaBRV1QlyKY2Ll4knd2Pm7au%2FVOht1zLTjIBUcpJA3nJrnnvWgkIhywFcGvSqKs8KuJHlZlCKURcqWGp5iNox90QXNGKEUuuYfVgrWSMwfJo33kEjFfBCtwGoHINA9AgnH4q8YauVQ0TvPz4kz%2BesvxF7qpnK%2Bmv%2F%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR4qOuLCpYg

I don't mind if there is an image which replaces the one I offered aslong as the quality isn't diminished.

[nathan776]

I'm very much against the use of Stock Images in general. While a lot of the time it may seem beneficial to have a more quality image, I feel like it hinders users ability to identify variants. Even small details can make a significant difference.

A given example, While the image on https://vgcollect.com/item/165721 may not be the best - I can identify a separate variant being https://www.ebay.com/itm/394692485055?epid=5045315743
Users have been given the option to inspect the image and create a new listing if it does not match.

I also have seen a lot of instances where Stock Photos have been used to represent an image and there is enough of a discrepancy for somebody to create another listing which is a real pain when you are trying to add to specific categories. (Luckily with the PS2 the games are relatively more easy to find )

[jason]

Looking into potentially adding stock photo field as a new image entry category. Then it would be possible for people to choose in the settings which way they prefer to view the site.

Thoughts?

[sworddude]

Looking into potentially adding stock photo field as a new image entry category. Then it would be possible for people to choose in the settings which way they prefer to view the site.

Thoughts?

I think that would be sweet, than ye please both parties.

and if only 1 of each is available it will automaticly go the only option left.

If people really want to be purists with a bit more detail they have said option. and otherwise just nice quality stock image that lacks said small logo etc.

[dhaabi]

Looking into potentially adding stock photo field as a new image entry category. Then it would be possible for people to choose in the settings which way they prefer to view the site.

If people really want to be purists with a bit more detail they have said option. and otherwise just nice quality stock image that lacks said small logo etc.

I think you mean that those who want the ability to prioritize stock art will have the option if the feature is designed. VGC has been a site grounded in outlining item variation for most of its time, so implying otherwise doesn't make sense. Actual art will always take precedence as the default field. If we allow stock art by some capacity, it will be an opt-in feature for members to choose and not be the default setting.

[sworddude]

Looking into potentially adding stock photo field as a new image entry category. Then it would be possible for people to choose in the settings which way they prefer to view the site.

If people really want to be purists with a bit more detail they have said option. and otherwise just nice quality stock image that lacks said small logo etc.

I think you mean that those who want the ability to prioritize stock art will have the option if the feature is designed. VGC has been a site grounded in outlining item variation for most of its time, so implying otherwise doesn't make sense. Actual art will always take precedence as the default field. If we allow stock art by some capacity, it will be an opt-in feature for members to choose and not be the default setting.

as long as there is an option I don't care which way is the default.