[BCUG Info] About This Area...

[[Geoff Slocock]]

It started with the tutorials for linking images from Flickr and Photobucket. Other instances of tutorials and informational points that get linked back to a lot then started to happen. I found, too, that in some responses I make I say whole paragraphs that can be easily and usefully repeated by using MyCode short cuts.

For example there is the short cut [flickr]

Quote:If you use Flickr or Photobucket and want to display images from those sites, then here is a Guide.

The number of possible applications keeps on growing. I remember for example writing a response about how some cropping would improve a particular image; I think that was about endeavouring to bring on a Rule of Thirds interpretation in the mind's eye. But new members may never have met that way of looking at composition before. And it can be both inconvenient and sound patronising to write long explanatory pieces in a response. So this is another possibility for either a bit of "boiler plating" or even having some boiler plate links that refer back to an article placed in here.

So some stock articles on composition can be useful areas to mass produce some semi automated responses and links. Over exposure (or possible over exposure) is another such area; and this would need another thread prefix, in addition to the two already in use in here of [BCUG Tutorial] and [Composition Tutorial/ Discussion]. These are not meant to be didactic pearls of wisdom either, but more like reasoned discussions. So it could be possible to improve the quality of critiquing responses which can often be written quickly and briefly and still lead to some ambiguity or doubt in the mind of the person on the receiving end.

So I am finding that the scope for stuff placed in here keeps growing. Also this should not be seen as being my particular or unique territory, anyone can respond to or create posts or articles in here, too. The only essential rule about this is what I might call the Wikipedia way of doing things which is to say that articles should be authoritative and balanced by way of peer review.

Peer review, I should say happens in posts and responses already. An earlier viewpoint can be respectfully disagreed with and a slightly different view presented, whilst acknowledging the force of the earlier view expressed.