Mark images as CGI

CGIs (computer generated images) are often large and of course of high “quality”, so not many members replace them with their own but having images from real objects should be preferred in my opinion, they can also sometimes differ from the final product. 

Can we get the ability to mark images as CGIs or drawings (maybe with a check box)? So they can get flagged again and send to member's Contribute pages. This could also be useful for large images of bad quality items that are also not appearing in the contribute section.

Yes, as a referee, I would like to have an option to manually mark any photo and add it to contribution list as “to be replaced”. For the moment, this is done automatically only for small images. Should be also for big but not so good photos.  Bad picture is much better than nothing, but of course, it could be nice to put it on the list of contribution and replaced by better one.

Those with down votes please add your counterpoints, because I couldn't come up with any relevant ones.

The guidelines are black and white:  Drawings and computer-generated images should only be used when no photograph is available. Just seems like a no brainer that we should be able to easily tell if something in our collection can replace those in the catalog.

While I understand the sentiment behind wanting to flag computer-generated images (CGIs) and drawings for replacement, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion for several reasons:

Difficulty in Identifying CGIs: It is often very difficult to distinguish between high-quality CGIs and actual photographs, especially if the images are well-made. This could lead to unnecessary disputes and inconsistencies, particularly if some referees mark images as CGIs while others don’t.

Increased Workload for Referees: Adding a manual process to mark images as CGIs or "to be replaced" would substantially increase the workload for referees, who are already managing a significant volume of contributions and catalog updates. The additional administrative burden could divert focus from improving more essential aspects of the catalog.

Potential for Abuse or Disagreements: Some users may incorrectly label images due to subjective judgment, leading to disagreements or incorrect removal of valid images. This could deter contributors who have made an effort to provide images, even if they are CGIs.

Risk of Missing Important Replacements: By adding all flagged images (including those that are large or of reasonable quality) to the “Contribute” section, we may end up cluttering the list and missing genuine opportunities to replace low-quality, small, or outdated images.

I believe the current system, which prioritizes replacing low-quality or small images automatically, strikes a reasonable balance. Instead of focusing on marking CGIs, I suggest that we continue encouraging members to upload real photos when available while being mindful of the contributions that CGIs can make in cases where photographs are missing.

I would prefer to grant this option only for referees, not to all users. If you are referee, you can mark some photos as needed for replacement or not. Then, you can judge if the user photo is better or not from the one already existing. 

I add a lot of missing coins, if I found them on eBay or other auctions,  I ask for permission to use photos (sometimes big size but not so clear or taken with big angle) and sometimes I add also coins based on marketing materials from the mint, so I add their graphic/photo of coin from their magazine. Bad photo is better than nothing. And I see that sometimes, after weeks or months, some users add these coins to their collection, so it would be good that they see this on their contribution list.

And I'm always voting for making  the contribution list more visible to reach more users that could help with photos/data improving.

I like the idea myself, I think the user should choose if the image is CGI or not, (if the user is uploading the image, they know where it's from and if its CGI or not.). It would definitely be cool!

Strongly agree. We are in an age when ‘AI’ is taking over everything.

We can have no guarantee that a CGI image is an accurate representation of an object. I think they should definitely be marked and replaced when a proper image becomes available.

Hi

This post is only about blurred images, nothing else.

Partially is this one covered here - adding missing data to be updated by those who have certain piece in collection - in case there is software, which can easily determine if the picture is low quality.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic87204.html#p740452

I agree with peterjhalford on increased workload on referees - maybe some kind of rating system for pictures could be added. Its just one click on "down vote" by Numista users (except referees, who could add it directly to Improvement hints). You can also click again to cancel out down vote. As soon as enough low points on picture is counted (hidden counter / what is enough?), the page goes to Improvement hints or to referee to approve it (as a referee I am not very fond of it, though). After the new picture is added, voting is reset to zero.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic88947.html#p752558 

Third option - if there is a better already registered example of this type why not replaced onto the main picture. The current picture then switches its place to registered examples. This way the user who added this piece in the first place and only if added picture was marked as his/hers own picture, gets his acknowledgement in examples. Currently this is not the case. Each time new (better?) picture is added, your contribution is for ever forgotten-hidden away. This is also another issue I have on my mind for some time and would probably need its own thread.

Fourth sci-fi option - AI web search on approved sites for the better pictures. Each time it is discovered someone could get a hint on it, so that the picture ca be updated on Numista? This would still need a trigger when to search.

LP