Graphics, gone to hell? Options

[*Intercourse.*]

^yea although to sadly say it. Its never going to be that easy. Some of the people on positions in the design areas are still going to be on staff and their still going to keep accepting the bad graphics.

To keep the graphics completely up to the standards someones going to have to go back and check through the accepted to graphics.

[*StanleyThePanda*]

^ Yes, its going to be the same staff. But after the house cleaning, hopefully all of the staff will keep their standards high when going through the queue.

I'm sooo excited for this house cleaning+raising the standards.

Holly, a few pages back you posted a link to a user whos pictures were too large; They've been removed.
I left everything else (low quality/poorly taken picture) for the house cleaning. Since we are having one, There is no need for me to go through and reject a ton of stuff just yet.

[Gypsy Eyes]

Wasn't that the point of the first house cleaning, to make sure it wouldn't been done again? The same people are just going to go on accepting poor graphics. It didn't stop them last time.

[*Intercourse.*]

Alright well I agree with Jackie but its nice to hear you guys are agreeing to doing another house cleaning. I remember I brought it up a while ago and everyone was against it.


If you guys need any help feel free to ask

[Gypsy Eyes]

Sorry that last post wasn't supposed to come out as mean as it did

Same here^

[freeflow]

Wasn't that the point of the first house cleaning, to make sure it wouldn't been done again? The same people are just going to go on accepting poor graphics. It didn't stop them last time.

Yea , thats true but really it won't hurt. There are graphics that you and others are pointing out and if any of us go throw a few months back I'm sure we'd find more. So overall it wouldn't hurt. Personally I think some of the graphics are getting better (as I mentioned before but not here) there are still a few that just shouldn't be there, but a House cleaning is just going to help. I don't see a problem with the process.

I mentioned this to Holly earlier, and you both have been pointing out graphics which I agree should not be there as well, which is why I mentioned to her that this time around , if possible, it be good to allow members to point out some of the bad graphics. This is a really unorganized idea but I was thinking about us having a thread that people could post the links to bad graphics. (Personally I think it'd be better if it was posted toward the end of the process so if things were missed , they can be removed, if its thought they should be since we can't delete everything someone says should be deleted, if it isn't that good of a reason for it to be.) There could be other ways to do it . That was just my idea.

Personally I think it would be great if both of you helped out especially. The thread was more for "overall" anyone else that wanted to post their opinions on some.


Dang I hope that made some sense.

[Gypsy Eyes]

What I don't understand is if you are not rejecting the graphics that are obviously below the standard why did I just get 6 pms saying layouts have been rejected when I know quite well they are better than a lot of the stuff still there? It would be no problem if stuff like this and this were being rejected too.

[freeflow]

Why not PM and ask the person that rejected it ? I mean this time around we are having it so (well in most sections and blogger is one of them) that the Blogger staff reject the blogger layouts. Myspace -> Myspace. So yea. The process also isn't over and to my knowledge I don't think blogger is done, at least it wasn't reported to be so if you really want to know I'd say just ask. Or wait to the end then make your statements about those.

[gelionie]

This graphic should be rejected:

http://www.createblog.com/graphics/download.php?id=30253

[technicolour]

Why?

[*Azarel*]

So on a whim, I clicked on avatars/icons and I have to say that these two accepted graphics confuse the shit out of me (as to why they were accepted?):

http://www.createblog.com/graphics/graphic.php?id=30618
http://www.createblog.com/graphics/graphic.php?id=30624

[gelionie]

Kristina: Well... I just don't think that photo was taken well. There's a garbage bag in the background. :|

[technicolour]

No offense, but thats not a real good reason. It's a beautiful photo. It shows the relationship between the dog & cat really well. Just because there is a trashbag in the background doesn't really mean much.

Once again, no offense.

[gelionie]

^ it's okay. Just my opinion.

[immavietgirl]

i think its okay too.

[Gypsy Eyes]

Yeah um what?

http://www.createblog.com/layouts/code.php?id=18111
http://www.createblog.com/layouts/code.php?id=17777

HORRIBLE image quality.

[*superstitious*]

Thing is, Jackie, that although the first one looks like it's been through a gaussian blur blizzard, some people might like that. I think that's why it was accepted.

I don't personally think that the second one's image is all that lacking in quality. I wouldn't particularly go for all the textures/brushes/patterns or what not that was used, but again, that doesn't mean that someone might not really appreciate that layout and use it.

It's important to remember that when the reviewers look through layouts (especially in light of this), they weigh in both a sense of quality and a sense of what a general audience might like and use, not just what highly skilled designers would use.

Just trying to bring in some perspective is all, I totally respect your opinion(s). Perhaps you should/could voice some of your concerns there as well? I know that Jusun looks at that thread (or at least he was, since he created it).

[*digitalfragrance*]

Thing is, Jackie, that although the first one looks like it's been through a gaussian blur blizzard, some people might like that. I think that's why it was accepted.

Yep, that's why I accepted it. My first gut reaction was "what?" when I saw it, but when I clicked on the preview, I saw it was meant to be blurred and that it looked good with the rest of the design. I think the designer was after a "dream-like" sense.

The second one... I had rejected previously... and someone else went back and approved it.

[Gypsy Eyes]

^it's not even the gaussian blur. It's the actual image quality. It's blurred grain, which looks a million times worse than regular blur.

[*digitalfragrance*]

^ But if you look at the text quality of the banner, it isn't blurred. So the blur that they applied on the image was meant to happen. I thought this was a cool take on a "dreamy" layout ... like a "school girl crush" one.

[*SinfullySweet*]

Well, in this layout

http://www.createblog.com/layouts/preview.php?id=18373

everything looks really sloppy,
the headers are hard to read
and the images are really low quality
why was that layout accepted?

[falsetigerlimbs]

Well, in this layout

http://www.createblog.com/layouts/preview.php?id=18373

everything looks really sloppy,
the headers are hard to read
and the images are really low quality
why was that layout accepted?

agreed. =/
it reminds me of geocities.

maybe because we need more masculine layouts? idk

[*SayBloodyMary*]

^ Well as far as needing more of a certain type of layout, there really isn't much we can do about that, because we can only accept what people submit.

[*SinfullySweet*]

^ Well as far as needing more of a certain type of layout, there really isn't much we can do about that, because we can only accept what people submit.

Wait, so you're saying that layout was accepted onlybecause we need more of those types of layouts?

[*mzkandi*]

Although, it doesn't suit my taste, the layout is not that bad. While it may not suit your taste or standards, that doesn't mean it won't appeal to someone else. And lastly, I would like to refer to you to this topic. I'm thinking all of the above was going through the mind of whomever accepted it.