We noticed that you're using an unsupported browser. The TripAdvisor website may not display properly.
We support the following browsers:
Windows: Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome. Mac: Safari.

Should places only be listed if there are photographs?

Which Plymouth hotels are on sale?
dd/mm/yyyy dd/mm/yyyy
See hotels
Devon
Level Contributor
88 posts
2,499 reviews
Save Topic
Should places only be listed if there are photographs?

Many Tripadvisor reviews carry effective and straightforward descriptions of restaurants attractions hotels etc but often it would be very useful to have at least a couple of pix to het an idea of the place before choosing or setting off. Voluntary posting of images has been available for a long time and these are often helpful but perhaps ensuring that there are at least say two on every listing would be a good idea?

UK
Level Contributor
49,561 posts
92 reviews
Save Reply
1. Re: Should places only be listed if there are photographs?

<<Should places only be listed if there are photographs>>

No.

<<but often it would be very useful to have at least a couple of pix toget an idea of the place before choosing or setting off>>

Are you aware of Google?

Kingston-upon-Hull...
Level Contributor
731 posts
326 reviews
Save Reply
2. Re: Should places only be listed if there are photographs?

This is not really a Plymouth question, but a general TA question (or rather suggestion) on improvements, and as such it should really be in the HUMTAB forum here:

tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowForum-g1-i12104-Help_u…

However, that being said, TA is mainly a volunteer reviewer content led site, and as such, the only way to have pictures of every place is for volunteer reviewers to take them and upload them; thus it could not be a requirement or expectation that they exist. The list of places to be reviewed is created from reviewers suggestions, and not centrally created.

However your idea resonates with me, but in the spirit of the reviewer content led nature of the site I took the pictures myself and uploaded them. In my home town *every* eatery has been photographed by me and thus satisfies the idea made by the OP.

If you feel sufficiently passionately about the idea and Plymouth as a tourist destination, then you can do the same.

You will find it helps visitors and tourists alike; however, there is no central *authority* that is going to do it for you.

Kingston-upon-Hull...
Level Contributor
731 posts
326 reviews
Save Reply
3. Re: Should places only be listed if there are photographs?

and PS; Congatulations to Jannerbloke on the impressive number of reviews and helpful votes.

Essex
Level Contributor
27,191 posts
70 reviews
Save Reply
4. Re: Should places only be listed if there are photographs?

I went to your profile page jannerbloke and had a look through the pages and pages that make up your list of review postings. I see that you did not post a photograph with ANY of them.

Perhaps I can suggest that you consider leading by example, before you start complaining about others not bothering to do this either!

Gloucester, United...
Level Contributor
3,840 posts
79 reviews
Save Reply
5. Re: Should places only be listed if there are photographs?

I don't carry a camera everywhere I go. Is it seriously being suggested that I shouldn't be permitted to submit reviews?

Kingston-upon-Hull...
Level Contributor
731 posts
326 reviews
Save Reply
6. Re: Should places only be listed if there are photographs?

No Keith, it was only the OP that was suggesting that pictures should be obtained by TA before we can submit reviews. EssexWanderer and I suggested he might like to get the ball rolling by submitting photos of his area or of the local places he has reviewed, but I suspect none of us were requiring pictures with every review for everyone else!

However, I like many others, use my phone to take a snap of the eatery, and thus have a camera with me at all times (as long as the battery hasn't gone flat!).

Essex
Level Contributor
27,191 posts
70 reviews
Save Reply
7. Re: Should places only be listed if there are photographs?

OH, I thought that jannerbloke was suggesting that REVIEWS should not be accepted without pictures - and wondered why he had not bothered to heed his own advice!

Franky we don't need 200 photos the same of the outside or inside of any attraction/hotel/restaurant, nor of the food available at said restaurants.

If you look at the 'traveller photos' of say the Grand Hotel at Scarborough (and I mention this because i was looking at them last night) Then you will find many 'duplicates' as there are only so many views of one place that anyone can take!

Gloucester, United...
Level Contributor
3,840 posts
79 reviews
Save Reply
8. Re: Should places only be listed if there are photographs?

Don't get me started on mobile phones in restaurants.....

Level Contributor
3,394 posts
82 reviews
Save Reply
9. Re: Should places only be listed if there are photographs?

Practice what you preach before you lecture others OP.

Crathie
Level Contributor
821 posts
Save Reply
10. Re: Should places only be listed if there are photographs?

>>> Don't get me started on mobile phones in restaurants..... <<<

........ or when they are in use at the breakfast table in Bed & Breakfasts and Guest Houses.

If you cannot tear yourself from the darn things long enough to eat a simple meal, why bother travelling at all? Other people have no wish to be privy to your conversations with relatives back home, or hear you try to book somewhere to stay for your next night's accommodation. Neither do they want to be party to business meetings, no matter how important they are to you! If they are on holiday, you should be too. If not, go a hotel which caters for the business traveller where your communication needs can be met more easily.

Rant over ;-)