People or places?

[AdrianW]

What does everyone think - are these two categories sufficient? Say I have a nice picture of an animal, there's no background scenery - so what category should it go under??

[adam]

"are these two categories sufficient"

Hmm, I never really though about that before. Originally, I meant it to be 'People' versus 'Anything Else', but settled on 'Places' since it sounds better. There is also a 'Catergories' option to which I can always add new subject matter. Just let me know and I'll consider adding it.

[mdchachi]

What categories would you use for pictures of temples or ancient ruins?

[AdrianW]

Places

[philip_coggan]

Does the use of categories serve any useful purpose at all? Because once you start slicing this salami, there's no end to the possibilities. (People, places, animals, architecture....).

[adam]

"Because once you start slicing this salami, there's no end to the possibilities. (People, places, animals, architecture....)."

I do separate out what I call 'Categories' i.e. 'Castles', 'Architecture', 'Food', etc. from 'Genre' which consists of either 'People' or 'Places'. I would consider adding new categories, but will leave Genre as is.

[mdchachi]

> Places

Thanks Adrian but I was talking about categories, not the genre. I'm not that dumb -- I know that temples & ruins are not people. ;-)