You right about /photo/-pages, but I suppose that here it must be gallery too
- A · M
- There is no way to reliably detect pages outside the "Photo section" that contain slideshows and do/do not need it. I hope you didn't hardcode it. And detecting whether a slideshow is needed or not by the number of paragraphs (which I think you actually may be doing) is also definitely not a great way.
- Accepted by admin
- In this case the gallery is a main content, so it's better to not format it as a slideshow.
You can take into account all elements position (note that the gallery is out of the body) and number of other elements. Feel free to provide examples of pages where such galleries must be formatted as slideshow
- A · M
- Wait, what?!
1. These galleries are always outside of body. This doesn't help at all.
2. Rely on the number of paragraphs?! Sorry, I can't take it seriously. Is there a global rule for all news websites that tells to write no more than 2/3/... paragraphs when there is an important gallery in the article? I guess there isn't. A gallery description can take any number of paragraphs/sentences/words/characters. This data is totally indirect.
Look. This article is also outside the /photo/ section. The only thing that is different from our current page is the number of paragraphs (which, as we've already discussed, isn't reliable at all). There is no failsafe way to detect which pages need unpacked galleries and which don't.
4. I think this **declined** issue is related to the current situation: https://instantview.telegram.org/contest/oreltimes.ru/template24/issue1/.
I hope you'll reconsider your decision.
- Declined by admin
- Thanks for the provided example.
Since there are articles with such slideshow, where the gallery isn't a main content, it's acceptable to format is as a slideshow in this case.
Although galleries from /photo/ category should be formatted differently.
- Type of issue
- IV page is missing essential content
- Mar 30, 2019