wondering...

I second the motion inasmuch as ... on the day it was taken.
That said, I'm quite happy with the concept of a limited number of "Extra" shots, given the "Same day" rule

I'm okay with the limited number of extra photos. Had plenty of them to spare last year. Using them is an option.

Displayed against the date it was taken - definitely. I adhere to that rule. Gaps in the journal are permitted! In this day and age of the date being recorded in the file (assuming the camera's set correctly. I will make an exception here for much older photos, when that wasn't done, i.e. old film photos. Planning to scan a load of old negatives, and back-Blip them. Perhaps sadly(!), I do have dates for many of them, but for some I might not be able to establish the precise date taken. For the latter ones used, I'm proposing to state that the date might not be quite correct, and give a possible date range in the text. What say you to that?

Language - I'm sure Scot's wid be alood... wit wi the site stertin doon in Auld Reekie, and that... ye ken.

Did you intentionally miss some out? Advertising, and watermarks?

Oh, and also on the ONE photo per day. Guilty of a couple of montages, such as: https://www.blipfoto.com/entry/1137884
and several stitched panoramas.

Not guilty of adding: windmills; setting Sun (to daytime, or other photos); or flying geese or swans... etc. Other Blippers choose their own editing limit rules.

"I'm okay with the limited number of extra photos. Had plenty of them to spare last year. Using them is an option."
I tend to send them to my blog...or flickr...the selection of ONE makes us more selective and avoids unnecessary clutter... less is more!?...
and "Scot's wid be alood" (written though cos spoken - although beautifully melodic and that- is a tiny bit difficult to understand...;-) oh yes, more importantly - even more than the sunset/swans/flying geese!? - is to post photographs? not stuff re-blogged from tumblr or similar sites...it must be photos ONLY ! and watermarks (esp. with flying geese at the same time!) and ads ...go without saying!?...

Think we're mostly in agreement. The language comment was of course a tease. Have previously linked to outside photo sites (Google's Picasa Web Albums), and still sometimes do. But have been caught out when they've changed how their site works, and displays photos. What previously showed a large photo, changed to load a teeny thumbnail! And at that time you couldn't go back and edit such things after a week, on Blipfoto. Took a while sorting too many of those out... for this fusspot. Something similar happened here, with the likes of adding a link to display the large version.

For many less savvy Blippers than yourself, their journal is their Blog, and anything beyond this site is (or appears) too complicated to contend with.

I did like the clutter-free look of the old site, and how you could choose to make it even more so, via various options. At the time of the change, I suspect the thinking was it will be clutter free when you "go large".

Aye, some "photos" posted are really more collages of things from all sorts of dates, and sources. I'd prefer the perpetrators of such artwork were a bit more honest about their creations, especially when much praise is poured on them by those that mistakenly believing they are looking at photographs.

With the limited resources and staff here, policing such things, and enforcing them, is no longer as easy. Illegality has to be, and is dealt with. Rule breaking much less so. Perhaps there's a fear of becoming more draconian, and scaring (paying) Blippers away.

It's not easy pleasing everyone... correction, it's not possible, pleasing everyone! But I do like this place, and appreciate there's scope for improvement.