hrotha said:
Are pictures still inevitably attached to their original caption, no matter where they're used? Because that's a silly system.
Susan Westemeyer said:
Yes, they are, and yes, it is.
Susan
I've noticed this issue before too. It's something I've encountered a number of times in my work but I find that the utility of a fully-automated captioning system is greater than the risk of causing minor confusion by postdate referencing.
It might be worth adding to CN's editorial guidelines - as I have recommended in the past and as I've seen done elsewhere - that photo captions should not include anything that may someday make little sense outside of the original context. Sounds like a difficult rule but it's pretty simple in practice.
For example, "Geraint Thomas" is better (if a little less informative) than "Geraint Thomas (Sky)" (if he had later left Sky) or "Geraint Thomas looks pleased with his recent form" (if that was only relevant at the time the photo was taken).
Then if some notion of time
must be included, better to expressly state it, for example: "Evans descends a big hill. Stage 15, 2011 Tour de France". Or "Geraint Thomas, 2010 British Champion". This latter caption wouldn't have looked odd in 2010 when it was current, nor would it have now.
