Caption: @AdamGT standing beside a crystal clear, still water lake and staring into the beautiful and pristine Greenlandic wilderness, exploring one of the world’s quietest corners.
Hello Local Guides!
I woke up recently to a notification that surprised me: a photo I took 7.5 years ago in Nanortalik, Greenland, was suddenly “making a difference” and receiving new reactions.
For nearly a decade, this photo of the Knud Rasmussen Stone sat in relative obscurity. In a country as sparsely populated as Greenland, it didn’t “go viral”. By the metrics of “Average Views per Photo,” many would have deleted it years ago to keep their profile looking “elite”.
The Confession: Why I Created the “Average Quality” Metric
I need to set the record straight. I originally introduced the “Average Views” measure to stop a specific, toxic practice: Point-Hacking.
I wanted to discourage the “more is better” mindset that results in 100 identical photos of a single menu. The metric was meant to fight spam; it was never meant to discourage documentation.
- The 1-Million View Burger: A photo of a Big Mac in London is popular, but is it helpful when 500 others exist?
- The 5-View Historical Marker: A photo of a remote stone might only get 5 views a year. But for those 5 people, that photo is priceless.
The “Remote” Gap and the Long Game
When we delete “low-performing” photos of small businesses or remote landmarks just to protect a leaderboard ranking, we aren’t “curating”—we are withdrawing support from the places that need it most.
Maps isn’t just a directory; it’s a historical archive. A photo that seems “useless” in 2020 might be exactly what a traveler or researcher is looking for in 2026.
Where I Draw the Line
I still delete photos, but never because of the “view count.” I delete for:
- Near duplicates (I don’t need two shots of the same item).
- Poor quality (blurry, dark, or badly framed).
- Privacy issues (unintended faces or license plates).
My Challenge to the Community
I’ve spent years looking at your numbers, but today I’m asking you to look at your impact:
- Are you chasing points or providing utility?
- Why judge a photo’s value if it doesn’t hit a threshold in its first 30 or 100 days?
- Do you see that while deleting low-performers keeps a profile looking “elite,” it might be doing the community a disservice?
I’m keeping my “low-performers.” Because in the end, my photos are not for sale—and neither is the history they document.
What’s your take?
- Are you here for the community, or just for the high scores?
- Do you believe that each photo, no matter how niche, deserves its place on the map?
Note: I have recently updated this post to focus more exclusively on the technical and philosophical aspects of photo contributions. While my recent visit to Greenland was set against a backdrop of significant global attention, I want this discussion to remain a dedicated space for our community to explore the value of “niche” contributions and the “Long Game” of mapping remote areas. My goal is to ensure that the lesson of the Knud Rasmussen Stone—and the importance of every “low-view” photo—remains an evergreen resource for Local Guides everywhere.
Thank you all for your understanding
Adam
for your Media and for your patience!
you ! As soon as connect translation tools are available..