[ANNOUNCEMENT] New forum rules: Evidence standards and photo submissions

Hi everyone,

Following feedback from our moderator team and member discussions, we're implementing some updated guidelines for evidence submissions, particularly around photographs and video. This isn't about being overly skeptical - it's about maintaining the integrity of investigations shared on the forum.

New requirements for photo/video submissions:

1. Metadata: Please include original file metadata when possible (EXIF data, camera settings, time stamp). This isn't to catch anyone out - it's to help rule out obvious explanations like reflections, lens flares, or compression artifacts.

2. Context: Always provide location, date, time, weather conditions, witnesses present, and what the equipment settings were. 'Found this online' is not acceptable. We're not interested in other people's claims.

3. Alternative explanations: Try to think of mundane explanations for what you're seeing before posting. If you can't think of any, mention that. Honest self-criticism makes your post stronger, not weaker.

4. No editing: Heavily edited photos will be removed. Light adjustments and straightening are fine. Adding effects, cropping out context, or obvious manipulation is not. If you think editing is necessary to see what you captured, that's usually a sign it's not what you think it is.

These aren't new ideas - they're just formalising what good investigators have always done. Questions? Drop them in this thread.

Thanks for understanding.

- Quirk Reports Moderation Team

Fair rules, honestly. I've seen some absolute dross posted on paranormal forums claiming to be evidence. A photo of a random blurry shape with zero context and somehow it's meant to be definitive proof of something. This should help keep things honest.

Question: what if you took a photo years ago and didn't think to keep all the metadata? Are older submissions just automatically not welcome? Some of the best cases in paranormal history predate digital metadata being standard.

Honest self-criticism makes your post stronger, not weaker

The 'no editing' rule is sensible but a bit strict maybe? Sometimes you need to adjust levels to even see what's in a photo, especially if it was taken in poor light. Not everyone's a photographer.

@klaus_green raises a fair point about levels adjustment - there's actually a meaningful distinction worth clarifying here. Non-destructive adjustments (brightness/contrast, levels, sharpening) that reveal existing detail are quite different from edits that introduce artefacts or obscure originals.

What I'd suggest to the mods: perhaps require submitters to provide both the unedited original and any adjusted version, clearly labelled, alongside a brief note explaining what was changed and why. That way the raw data is preserved for scrutiny whilst still allowing legitimate enhancement.

For anyone newer to this - software like RawTherapee or Lightroom keeps full edit histories, which adds an extra layer of transparency to your submission. Documenting your process honestly actually strengthens your case considerably, as @amara_graves noted.

Excited to see these standards develop - proper methodology is what separates serious research from noise.