Comments on: Using Robots To Get Saks Web Orders Out A Day Faster

By: Marty

Marty — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:59:23 +0000

I’d agree with pass the buck. A policy to publish pictures only if you will use them again seems senseless. If you use the photo ‘many’ times, I may not need to see it. If you have never had to post it before, it might be REALLY useful to the reader.

By: Evan Schuman

Evan Schuman — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:06:11 +0000

Editor’s Note: Of all of the things to disagree with me, you’re choosing our internal image library policy? Ok. The costs I was referencing are not the cost of acquiring the photo. We pay those, too, but, as you point out, that wasn’t the issue here. The cost is our costs to process photos in the various sizes we need and to process them through our production system. (They’re used by the web site, newsletter and various mobile formats and they use different publishing systems.) It’s simply our policy to only process images that we’d use often. I truly doubt we’d need to use that image again. We have other images that would work–images that relate to the retail involved (as we did this time) or generic assembly line and production images. If you really care about the particular of publishing cost structure, please reach out to me privately and I’ll tell you whatever you want to know. But I am guessing that this exchange is fairly boring for 99.99 percent of our readers.

By: pass the buck

pass the buck — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:58:29 +0000

I respectfully disagree. You could have asked for a file photo from the company to insert in the story – I would like to think the company would have complied, since they would be credited in the photo caption. The photo should be part of your library anyway, since it probably will not be the last time you write about these devices. The cost argument you’re making does not really fly. If the expenses are what you are claiming, then you’re probably wasting money. The technology that is available should not make it such an expensive venture as you suggest.

By: TRedd

TRedd — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:43:15 +0000

I agree with Preston. We need to see the possible devices that might replace us!

By: Evan Schuman

Evan Schuman — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:41:05 +0000

Editor’s Note: Sure, we can . We just did. Seriously, there’s an answer to that. Our image library consists of symbolic images. By symbolic, I mean that we can use each image multiple times for multiple stories. To us, an image might say “E-Commerce” or POS or credit card swipe, etc. The cost for us in processing such a photo–which would almost certainly only be used once–is not something that we can do. That said, we could have linked to the vendor’s site–which has plenty of pictures of the mechanical critters–but we try and avoid linking to vendor sites unless there’s a very significant informational reason. Example: Let’s say we do a story about how the top 100 E-Commerce performed in some test. We might link to a deep page within the vendor’s site that has a grid of all of the sites and have they performed in all of the tests. But linking to a vendor site solely to display a picture of their product seemed a bad idea. But since you asked, this link is a video of the critters doing their thing. It’s also a commercial for the vendor, which is why we didn’t initially run it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsMdN7HMuA

By: Preston

Preston — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:50:24 +0000

Dude, you CAN NOT write an article about orarge, shelf-moving robots and not post a picture!