PhotoContest
Editorial Policy
This page explains the editorial rules behind PhotoContest: what is included, what is avoided, how summaries are written, and how the site separates user value from advertising.
PhotoContest exists to help photographers compare opportunities without opening dozens of unrelated tabs first. The site adds value by organizing official source information into a clearer structure and by publishing original guides that explain how to judge fit, cost, rights, timing, and preparation.
The site focuses on photography competitions, open calls, festivals, photobook fairs, portfolio reviews, and closely related professional opportunities. Priority goes to records with a clear host, date evidence, location or participation mode, eligibility notes, and an official source link.
PhotoContest avoids anonymous reposts, vague social posts without organiser context, old pages presented as current calls, keyword-only pages, and records that look like copied snippets without practical value. A weak lead may be saved for review, but it should not become a search-facing page until it has stronger evidence.
Summaries should help readers decide what to check next. They should not pretend to replace the organiser, guarantee eligibility, or hide uncertainty. When the official page is unclear, the listing should point users back to the source and avoid overstating confidence.
PhotoContest may use automation to collect, normalize, translate, or draft structured fields from public source material. Automation is treated as assistance, not as final authority. The public site therefore keeps source links, review notes, and correction routes visible so users can verify claims and report errors.
Advertising should not decide which event is included, how a source is described, or whether a weak record is promoted. Editorial usefulness comes first. Pages should be able to stand on their own even if advertising scripts are disabled or removed.
A useful page should answer at least one real user question: Is this opportunity current? Is it credible? Is it worth the fee? What should I verify before applying? What should I prepare if I plan for next year?
Read Methodology for the source workflow, Publisher Standards for site quality rules, and Corrections Policy for update requests.