You mentioned in another thread that you're seeking to make Surfbirds the best of the community-type birding sites, including by retaining good points from the others. I for one applaud this approach.
Can I therefore suggest that you take another look at your Photo Album section please?
I like the format and the quick rating guide features. However, I've found that the following data which is available at another site are particularly valuable:
Scientific Name - avoids confusion, especially as there are different naming conventions in use in different countries (eg. the term Sparrowhawk is often used in the USA for what Europeans know as American Kestrel whereas the scientific name Falco sparverius is universal). For similar reasons, it also allows a much more effective search to be made if, for example, one wishes to view different images of the same species.
Location - provides a frequently critical insight to the potential identification and importance of photographs. This information, coupled with the date (see below), can elevate the scientific importance of otherwise mediocre images.
Date (of taking, not posting) - another critical piece of data when one is looking closely at plumage and moult characteristics. Without this information, the value of the posted photographs as a reference source is greatly reduced.
Of less interest to me personally is the Equipment used but I'm sure there are lots of photographer out there who would relish these details being included.
If space on the page is an issue, do we really need to see the File Size and Dimensions data?Personally, I've never used either of this information and anyway it's already available by clicking on properties isn't it?
Ultimately, I guess it depends upon the overall purpose of the Photo Album. If it's just intended to be a random collection of images for people to share and rate that's fine.
However, with minimal improvements it has the real potential to offer a great deal more than that by becoming a valuable reference source to all members interested in looking beyond the aesthetics into details such as: identification features, plumage characteristics, including colour morphs, moult patterns, distribution, etc. etc.
Hope you'll view this as constructive criticism and keep up the good work.