Hrm... I get annoyed when I see photos with no text. I've come across many a post where there is nothing to tell you where it was taken, what it is, etc. Even on sites like ViewBug and Flickr, I'll at least write a brief description, so that interested viewers have at least a basic startin gpoint to find the information.
Nice photos, too! I remember using those push-calls in Spain. They're not very common here. The first one looks like it could use a little repair job!
Thanks for your feedback, Mark! Now when I think about it, I am less incentivized to upvote photography posts that have no text whatsoever. When you visit photography exhibitions in the real world, do you prefer seeing descriptions or stories next to the photos? :) The last time I visited an exhibition, I was annoyed by the A4 prints with explanations next to the images.
I'm happy that you liked the photos. Most older buildings in Sofia have such rusty (and probably not functioning) doorbells.
The exhibitions I like best in the real world have a card with a short description. Obviously, there needs to be a balance and the focus should be on the work.
On Steemit, I think it depends on your post, what you write, etc.
hat I'm more on the fence about is whether or not to include camera settings in my posts. On one hand, it does that it's not just taken from a Google search. On the other, is technical jargon and meaningless to non-photographers.
I used to include camera settings in most of my posts, but I started to have the feeling that they are of little to no value to most people. I reckon they might be useful if the photos are of a thunderstorm for example. Or something unusual.