I only started using BillionGraves after this feature was added, so I have no "before enhancement" version to compare it to.
As a transcriber, I think "Bad photo (unreadable)" is too vague and too harsh. It's also often inaccurate, because it's not always the entire photo that is unreadable - just one or two crucial bits. Often when looking at a photo, my reaction is something like:
* This is a really good, clear photo, and I can see the full details for three of the four people buried there, but there's a flower obscuring Martha's date of death.
* It's a great picture of the headstone, but - as was the fashion back in the olden days - there's no surname on it. Perhaps it's on the foot of the grave, and the photographer has forgotten to take a picture of it.
* The inscription is on the slab, and the photo was taken from the foot of the grave. Consequently the name and dates furthest away are hard to read because of the angle. It needs another photo, this time standing above the inscription and looking down.
* Blurry. Hopeless. I could perhaps make out a little of it if I really try, but I don't see why I should have to struggle so much. Go back and take it again. (And I do understand the difference between a worn/faded headstone, which is not the photographer's fault and no amount of re-photographing will ever improve, and a blurry photo.)
To try and provide more info to the photographer, as efficiently as possible, I'd like "Bad photo (unreadable)", when clicked on, to expand out to the following options:
* Too dark / part of gravestone is shadowed;
* Too light
* Too blurry
* Obstruction needs to be moved
* Bad angle
* Incomplete photo (e.g. foot of grave missing)
* Other (please enter details)
Would photographers find this additional info useful, or can they usually figure out for themselves why transcribers are rating their pics as "Bad photo"?