Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/aviation_photography/read.main/347617/

Topic: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Psych
Posted 2009-11-27 03:37:13 and read 6122 times.

I just made a post in the Photography Feedback sub forum about the potential to err on the side of the photographer when looking at 'borderline' screening decisions. Although I have talked about this before, maybe it is a good time to discuss this issue more generally to clarify what others feel.

I have argued that it would be a positive move for the site to be seen to be giving the photographer the benefit of the doubt when examining photographs that might be considered to be pushing up against the rejection criteria in particular instances. As a lifelong cricket fan (and a long time fast bowler who ended up frustrated by the rule I am now supporting here!) we know that this sport supports the view that when the umpire cannot be confident the batsman is out, he (or she) will give the benefit of that doubt to the batsman in all cases. That is just the way it goes - primarily because of the big impact of giving him out. It is very final. I believe it has its origins in the desire for fairness and sportsmanship.

Some will argue we have similar processes in place here to get a fair result by ensuring that multiple screeners can view an image before it is rejected, and the appeals process. In my early days at the site I recall discussions about changing the screening system so that screeners judge photos 'blind', so they are not potentially influenced by the views of previous screeners (though that has its flaws - e.g. where a screener is asking another for their opinion on an element of the image - a legitimate part of the screening process). Others promoted the idea of a 'voting' system within screening, where the majority position defines the outcome (currently one screener has the power to reject even if two others have 'passed' it).

You can argue these cases around and around and they have their pros and cons. But in the very competitive internet environment in which sites like this exist, I wonder whether the site (and its culture) would be improved if there was more of a sense that when a photos 'failings' are subjective - i.e. some screeners would accept it, others would not - then that uncertainty should go in favour of the photographer. I for one do not believe such a culture would erode the high standards this site holds dear.

I raise this issue for debate and so long as that debate is constructive I think it could be very informative.

All the best.

Paul

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Vishaljo
Posted 2009-11-27 04:55:53 and read 6073 times.

Quoting Psych (Thread starter):
As a lifelong cricket fan

Greeting my long-lost brother.

Quote:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/profile.main?username=vishaljo
Hobbies: Aviation, Music, Cricket etc......

I thought i was the only one who liked cricket on here, nice to see someone from the motherland with similar affinity   

Getting back to the topic, and i dont remember who had advocated this but, when the photographer forgets to tickmark certain categories the screener can just tick the appropriate category & add a reminder in the acceptance mail that, "i did it for u this time but next time f***-u"   

Thats just one example i can come-up with for now but i'm sure there are several other instances where leniency will be greatly appreciated.

One major purpose it serves is by reducing the queue length wherein the photographer wont have to wait a week for a simple stupid error.

[Edited 2009-11-27 05:05:35 by vishaljo]

[Edited 2009-11-27 05:06:15 by vishaljo]

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Leadingedge
Posted 2009-11-27 05:07:54 and read 6060 times.

Paul,

you mean that the Screeners should look for reasons to accept photos rather than for reasons to reject them..... Now that sounds like an excellent idea to me.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: PiloteAlpha
Posted 2009-11-27 05:21:44 and read 6046 times.



Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 1):
Getting back to the topic, and i dont remember who had advocated this but, when the photographer forgets to tickmark certain categories the screener can just tick the appropriate category & add a reminder in the acceptance mail that, "i did it for u this time but next time f***-u"

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

I also belive that there are some shots that might not have that "High Standards" required by airliners.net and thus will be rejected but which many of us would like to see here in the db. I think apart from the screeners decision there should be some kind of vote from users. The feedback forum is a first step towards improving the site. I think another thing would be needed, i don't know if we'll call this a sub forum, voting system or whatever. Here's how it will work:

Your photos goes through the feedback forum. If you have a positive response from photographers telling you that it has a chance of getting accepted since the quality is good, you add it to the queue.

But if you get kind of feedback that its an amazing shot but does not meet A.net standard, you move your photos towards what i'll call "Users Choice" section. This is where users will vote for your shot. Airliners.net can then put a limit e.g. if the pic gets ~ 200 votes it is automatically added to the db.

Because frankly, i've seen many shots in the forum here that are really amazing but will never reach the db due to some quality issues.  Sad

Regards
Krishley.G.D.Purmanun

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Vishaljo
Posted 2009-11-27 05:28:41 and read 6045 times.

Forgot to add, ABSOLUTELY NO LENIENCY - ZERO should be shown shown towards (i wont use the words at the tip of my tongue hence a mild substitute) featureless landing shots with nothing but the sky & the plane, unless there's something really special about it - Steve Morris excluded  Wink

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Sulman
Posted 2009-11-27 06:05:50 and read 6026 times.

Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 4):
ABSOLUTELY NO LENIENCY

There isn't. A.net isn't the only site that is very stringent about 'regular' shots. I think all the well-known aviation photography sites are similarly particular about what they'll accept when the shot is repeatable and the subject common. The digital side of the hobby, like it or not, reached saturation about three years ago, and the sites (not just here) can be as stuffy as they like about what they'll take.

This has had a number of effects: Firstly the mass market photo sharing sites appear to have become more popular, although they lack the specific database support we have here. If sharing, rather than exposure is your aim, you'll use these more frequently.

Secondly, the inevitable march toward 'higher quality' (a subjective criteria dressed as technical criteria if ever there was one) means more rejections. It's not enough to have an image correctly exposed, in focus, and well composed (although it's an excellent starting point) you need a little smidgen of luck that the light and sharpness are 'right' by the screener's standard. Hands up who has had contrast and sharpness rejections that - by the histogram and the naked eye - appear okay? Everyone, I'll wager; screeners included. On another day with another screener, it will be accepted. If you upload here and elsewhere you will experience it; it's the game.

All of the above goes out of the window if the subject or situation are rare; that still seems to stand.

A.net for me reminds me of a tough, but superficially rewarding sales job. Success is rewarded with ever steeper targets. It's a buzz to do well at it (everybody likes to get stuff on here, they are lying if they say they don't care) but eventually you realise that it is no big deal and there are other challenges. Nobody at airliners.net has ever misled anyone about what's required.*


James


*pictures of toilets

[Edited 2009-11-27 06:08:41]

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Cpd
Posted 2009-11-27 06:09:16 and read 6021 times.

It is a nice idea - but only for borderline images where the subject of the image is exceptional. Not for clearly poor photographs.

The idea for category rejections is a good one as well.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: JakTrax
Posted 2009-11-27 06:18:50 and read 6014 times.

Well Paul I can see your point here but I have to say I mainly dsiagree on this one. If a shot of mine gets rejected for something I find a bit nit-picky I just do what's asked of me and shove it back in the queue. It's a pain sometimes but I never make a fuss as usually second time around the image is met with approval.

One area however where I think the coin should favour the photog is levelling at awkward airports. You and I know only too well how MAN works and I dare say we've both seen shots here that appear level but (knowing the geography of the locations) in fact are not. If I submit a MAN shot taken from one of these many notorious spots I usually include a quick comment explaining the situation and why I've levelled as I have. Nine-out-of-ten times I think the screeners appreciate it and give the benefit of doubt; perhaps sensing that a local photog with a bit of practice under his belt should be capable of exact levelling.

To be honest, with regard to creatives I think that benefit of doubt is already being given far more than it was just a few months ago. Obviously dawn/dusk/night shots by their nature will suffer grain and it's ridiculous to penalise an image for something so inevitable. I think that's been realised lately.

Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 4):
Forgot to add, ABSOLUTELY NO LENIENCY - ZERO should be shown shown towards (i wont use the words at the tip of my tongue hence a mild substitute) featureless landing shots with nothing but the sky & the plane, unless there's something really special about it - Steve Morris excluded

I'm a bit of a side-on-in-sun fan but I agree 100% with you here. If any benefit of doubt is going to be given it should be extended to shots truly worthy of being here; those that the site really shouldn't be without. Nice sunrise shot, pretty unique - can the grain be excused in this instance.....?

Karl

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: INNflight
Posted 2009-11-27 06:47:43 and read 5999 times.



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 7):
To be honest, with regard to creatives I think that benefit of doubt is already being given far more than it was just a few months ago.

Imho it is not. Motive rejections are plenty (for me at least  Wink) and sometimes just not "what the particular screener likes".

If I even get PMs from ex-screeners telling me the shot would be a good addition to the DB, I feel a bit thrown around as you may be able to imagine, but then again it's just a game really. I just move on (after complaining  Wink).

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: JakTrax
Posted 2009-11-27 07:06:54 and read 5987 times.



Quoting INNflight (Reply 8):
"what the particular screener likes".

Perhaps this is the only issue which requires a bit more uniformity. But then again, how do you strike that balance without difficulty?

If it's a potentially big-hitting, breath-taking shot then the benefit should be given if it's 'fault' is something like grain. This benefit I agree isn't given with any uniformity but I still think it's extended more now than it has been.

For once (  Wow! ) I'm pretty satisfied with how the system's working at the moment. It's inevitably going to have faults but in my opinion they could be far worse right now.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Sulman
Posted 2009-11-27 07:17:48 and read 5979 times.

Karl,

I think Florian's issue is composition. There's a definite line at this site; the slightest perception an image isn't 'about the aircraft' (there were a couple of recent examples from FloTro) then people don't like it. Not just screeners; the enthusiasts become uncertain too. There are plenty on the crew and the site that love great photography, but equally a large number that take comfort within the strict rules, despite the idiosyncracies.

For instance, you can't take a picture of an engine, unless it is attached to an aircraft. This one always makes me laugh. How many pictures on here (lovely as they are) are frontal shots of a fan and spinner assembly? What relevance is the attached aeroplane that you cannot even see? Just one of those things.

Remember the image of an aircraft's shadow, passing over a field? Good photography, nice lateral thinking. There was a bit of a shitstorm about it, because people didn't understand it.


James

[Edited 2009-11-27 07:22:34]

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2009-11-27 07:48:17 and read 5966 times.



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 7):
To be honest, with regard to creatives I think that benefit of doubt is already being given far more than it was just a few months ago

Possibly, but there is still a long way to go. The motive still depends exclusively on subjectivness, and there are many examples of very similar pics being rejected for motive that have a similar one being accepted. After many motive rejections myself, some of which really pi**ssed me off (  Smile ) because there were similar ones accepted, I stopped even trying.
I remember one particular motive rejection, where I was told through the forum that certain details made the motive rejection click .. a week later I saw a picture accepted with those exact details included.

Having said that, I think the site has improved in terms of accepting borderline shots (for some cases, of course) in the last few months, although there is still room for improvement.

rgds,

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: INNflight
Posted 2009-11-27 07:55:04 and read 5959 times.



Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 11):
I was told through the forum that certain details made the motive rejection click .. a week later I saw a picture accepted with those exact details included.

I agree, that is a pain. I am not trying to stir things up a whole lot here, just voicing my opinions.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: RonS
Posted 2009-11-27 08:22:15 and read 5946 times.



Quoting Psych (Thread starter):
But in the very competitive internet environment in which sites like this exist, I wonder whether the site (and its culture) would be improved if there was more of a sense that when a photos 'failings' are subjective - i.e. some screeners would accept it, others would not - then that uncertainty should go in favour of the photographer. I for one do not believe such a culture would erode the high standards this site holds dear.

This pretty well sums it up, well put. The internet environment is indeed very competitive. While not allowing inferior shots in, Anet should do it's best to get shots in that may be a little borderline in some areas, quality not one of them. I think to some extent the Head Screeners (and screeners) are doing this. For me, I had I think 3 recent photos get sent to the Johan Queue and 2 out of the 3 made it in. So I think they realize that some good photos that may not be status quo still need to get in here. The one I got rejected from the Johan Queue was hosted elsewhere. However, it could have made it on here, where I wanted this one and all my shots, without degrading the quality of Anet in any way, shape or form. I would rather not host photos anywhere else besides on Anet, but unfortunately when I get a Motive rejection (or slight grain in a Night Shot) I have to take that one photo elsewhere.

There is still plenty of room to bet borderline shots in of the Motive rection variety.

Quoting Sulman (Reply 5):
This has had a number of effects: Firstly the mass market photo sharing sites appear to have become more popular, although they lack the specific database support we have here. If sharing, rather than exposure is your aim, you'll use these more frequently.



Exactly, internet viewing patterns are constantly changing, sites such as these need to stay ahead of the curve or risk a loss in views. I think with tweaks to Anet's product it will of course remain the #1 site for Aviation.

Some expansion of creative's has helped and will continue to help. Perhaps allowing more Motive's in will do so as well?

Quoting Sulman (Reply 10):
For instance, you can't take a picture of an engine, unless it is attached to an aircraft. This one always makes me laugh. How many pictures on here (lovely as they are) are frontal shots of a fan and spinner assembly? What relevance is the attached aeroplane that you cannot even see? Just one of those things.

Haha, I recieved the exact same rejection on an awesome GE90 engine shot. Unfortunately I hosted it at my second choice to get it online. I would love to have hosted it here, but my hand was forced by a rejection of a quality shot due to Motive. I said it above, but I would rather all my (quality) shots on here, but when you have a good photo and silly rejection, after I spent all the time on taking it and editing it and in the queue, I'm going to do something with it. Turns out that photo was a top performer on another site, could have done even better here. I have quite a few that rejected here for Motive, 2 for slight grain in a night shot, 1 for editing that was the same as I always do, etc that have gone on to be top viewers elsewhere. I lose out and Anet loses out on views, and these types of things should be tweaked so they don't happen. I have no desire to upload my airline shots anywhere else excpet here, if able.

Just to recap, I am not talking about letting in low quality shots. But seems like expansion of the creatives is going well, and still moving foward. Motive expansion would be another area to allow new and exciting quality shots onto this site, and not losing them to any other sites.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Codeshare
Posted 2009-11-27 08:34:02 and read 5938 times.

OK, but those border shots are different to an experienced uploader, beginner, screener and ex-screener. If you can define those borders than the idea is an excellent one. Who will be the decider here?

KS/codeshare

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: JakTrax
Posted 2009-11-27 08:44:33 and read 5929 times.

I think sometimes info rejections can be a bit harsh - one slight mistake (which anyone can make) and it's back to square one, when surely it wouldn't take long for someone 'in the know' to put it right? I've heard screeners do on occasion correct wrong info but I've had no experience of this yet.

One thing regarding this info issue actually really got my back up at 'another' site. Some of you may remember my sunset shot, which thanks to Paul Markman made it here. I uploaded 'elsewhere' and it was rejected for wrong info because I'd put the aircraft as 737-???. Common sense went completely out the window and I'm confident that such a farce wouldn't have happened here. I mean, it's an arse-end silhouette of a 737 of some description - how's anyone but Mr. Boeing himself supposed to know whether it's a -300 or a -500??!!

Anyhow, my point is... it could be worse!

Karl

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Psych
Posted 2009-11-27 09:31:07 and read 5909 times.

Thanks for contributing to this discussion.

I want to be clear that I am not advocating relaxing quality standards - it is too easy to 'read' this debate as arguing for that. This is about rules that maintain high standards but also favour the contributor when the decision could easily go either way. So I would discount things like info rejections where a small mistake has been made. That is a legitimate debate but it is - for me - about something a bit different. There a rule has clearly (if inadvertently) been transgressed. I would also remove the whole thorny one of 'motive' for this discussion - which is big enough to be debated until the cows come home.

I was prompted to post this after contributing to a couple of threads over in the Feedback forum. One involved a rejection for a prominent fence, where the same photographer had had a previous acceptance where the same fence looked very similar in the shot. Debatable, but similar. The other involved a rejection for 'double' for the third shot of a Frecci Tricolori display. For me that easily could have gone in favour of the photographer, as no criterion was clearly transgressed. It brought to mind a series of shots I remember seeing of the Red Arrows. As someone who enjoys viewing photos of the various formation aerobatic teams such things are of interest to me. There was a series of (I think) 9 photos, depicting each individual Red Arrow aircraft landing after a display, all taken at exactly the same spot, one after the other. No problem because they each had different serial numbers; great for a database which focuses on such things. But for me, interested in seeing photos of The Red Arrows, one would have done. The motive was exactly the same. (Can I make clear I am in no way criticising the photographer involved - he was uploading according to the rules). But the three photos of the Frecci in that thread were - for me - very different, and thus more 'viewable', yet the last was considered to have transgressed the double rule. An otherwise popular photo was denied to the viewers.

I don't think this is an example of rules and their application working in anyone's interests. The photographer loses out on an acceptance; DM lose out on a little bit of traffic the photo would have attracted; the screeners may even lose out in that it can generate criticism of decision making. I posted a rejection not so long ago - the thread for which was locked eventually. Not to go over that ground again, but that was a good example for me of the point I am trying to illustrate. I was not given the benefit of the doubt.

There is some fuzziness around whether the photography element of the site is a database or a photography 'gallery'. That will always be the case, but I think we should be looking to maximise acceptances within the context of the site's overall philosophy of maintaining the highest standards with respect to photographic quality.

Maybe I haven't made my point clearly at all - but at least I have got it off my chest and reinforced those who think of me as very 'wordy' with my posts!

Paul

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: VORTEX003
Posted 2009-11-27 10:07:20 and read 5886 times.



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15):



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15):
I've heard screeners do on occasion correct wrong info but I've had no experience of this yet.

They do indeed - and it saved me uploading a shot again  Smile

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: RonS
Posted 2009-11-27 10:07:45 and read 5886 times.



Quoting Psych (Reply 16):
but I think we should be looking to maximise acceptances within the context of the site's overall philosophy of maintaining the highest standards with respect to photographic quality.

Of course, agreed.

Quoting Psych (Reply 16):
The photographer loses out on an acceptance; DM lose out on a little bit of traffic the photo would have attracted;

That's what I was trying to say above, you said it better, agreed.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15):
Anyhow, my point is... it could be worse!

Wow, I agree with this Karl today also. It's pretty darn good here!

Quoting Psych (Reply 16):
I would also remove the whole thorny one of 'motive' for this discussion

Fine, I can shut it about Motive. As far as borderline, yes like you said, as long as the quality is high (and I think we are all saying that) then on questionable photos that could go either way, they should go to the photog. Like your "grain in the deep shadows" photo, my Spirit night moving shot that I think you've seen, Ryan's 747SP and other's so called almost Double / not really a true double type of photos, etc. I don't want to re-hash old threads though, so I will refrain voicing my opinion again about those.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Dendrobatid
Posted 2009-11-27 10:30:35 and read 5872 times.



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15):
I've heard screeners do on occasion correct wrong info but I've had no experience of this yet.

Karl
For a good image we have a policy of correcting minor bad information or category, not on occasion, but most of the time. If an uploader uploaded ten with the category incorrect, say a big Cessna twin as business, I would correct nine and reject one along with a personal. A careless slip is corrected, but when an uploader is repeatedly negligent, then we would not do so. If I encountered another ten from the same uploader a week or two later, I would not do so again but that rarely happens if dealt with friendly the first time.
If the registration/serial is wrong, they will always be rejected as so much else depends on that being correct, checks for doubles, the aircraft type etc.
I have said it before, but our philosophy is to add every image, unless, unless, unless.
We do not compromise on quality other than for the old and rare and those that have been about for some time must bear in mind that the scope of acceptable motive is now far wider than even a year ago, in the name of creativity.

Mick Bajcar

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: GST
Posted 2009-11-27 11:28:47 and read 5840 times.



Quoting Psych (Reply 16):

Maybe I haven't made my point clearly at all - but at least I have got it off my chest and reinforced those who think of me as very 'wordy' with my posts!

There is nothing wrong with being wordy with posts, as long as you feel you get your point across clearly.

As for myself, I am eager to see all the views here, as an amateur with a very hazy acceptance ratio ( 1 out of a 13 accepted), but who has much more interest in artsy shots where possible than the typical side on shot. Additionally these are the pics I like to view here most, alongside the cool paintjob conventional shots.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: NicolasRubio
Posted 2009-11-27 12:42:01 and read 5815 times.



Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 1):
Getting back to the topic, and i dont remember who had advocated this but, when the photographer forgets to tickmark certain categories the screener can just tick the appropriate category & add a reminder in the acceptance mail that, "i did it for u this time but next time f***-u"

I couldn't agree more! I mean, it takes the same ammout of time to tick a category than it takes to tick a rejection!

Quoting INNflight (Reply 8):
Imho it is not. Motive rejections are plenty (for me at least Wink) and sometimes just not "what the particular screener likes".

I think I am in the same bag as you are Florian... I get a lot of motive rejections because I got bored of mediocre/common/etc shots and I try to push the creative rules with my shots. Nevertheless, that wouldn't be the problem because as I said, I PUSH THE CREATIVE RULES... but IT IS a problem because then I see pictures accepted that push the boundaries WAY MORE than I did... and that is VERY FRUSTRATING!

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: NIKV69
Posted 2009-11-27 14:06:11 and read 5784 times.

I find it ironic that after the site threw the acceptance ratio out the window here as a way to encourage you guys to upload more and worry less about rejections I find a thread here asking for screeners to give the photog the benefit of the doubt. I think if you looked at things from a nuetral point of view you would see the screeners do that already and you should give them a little more credit.

Quoting Psych (Reply 16):
I want to be clear that I am not advocating relaxing quality standards - it is too easy to 'read' this debate as arguing for that. This is about rules that maintain high standards but also favour the contributor when the decision could easily go either way

How do you know this doesn't happen already? How do you know that every shot that is borderline the screener just says reject? Your trying to make a point while getting inside of the many heads of people who screen here. Scary.

As far as category goes I would tend to agree to a point where I think they only change is that a pic rejected simply for category and does not have quality issues should get priority screening and not have to wait the full queue. You guys got a gift with the acceptance ratio thing I would expect at least a few months to go by before seeing more lobbying for relaxed standards which this clearly is.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Psych
Posted 2009-11-27 14:19:17 and read 5777 times.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 22):
How do you know this doesn't happen already? How do you know that every shot that is borderline the screener just says reject? Your trying to make a point while getting inside of the many heads of people who screen here. Scary.

Boy oh boy Nik - we don't seem to be able to agree on anything do we. There seems to be an unpleasant edge to your use of the term 'you guys' in your post. I am genuinely making suggestions that I see are in the interests of the whole site - not just a few 'whiners'.

Where have I said that I don't recognise that many screeners may be trying hard to get borderline photos accepted?

I feel you are completely missing the point of my post. I think a lot has happened to improve things here. I applaud that. There may well be many screeners trying to do exactly what we are discussing here. This is not a criticism of the whole screening process. I don't want recent changes to stop there though. I would like to see it as 'policy' - a cultural shift as much as a behavioural one.

I fear nothing I say will enable you to understand my perspective. All I can say is I know for a fact that I speak for a number of contributors.

Paul

[Edited 2009-11-27 14:25:23]

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2009-11-27 17:22:17 and read 5743 times.



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 22):
I find it ironic that after the site threw the acceptance ratio out the window here as a way to encourage you guys to upload more and worry less about rejections I find a thread here asking for screeners to give the photog the benefit of the doubt. I think if you looked at things from a nuetral point of view you would see the screeners do that already and you should give them a little more credit.

If you would care to read the replies in this thread, you will find that many have said that in terms of screening, things have improved a lot in the past few months. That does not mean that any member can keep on making suggestions. In fact, it's because of the suggestions of many that everything has improved to where we are now.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: NIKV69
Posted 2009-11-27 18:17:35 and read 5734 times.



Quoting Psych (Reply 23):
Boy oh boy Nik - we don't seem to be able to agree on anything do we. There seems to be an unpleasant edge to your use of the term 'you guys' in your post. I am genuinely making suggestions that I see are in the interests of the whole site - not just a few 'whiners'

So you speak for the entire body of photogs here? I seriously doubt that.

Quoting Psych (Reply 23):
Where have I said that I don't recognise that many screeners may be trying hard to get borderline photos accepted?

What does this mean?

Quoting Psych (Thread starter):
I have argued that it would be a positive move for the site to be seen to be giving the photographer the benefit of the doubt when examining photographs that might be considered to be pushing up against the rejection criteria in particular instances

Sure sounds to me you are assuming that every time a screener gets a shot that is close they reject it. Where you want the screener to accept the picture. If you mean something else please clarify.

Quoting Psych (Reply 23):
I don't want recent changes to stop there though. I would like to see it as 'policy' - a cultural shift as much as a behavioural one

How can sceening be a policy? You give 20 different guys criteria and let them judge. Leave them alone they have being doing fine.

Quoting Psych (Reply 23):
All I can say is I know for a fact that I speak for a number of contributors.

We went from the whole site now to a number of contributors? When you boil it down it still comes back to the same group. I would have hoped we could have been spared a thread like this for awhile after the acceptance ratio change but now we have you asking for the screeners for the benefit of the doubt? Will it ever end?

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 24):
If you would care to read the replies in this thread, you will find that many have said that in terms of screening, things have improved a lot in the past few months. That does not mean that any member can keep on making suggestions. In fact, it's because of the suggestions of many that everything has improved to where we are now.

I don't think the recent changes were an improvement in fact it has punished the photogs that prescreen carefullly and rewards people that just want to upload first and fix later. You seem to lose sight of the fact you are not speaking for everyone. You just think you are.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2009-11-27 18:52:35 and read 5770 times.



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 25):
You seem to lose sight of the fact you are not speaking for everyone. You just think you are.

I said "many", not "everyone". You seem to always be speaking for the site, and yet despite your 110% defence of anything and everything, some things have changed because many (again, not everyone) felt that a change was much desired.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Cpd
Posted 2009-11-27 19:02:48 and read 5770 times.



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 25):
So you speak for the entire body of photogs here? I seriously doubt that.

Do you have any mode other than aggressive and antagonistic?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 25):
I don't think the recent changes were an improvement in fact it has punished the photogs that prescreen carefullly and rewards people that just want to upload first and fix later.

Rubbish. You are implying that the majority of people do not pre-screen carefully, and they upload first and fix later. Or, in another term, you are speaking for the "entire body of photogs" by the looks of things. You are blowing things up as a tabloid newspaper journalist would do to suit your story.

Most contributors I see try to do the right thing - but fall short on little things.

I'm not advocating that the little things be accepted either. As now, they should be rejected - that's how you learn and get better. But the current system does allow images in that are exceptional in the subject matter, though marginal in quality.

That's all I'm going to contribute to this discussion - because one, I'm reasonably happy with things are at the moment, and two, I have no intention of getting into long disputes.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: JakTrax
Posted 2009-11-27 19:20:30 and read 5768 times.



Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 19):
For a good image we have a policy of correcting minor bad information or category, not on occasion, but most of the time. If an uploader uploaded ten with the category incorrect, say a big Cessna twin as business, I would correct nine and reject one along with a personal. A careless slip is corrected, but when an uploader is repeatedly negligent, then we would not do so. If I encountered another ten from the same uploader a week or two later, I would not do so again but that rarely happens if dealt with friendly the first time

Fair enough. Glad you have patience in view of minor errors, however I think it depends on the screener. I rarely make info mistakes as I usually check over everything but on the two occasions I have cocked up they were so minor I felt that they could easily have been corrected without me having to stick them in the queue again. That said, my last info rejection was probably over 12 months ago.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 22):
you guys

Should that not be 'us guys' or have you been elevated to the next level Nik? I personally don't think you meant any harm by it but I would recommend you read posts more carefully before jumping to any conclusions. Paul et al speak for quite a few photog's here - many of whom for whatever reason would rather not express their opinions publicly. People often look for a spokesperson to take the lead. Never heard of unions for employees? Having read all the replies here I now understand pretty-much what Paul's saying and he undeniably raises some fair points. If it wasn't for these threads, full of questions and healthy debate, the recent changes - which you seem to applaud - may never have happened.

Karl

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Dendrobatid
Posted 2009-11-27 21:57:44 and read 5735 times.



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 28):
That said, my last info rejection was probably over 12 months ago.

Pleased to hear that as it broadly corresponds to the time that we decided not to reject otherwise good images for minor information or category mistakes. Rejections solely for info or category should not generally happen unless the registration is wrong or needlessly omitted (unless someone is a regular for doing so)
As an indication I have checked our logs of the last 2000 rejections where info featured in the overall rejection. There were four for solely info and three were from contributors who should have known better, all of those were regulars for not putting Untitled (owner) on Untitled aircraft. The other one had no registration listed when it was clearly visible ! That 2000 went back to early June.
I think that we (screeners) have well and truly addressed that old complaint !

Mick

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Psych
Posted 2009-11-28 00:55:13 and read 5712 times.

Nik.

I try hard to consistently post in a constructive and open way and you consistently post in an aggressive and patronising way - why? If you don't agree with points I raise then that's completely fine, but please take a moment to disagree in a way that doesn't imply I am some kind of manipulative idiot. This is just the kind of stand off that tends to take over otherwise constructive threads and prevents decent debate.

I will try hard to spell this out - and I apologise that I am unable to express what appear to be complex ideas in one sentence:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 25):
So you speak for the entire body of photogs here? I seriously doubt that.

Well here is something we can agree on - clearly I cannot speak for the whole photographer community. Once again, I never said that I did. I know for a fact that there are a number of photographers who I speak to and have corresponded with me that agree with what I am arguing here. My hunch is that there are plenty of others too. I am also sure there are very many who would disagree with what I say - that's fine. That's what a discussion forum is all about. The point I was saying where you misinterpreted me was that my motivation is to improve the whole site, not just try to force through an issue that will only benefit a small proportion of people.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 25):
Sure sounds to me you are assuming that every time a screener gets a shot that is close they reject it. Where you want the screener to accept the picture. If you mean something else please clarify.

I am sure a lot of screeners, when they see a photo they are unsure about, don't reject it, but pass it on for a second opinion. I believe screening colleagues when they say a lot of internal arguments go on about particular photographs and their motive, to take one example. Again you are missing the point. That is not the issue I am trying to illustrate. I mean that when there is an image (like my recent one) where the apparent problem is minimal and some screeners don't believe it is an issue, but others do, then that clear lack of concordance should result in a decision which goes in favour of the photographer - rather than one screener who believes it is rejectable overriding the views of, say two, who think it is fine. Our current system is biased towards the decision being a negative one - i.e. two screeners say 'yes', one says 'no', the 'no' wins. Now when that 'no' is based on something correct the other two have not spotted (missed dust spot, or border etc) - fine. But when those are subjective judgements, such as 'it is grainy' vs 'it isn't' or 'the contrast is off' vs 'the contrast is fine', I am saying decide in favour of the photographer.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 25):
How can sceening be a policy? You give 20 different guys criteria and let them judge. Leave them alone they have being doing fine.

Broadly I agree the team do a very good job in difficult circumstances. I am not saying eradicate subjectivity - that would be nonsense and impossible. But a 'policy' would be easy - I have just described what it would be in my examples above - screeners do not press the reject button on an issue where some of their colleagues do not agree that factor reaches the threshold for rejection. Or recognise from patterns in screening data that some screeners notice contrast problems, or oversharpening, or grain etc that others do not note (these things can simply be monitor differences) and when these ones come up make it policy to reject only if two screeners out of the three agree on that factor, or ensure appeals are biased towards acceptance when the rejection reasons are minimal/trivial/whatever other word you want to use. It would not be beyond the wit of man to come up with something clearer that what I have just said above if there was a will so to do.

A friend of mine has sent me a rejection overnight for contrast. I may be deluding myself, but I think I know enough about screening criteria to say that that decision was borderline at best, possibly a mistake. It looks pretty good to me. My question is who wins by a rejection like that on such a small issue. Sure, if the contrast is bang out of whack reject it - but this is minimal, if there at all. Who wins is my point. Now if you have an argument which supports such a high threshold for positive rejection decision-making feel free to articulate it here and it can be debated. I never said I was right about this or any other thing. I just 'believe' this would be better.

I shall post no more on this, as there is a danger - as with so many other threads - that it can then deteriorate into key people arguing the toss with each other, or getting personal. That just distracts from the important stuff.

I hope the debate can continue positively and avoid being locked!

Paul

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Viv
Posted 2009-11-28 01:10:19 and read 5701 times.

I do not wish to respond to every post here. Suffice it to say that I believe that the change suggested by Paul would be beneficial in both tangible and intangible ways: Tangible, in that many additional good shots would be accepted; intangible, in that photographers would be encouraged to take risks. However, by far the most important intangible change would be a cultural one - the relationship between uploaders and screeners would become colloborative rather than adversarial. This, as in life, can only be a good thing.

Note to Nik: I speak for no one but myself, I make no assumptions, valid or otherwise, and I have no axe to grind. But I would love to see a deep debate on this topic.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Raedervision
Posted 2009-11-28 02:56:09 and read 5665 times.

I certainly have been on both sides of the screeners creative dilemma along with many others. This upload process isn't a democracy. The screeners are the judge, jury and executioner. My oil psi has been known to rise above normal for some rejections too {mostly due to rules}. The screeners rejected it for a reason and maybe they didn't see it the way you did. If I feel strongly about it {rarely do} upload it again, state your case and if it comes back again, move on. I can't worry about who gets the bigger piece of the pie. If some of them do get through all the better for us and maybe a sign of some change in the interest of aviation "photography". Jim

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Leadingedge
Posted 2009-11-28 14:38:50 and read 5584 times.



Quoting Viv (Reply 31):
I shall post no more on this, as there is a danger - as with so many other threads - that it can then deteriorate into key people arguing the toss with each other, or getting personal. That just distracts from the important stuff

Paul please do not be so easily discouraged. You make good points and a few reactionary Brickbats from Wannabe Screener types should not put you off. It seems that A-net has made some good moves recently which is good news for all.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Lexy
Posted 2009-11-28 15:15:31 and read 5571 times.



Quoting Sulman (Reply 5):
This has had a number of effects: Firstly the mass market photo sharing sites appear to have become more popular, although they lack the specific database support we have here. If sharing, rather than exposure is your aim, you'll use these more frequently.

I'll be honest with you here, I've found sites like "Flickr" and "PBase" to ping off the Google search bots better than Airliners.Net or the "other site". If you know how to word your photos, they will get on the first page of a Google search almost everytime from those sites two "sharing" based sites. Plus with Yahoo/Flickr, their Image Search engine is heavily reliant on "Flickr" photos first, then outside sources. Those sites are becoming less about sharing and more about documentation which is one reason "Flickr" and "Getty Images" have teamed up for image exposure over the internet.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Jeffm
Posted 2009-11-28 17:59:24 and read 5551 times.



Quoting Psych (Thread starter):
As a lifelong cricket fan...

Here in the U.S. if you want to challenge a call by a referee, you have to be willing to lose something if the call stands...... What do you want to lose Paul? A few upload slots? If you want to take, you gotta be willing to give.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Psych
Posted 2009-11-29 00:54:09 and read 5518 times.

Quoting Jeffm (Reply 35):
What do you want to lose Paul? A few upload slots?

Ah Jeff - good stuff! I don't feel any thread of mine is complete without your input   . So, despite what I said above, I have to take the bait.

Again this missed the point. In cricket we are increasingly moving to decisions involving 'video evidence' - i.e. for some decisions, when the umpire is not sure he asks a third umpire off the pitch to closely examine a video of the incident and advise. The key point of the analogy is - even then - if the resulting camera evidence is inconclusive (e.g. did the fielder catch the ball without it touching the ground?), the benefit of that doubt goes to the batsman. Also, with a new series coming up between England and South Africa soon, each side (like in tennis) will be allowed to challenge a certain number of decisions if they believe they were wrong (like our appeal here). If the video evidence is conclusive the initial decision can be overruled, if it was in error, and ratified if proved correct (as can happen with an appeal). As in tennis, these questions are about hard facts (was the ball out; did the batsman hit the ball?); when subjectivity comes in to it the decision 'out' is not made.

I am saying use the same principle - if it is not clearly rejectable don't automatically err on the side of rejection. If my photo looks slightly oversharpened to one screener, but fine to another, let it be accepted. If one says it has grain, but another two say it doesn't, let it be accepted. If one screener says the contrast is not ideal, but another thinks it is fine, let it stay. If a Head Screener is arbitrating in an appeal, let him make the decision in favour of the photographer if the initial rejection reason does not jump out at him and he is straining his eyes to see the flaw on his screen. If one Head Screener would have rejected an appeal, but another would have accepted it, had he been the one to take it out of the queue, there is something wrong with the system.

Anyhow - many people prepared to listen to these ideas are interested by them; many people not prepared won't hear the argument. T'was ever thus in life.

Paul

[Edited 2009-11-29 00:56:39]

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Aussie18
Posted 2009-11-29 01:56:18 and read 5486 times.



Quoting Psych (Reply 36):
Again this missed the point. In cricket we are increasingly moving to decisions involving 'video evidence' - i.e. for some decisions, when the umpire is not sure he asks a third umpire off the pitch to closely examine a video of the incident and advise. The key point of the analogy is - even then - if the resulting camera evidence is inconclusive (e.g. did the fielder catch the ball without it touching the ground?), the benefit of that doubt goes to the batsman. Also, with a new series coming up between England and South Africa soon, each side (like in tennis) will be allowed to challenge a certain number of decisions if they believe they were wrong (like our appeal here). If the video evidence is conclusive the initial decision can be overruled, if it was in error, and ratified if proved correct (as can happen with an appeal). As in tennis, these questions are about hard facts (was the ball out; did the batsman hit the ball?); when subjectivity comes in to it the decision 'out' is not made.

Hi Paul,

All this talk about cricket,I felt I better contribute,currently at the moment Im watching the 3rd ODI between South Africa V England,South Africa seem to be struggling abit so Im sure your happy about that.

Also watched the Australians beat West Indies inside 3 days of their test match.

Quoting Psych (Reply 36):
I am saying use the same principle - if it is not clearly rejectable don't automatically err on the side of rejection. If my photo looks slightly oversharpened to one screener, but fine to another, let it be accepted. If one says it has grain, but another two say it doesn't, let it be accepted. If one screener says the contrast is not ideal, but another thinks it is fine, let it stay. If a Head Screener is arbitrating in an appeal, let him make the decision in favour of the photographer if the initial rejection reason does not jump out at him and he is straining his eyes to see the flaw on his screen. If one Head Screener would have rejected an appeal, but another would have accepted it, had he been the one to take it out of the queue, there is something wrong with the system.

We dont just reject images straight out which may have minor flaws,we have the option to second opinion images which we can leave a comment for next screener(s) as to what we think is wrong with it & other screeners can check it & discuss/decide whether its acceptable/rejectable so in my opinion we are giving the benefit of the doubt in that aspect.


Cheers Mark.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2009-11-29 06:04:15 and read 5452 times.



Quoting Aussie18 (Reply 37):
other screeners can check it & discuss/decide whether its acceptable/rejectable so in my opinion we are giving the benefit of the doubt in that aspect.

yes, in that sense there is befeit of the doubt, but what Paul is saying, or at least that is what I get from his posts (correct me if I'm wrong Paul!) is that the problem lies in 2 "yes" + 1 "no" means rejection, instead of acceptance. The idea would be in those cases to have the "yes" win instead of the "no", so the pictures that have had doubts among screeners, since at least some see the pic as acceptable, be accepted instead of rejected.

rgds

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Psych
Posted 2009-11-30 15:10:47 and read 5332 times.

I don't think that it is possible to have a sensible debate on the 'toilet bucket' thread about the implications of all that we have seen there. I do hope once the dust has settled it might be possible.

I really think it would be a good for all parties to openly discuss what we are learning from all these recent conversations. But can that happen ..............

For me there is something fundamentally wrong with the interpretation of the criteria when that particular toilet image 'meets the criteria' and yet so many of the shots we have seen in various threads are rejected on the basis of, at best, minor or very subjective flaws. I would like to see some discussion about the underlying philosophy of this website and what it is trying to achieve - from an aviation photography viewpoint. Discussion that would not deteriorate into two sides defending their positions may well be asking for too much - but I still ask for it.

My friend's photo mentioned in Reply 30 was rejected at appeal - not only that, but with no guide as to how to correct it. I believe that is a really poor element of the appeals process at times. I kid you not - the photo was genuinely not badly off in terms of contrast. It wouldn't have attracted many views - as do toilets - but it was an aviation enthusiasts' photo of an airframe that hardly features at all on the site. That didn't count for anything it seems. What the hell is going wrong here?

Paul

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: JeffM
Posted 2009-11-30 18:51:29 and read 5300 times.



Quoting Psych (Reply 39):
that particular toilet image 'meets the criteria' and yet so many of the shots we have seen in various threads are rejected on the basis of, at best, minor or very subjective flaws.

well....things have been going down the crapper for awhile now....it just may be a sign of the times...'ya think?

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: JakTrax
Posted 2009-12-01 11:51:16 and read 5232 times.

Paul, Jeff... be careful! Have you seen what's happened to the 'bucket' thread?

I had two posts deleted for being 'inappropriate' and inflaming the situation'. Now personally I think my posts were some of the most reasonable and down-to-Earth in the entire thread and they certainly didn't inflame anything. They prompted sensible debate and I'm more than disappointed. Pretty ******-*** actually!

Now inevtiably this new post of mine will be deleted but to be honest the policies enforced here over the past few days have left me past caring.

This site is a totally off-putting place to be of late and the gap between owners/operators and photog's is widening rather quickly! You call this friendly and open?

You can't have a debate here now for fear of reprimand and/or repercussions. Deletion of this post will be the proof.

Karl

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Plainplane
Posted 2009-12-01 12:25:53 and read 5213 times.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 41):
You can't have a debate here now for fear of reprimand and/or repercussions.

This statement reminds me of an incident involving one of the best contributors to the site.

Remember when Wilco737 asked a question about why one his shots with a fence in it was rejected while other similar shots he took were accepted, only to be told that none of the shots should have been accepted in the first place and that they would be taken down? This type of thing makes photographers afraid to ask questions here.

At least it could be said that there was an error by the screener but under the circumstances the shots could stay, but nope, suddenly they don't deserve to be on A.net. If I was him I would feel greatly offended.

[Edited 2009-12-01 12:28:02]

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Psych
Posted 2009-12-01 14:41:26 and read 5180 times.

Quoting Plainplane (Reply 42):
At least it could be said that there was an error by the screener but under the circumstances the shots could stay, but nope, suddenly they don't deserve to be on A.net. If I was him I would feel greatly offended.

Just to keep this thread on track, if it has not already completely run its course, the suggestion to remove Phil's already accepted images was a mistake, and acknowledged, and they were never removed. But unfortunately the damage was done and we have not seen Phil here since then. For me, a big loss for the site.

The other thread I mentioned last night has now been locked so that is the end of the discussion there. For me the underlying issues still need to be debated openly, because all the furore there was prompted by what I saw as fundamental conflicts between various aspects of the acceptance/rejection criteria. I really hope Karl is not correct that it is not possible to have an open debate - that engages all parties.

Paul (demoralised from Manchester)

P.S. Jeff - just re-read your post and it made me laugh. Thanks for that  wink .

[Edited 2009-12-01 15:04:02]

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Plainplane
Posted 2009-12-01 16:26:09 and read 5112 times.

Thanks for the clarification Paul.

Quoting Psych (Reply 43):
The other thread I mentioned last night has now been locked so that is the end of the discussion there. For me the underlying issues still need to be debated openly, because all the furore there was prompted by what I saw as fundamental conflicts between various aspects of the acceptance/rejection criteria.

I can absolutely, unequivocally, agree.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: JeffM
Posted 2009-12-01 17:30:00 and read 5099 times.



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 41):
Paul, Jeff... be careful! Have you seen what's happened to the 'bucket' thread?

The person that locked it is right....this place isn't going anywhere anytime soon. If you can't speak your mind, what good is this forum?

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Viv
Posted 2009-12-02 00:22:37 and read 5036 times.



Quoting Plainplane (Reply 42):
This type of thing makes photographers afraid to ask questions here.

This is true, unfortunately.

While I understand the fear, NOT speaking our minds will never bring change.

If photographers can overcome their fears and express their concerns with clarity, force and civility, it may be that change will come and that some of the more blinkered attitudes on the part of the Mods that we have seen in recent days will no longer restrict open and transparent debate here.

In the long run, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain - the site needs us more than we need it. And with our input it can be so much better than it is now.

Just to be clear: This post is not off-topic and should not be deleted for that reason. I am advocating that those who post here be "given the benefit of the doubt" and that posts should be deleted or threads locked only when there is no doubt as to the rightness of such action. Simply put, discomfort of the Mods should not lead to deletion.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Linco22
Posted 2009-12-02 06:01:51 and read 4990 times.

I go away for over a year, and you're all still argueing?  Wink

I've learnt to accept anet as it is. Gone are the sleepness nights - an exageration of course - of having my photo being rejected for being 0.009 degrees out. I don't think benefit of the doubt has ever come into it, maybe on an administration issue like the wrong category being selected.

Oh and Jeff, I'm glad you're still as bubbly as ever  Smile

Regards

Colin

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Psych
Posted 2009-12-02 11:48:28 and read 4933 times.



Quoting Linco22 (Reply 47):
I don't think benefit of the doubt has ever come into it

Great to see you back Colin.

I fervently hope that if you departed again for some months and came back you would see a difference in this regard. That's why I keep banging on. Only time will tell.

Paul

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: UnattendedBag
Posted 2009-12-02 12:42:04 and read 4907 times.

Im going to make a quick statement here, as the 'other' thread has been locked.

I love Florian's work, I think he is one of only a few with a truly "creative" eye and I applaud him for uploading and testing many of his images here. I also think much of is creative work is in a different league than what is "normally" accepted here. I can understand his frustration in seeing technically simple aviation photos (I have a pant load on this site myself) accepted day in and day out, only to have his photos rejected for a reason reserved for "standard" photos - motive. Motive is a rejection reason given for a bag cart that blocks the wheel, or when a portion of the aircraft is cut off. "Creative" photos will get the same rejection reason, even though the fence that blocks the aircraft is supposed to "add" to the uniqueness of the photo, even though the snowy hill with the heat haze emanating from it and distorting portions of the aircraft is supposed to "add" to the photograph.

It's also discouraging to see a completely blacked-out aircraft against a beautiful skyline sunset and wonder why your "aircraft against a fence" was rejected for motive, and the accepted photo was not rejected for dark. Are they not 2 different photographers attempting to add a creative photo to the site? Why one and not the other.

-----

Now, are we talking about "benefit of the doubt" for photos that have a "correctable" problem, or photos that receive the motive issue? I see some posters argue about the information rejection. That is a correctable problem and probably should receive a rejection as it should be accepted after the problem is corrected. Are we talking about level rejections? Even a photo that is off by .009 degrees can be fixed and should be accepted once the photo is corrected.

Quoting Psych (Reply 16):
I would also remove the whole thorny one of 'motive' for this discussion -

I now see your instruction and will end my post.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Linco22
Posted 2009-12-02 13:06:13 and read 4894 times.



Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 49):
Even a photo that is off by .009 degrees can be fixed and should be accepted once the photo is corrected.

yes, I see your point, but you can't give the photographer the benefit of the doubt soley based motive issues. Surely it should be applied across the board as long at it doesn't question the quality of the photograph. I'd be surprised if everyone thinks a photo out by 0.009 degrees should NOT be accepted on here.

Regards

Colin

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: UnattendedBag
Posted 2009-12-02 13:20:56 and read 4899 times.

Quoting Linco22 (Reply 50):
I'd be surprised if everyone thinks a photo out by 0.009 degrees should NOT be accepted on here.

Show me a photo that you/anyone had rejected, that only needed a .009 degree rotation for acceptance. I am only using your exaggeration...

If we start giving the benefit of the doubt to correctable rejections, what does that lead to? Is .15 needed rotation okay and not .25? Is one dust spot okay and not 2? Reject it only when It becomes unpleasing to the eye? Whose eye? That's when objective rejections become subjective rejections. These rejection reasons should not be subjective.

Subjective rejection reasons are "contrast", "color", "motive" (in some cases), "soft" and maybe "editing".

Quoting Psych (Reply 30):
Our current system is biased towards the decision being a negative one - i.e. two screeners say 'yes', one says 'no', the 'no' wins. Now when that 'no' is based on something correct the other two have not spotted (missed dust spot, or border etc) - fine. But when those are subjective judgements, such as 'it is grainy' vs 'it isn't' or 'the contrast is off' vs 'the contrast is fine', I am saying decide in favour of the photographer.

With regard to subjective rejections, I think Paul is absolutely correct!

[Edited 2009-12-02 13:27:28]

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2009-12-02 13:28:09 and read 4891 times.



Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 51):
If we start giving the benefit of the doubt to correctable rejections, what does that lead to?

I see your point in regards to the level rejections (even though I do think that some are not even visible to the naked eye of 99% of the people watching!), but aren't many rejections correctable that would inlcude contrast, or color? A color rejection can be corrected by further editing for example.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: UnattendedBag
Posted 2009-12-02 13:41:02 and read 4888 times.



Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 52):
but aren't many rejections correctable that would inlcude contrast, or color? A color rejection can be corrected by further editing for example.

Take these two photos for example, taken in Atlanta by myself and a friend. They were taken the same day by different types of cameras, edited using different software and computers. Could they not both be correct?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Padgett
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Robbins - Nashville Aviation Photographers


They both have different color and contrast and they were both accepted. Sure the screeners could reject EVERY photo that doesn't have 10 "units" of contrast, but then where would the uniqueness of different photos from different photographers be?

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Linco22
Posted 2009-12-02 13:47:58 and read 4880 times.

Unattended bag, see the photo below. I'm not trying to bring what I'm saying to the top of this thread, I agree as much as the next guy that we must adhere to strict guidelines.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...32flybeq400gecooatbhd120909_03.jpg

Colin

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2009-12-02 13:54:19 and read 4867 times.



Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 53):
Could they not both be correct?

absolutely, and your example proves it, but what I was trying to say that if instead of having them both accepted, they were both rejected for, say contrast. Wouldn't that be a correctable rejection, and therefore it would enter in the same group as the level rejections? (note: by no means i intend to say those pics should have been rejected!!  Smile )

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: UnattendedBag
Posted 2009-12-02 13:57:49 and read 4867 times.



Quoting Linco22 (Reply 54):
see the photo below.

Panned shots are difficult to judge level as the background is blurry and out of focus. But I think, if 2 screeners out of 3 feel it is not level, it should get a rejection. At first glance, I cannot see a level problem. But after focusing in on the background verticals, I see it needs a little ccw rotation. After looking at it in Photoshop, I would rotate it .5 degrees to the left.

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: UnattendedBag
Posted 2009-12-02 14:09:59 and read 4860 times.



Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 55):
but what I was trying to say that if instead of having them both accepted, they were both rejected for, say contrast. Wouldn't that be a correctable rejection, and therefore it would enter in the same group as the level rejections?

Sure! Im not saying that contrast and color are not correctable. Im saying that one photo may have 10 "units" of contrast and another photo may have 20 "units" of contrast and they both be "correct" and acceptable. Requiring every photo to have exactly 15 "units" of contrast would not make sense, and would turn a contrast rejection into an objective rejection.

But photo 'A' might be off by .5 degrees and photo 'B' might be off by .75 degrees. They are both not level and but should get a rejection.

Subjective rejections (color, contrast) can be correctable, but one screener may see a color issue and another may not. If the photo is unlevel, the photo is unlevel.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 55):
(note: by no means i intend to say those pics should have been rejected!! Smile )

Never would've thought that.  Smile

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: UnattendedBag
Posted 2009-12-02 14:36:16 and read 4845 times.



Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 52):
I see your point in regards to the level rejections (even though I do think that some are not even visible to the naked eye of 99% of the people watching!), but aren't many rejections correctable that would inlcude contrast, or color? A color rejection can be corrected by further editing for example.

I see now where I misspoke.

Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 51):
If we start giving the benefit of the doubt to correctable rejections, what does that lead to?

That should read "correctable objective rejections".

oops!  Smile

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: Zbot69
Posted 2009-12-08 23:40:54 and read 4648 times.



Quoting Psych (Thread starter):
But in the very competitive internet environment in which sites like this exist, I wonder whether the site (and its culture) would be improved if there was more of a sense that when a photos 'failings' are subjective - i.e. some screeners would accept it, others would not - then that uncertainty should go in favour of the photographer.

Can't help but wonder if some of these considerations haven't actually been incorporated into screening "philosophy" of late. Screeners have been cutting a wide swath through the queue over the last week. Considering how many multiple hundreds of photos are added daily, almost Herculean efforts to shrink the queue down to size. And in spite of the large volume of submissions, I have to say, there have been some incredibly good photos added lately. We can only hope some of those may have included possible "rejectees" that have been given a benefit of doubt. The site is certainly none the worse for it. There have been some real holy COW shots in there.

Hats off to the A.net community for all your efforts. Gonna have some great new screensavers for the holidays!

Topic: RE: Giving The Benefit Of The Doubt
Username: EGTESkyGod
Posted 2009-12-09 20:57:33 and read 4507 times.

Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 1):
I thought i was the only one who liked cricket on here, nice to see someone from the motherland with similar affinity

I think there are more cricket fans than you realise! I myself am out here in Sydney with the sole purpose of playing cricket, I did so 3 years ago and I'm lucky enough to be doing so again, and it has in fact fed my passion for spotting as my friend Glenn Stewart introduced me to SYD where the majority of the 10 shots I have on Anet are from Sydney.

Quoting Psych (Thread starter):
err on the side of the photographer when looking at 'borderline' screening decisions


I like what the thread started out to be and the benefit of the doubt idea I believe is a good one. I upload photos to another well known aviation photography site, and I know they are 2 different sites but I have had photos accepted on that website we are not allowed to mention (this post was deleted due to that reference so I am reposting without) that were rejected here and vice-versa so if the problems were that borderline that one site accepted it, why can't the other? I'd like to re-iterate that I know the sites are independant and therefore the question was slightly rhetorical. The point is that such photos must have bordered on being accepted... And these are the ones that were accepted here but rejected on the other site.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charlie W Carter (EGTESkyGod)
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charlie W Carter (EGTESkyGod)

I don't know how to show you ones that were accepted there but not here as they are no longer in the rejected photos list... All of the ones I have there and here I believed were good enough, otherwise I wouldn't have uploaded. However all of these must have been borderline... With benefit of the doubt would they have made it?

Quoting Psych (Thread starter):
As a lifelong cricket fan (and a long time fast bowler who ended up frustrated by the rule I am now supporting here!)


As a long time fast bowling allrounder, I have felt the frustration and the relief of this rule!!

[Edited 2009-12-09 21:01:48]

[Edited 2009-12-09 21:06:16]


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/