Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1461 times:
A spate of poor weather has given me time to go back through my archives to seek out shots I may have neglected to upload during busier times, or didn't recognise their worth at the time.
One such shot was rejected today as a baddouble. I've got no problem with that, by a strict interpretation of the rule, it is indeed a baddouble, but it has caused me to think again about the rule's merits.
Yes, the shots are similar, but on reflection, I now think the rejected image is not only more pleasing (though that is a matter of opinion) but also of higher quality (sharper, better tonal range).
Under the current rule the shot can't be accepted, but the implications here are that once you've taken a particular shot, you can't upload another even if your equipment, technique, judgement etc. have improved in the time between.
This means that a) photographers are not necessarily to display their best work and/or b) other sites will end up getting the benefit of such images.
Clearly the "baddouble rule" has its purpose, but I can't see how in this example (and I'm sure others have had the same experience) the rule is working to the benefit of the site or the photographer.
1 - Rethink application of the rule: clearly we don't want machine gun sequences of an approach uploaded at one time, but exactly what is the problem with 2 different (tho similar) shots uploaded at wide intervals? Who is suffering by allowing this? The rule could be ammended to state that near doubles will not be accepted within, say, a 6 month period. I should think that this would effectively preclude the sort of issue baddouble was created for, but still allow photographers to have the opportunity to re-consider their work and strive to show off their personal bests.
2 - Modify the re-upload terms to allow the replacement of an image with a similar image. I have many old subjects in the DB which I would love to replace with current versions taken 2 or 3 years later with the combined benefits of improved equipment and technique.
Boieng747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1384 times:
I got quite a few bad doubles recently which I appealed and won. I guess the whole concept has to be rethought or at least there should be a standard which is used by all screeners, maybe some sort of briefing from Johan is needed regarding this issue...
P.S. Colin nice shot, sad to see it rejected, hope you appeal it.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1327 times:
Fundamental to airliners.net's policy is the fact that the site is not a personal exhibition space for photographers to display whatever photographs they like, but rather it is a collection of aviation photographs and inclusion into the collection is very much at the discretion of Johan, supported by the crew who implement his rules and guidelines.
OK, so there's the occasional hickup, but on the whole I actually think that a.net has got its doubles policy not too far away from being right. To suggest that folks may go to other sites is only partially true - anyone who visits other sites regularly shouldn't have been able to miss the fact that policies there have been tightened up substantially in recent times and they aren't the free-for-all they once were.
Having said that, in the case Colin sites, I do feel that substitution of the existing photograph with the other (on the strict understanding that they are broadly similar pictures of exactly the same subject and that the technical quality of the new photograph is at least as good as that of the existing photograph) would be a reasonable compromise. Please note however that this is only my opinion and is not at present the policy of the site.
ExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1258 times:
Speaking of the appeal function, I had a couple of shots (max.2) sitting in the appeal queue and they always seemed to disappear.
Anyone had similar problems?
I had an image accepted by Johan that never made it on to the database. It's not in the addphotos queue or the rejection queue. I have no idea where it is. I sent Johan an e-mail but have had no response.
Sorry to stray off-topic. I don't really have any comments about the baddouble thing, though I do agree with Colin. If it's a rare subject, some leeway should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1247 times:
Regarding Colin question, could it be possible to set up a function only accessible to each photographer to delete our photos? This way we could delete a photo of ours and substitute it by a better version, and the baddouble thing would not be a point.
Heliporter From Switzerland, joined Jul 2003, 140 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1211 times:
I would prefer a slightly modified re-upload rule allowing an easy replacing of current pictures. Better quality is just a plus for photographers and a.net. Maybe this is already working - I have tried it once sucessfull! (not with a same angle shot)
Regarding Baddouble I recognise as well strange things from time to time .. but better no more comments and no plugging to this.
Markus Herzig - Swiss Helicopters, Pilatus Porter and Aviation Photography
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1146 times:
Fundamental to airliners.net's policy is the fact that the site is not a personal exhibition space for photographers to display whatever photographs they like, but rather it is a collection of aviation photographs
Don't disagree with that - but the rules don't sustain this. If I upload 2 or 3 "similar" shots, a baddouble rejection is almost inevitable, yet A.net happily accepts many similar shots of the same aircraft if shot by different photographers. If (and I agree with this) it is the collection and not the photographer which is paramount, then baddouble/badcommon should have the same rationale.
My understanding of the baddouble rule was for the specific reason of addressing those who machine-gun an approaching aircraft and upload the lot. The photographer is expected to select the best. That's fine, but I do think there should be some scope for photographers to re-appraise their work, and, within reason, submit additional pics.
To suggest that folks may go to other sites is only partially true - anyone who visits other sites regularly shouldn't have been able to miss the fact that policies there have been tightened up substantially in recent times and they aren't the free-for-all they once were.
Well I guess there are many reasons for people to upload to other sites, but one is certainly to exhibit their pics. To take my own case, if I can presume that I am taking pictures today which are better than those I took a couple of years ago, albiet of the same subject, it seems that I have to take them to another site. Ironically, although I consider A.net my home, it seems that in a fairly short time a certain other site may well contain a better representation of my current work.
Lookig at other comments, I would agree that selective replacement would be the best solution.
If you think they are worth to be uploaded, appeal them and see what the boss says.
Yes I could have done this and said nothing, but to be honest, I'm not that bothered if that shot is accepted or not - I half expected a baddouble rejection, but went ahead with the upload because I think it illustrates an issue which is annoying a number of photographers.
Times change, and I think it is healthy to occassionally re-examine the rules of this site and see if they still make sense - on the whole, I agree with Andy that the rules work reasonable well ... but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement - see how well a bit of debate worked for the search engine.
Gerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3480 posts, RR: 34 Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1064 times:
This baddouble thing needs to be rethought. I even had a picture rejected in the past for baddouble (the appeal has also been rejected for baddouble), even if I didn't have any pic at all of this aircraft in the db before.
I agree with Wietse here. With this rule, good photos will not be accepted for a rather secondary reason.
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
EGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1046 times:
As time goes by I am far more cynicle of seeing changes for the good of the photographers and feel more and more distanced from being a member of a once special team and community even if I was only a small cog in a much larger worldwide wheel feeling that whatever is said now is ignored
I do feel we the photographers are taken far too much for granted that we will upload here and accept any new or out dated rules with a 'if you don't like it tough we have many other photographers' attitude rather than trying to keep the best people who have supported Anet for many years happy
We all agree its Johans site but he should never take for granted that the best pictures will forever be uploaded here and that other sites, given time, may be as big if not bigger especially if they welcome the best pictures and listen to and appreciate the photographers who upload there.
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 21 Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1029 times:
We have a set of standards which are an attempt to ensure that the quality of material submitted to the site is kept high, viewing figures remain high, you guys get great exposure, you get a free photo-critique service [both through the screening mechanism and the forum here].
Now not all the rules are going to please all of you all the time and you're going to get periodically annoyed at the nonsensical application of a particular rule by screener X. But what can screener X, Y or Z actually do about it? We get emails every day from photographer A moaning about 'shot x was accepted, you should accept mine as well' or 'you should change the rule on blah blah blah'. This forum has more of the same, although often presented in a more constructive way.
So what do we do about it? How do we decide that the views of 2, 3, 4, 8 guys are representative of what everyone who uploads wants? If you can make a case for being more important than everyone else then maybe that's the way we progress - we only do what the top uploaders want. How about we just listen to everyone with 1000+ shots in the database and tailor the site to suit them?
Doesn't sound an ideal solution to me.
If you can suggest a way that we can change the rules to please everyone and keep the standards as high as they are - thus ensuring the same amount of traffic to the site then I will be more than happy to take up your case with the other screeners and Johan. I think I can speak for everyone in the screening crew when I say that we're all highly focussed on getting decisions right and applying rules fairly. We also have more than a passing interest in keeping photographers happy - nobody likes getting abused for doing a job for free.
So the offer is there, if you want to use this thread to discuss how to change the standards and rules of the site for the good of everyone. Please do so. If some concrete proposals come out of it that ensure quality of the site remains high, and therefore traffic and views for all the phtographers remain high, then I will guarantee to take them forward and try to get things changed. I can't guarantee anymore than to push them forward to the other screeners and the boss but if the quality remains as high and the photographers are happier then that's going to be pretty easy to push forward.
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 57 Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1014 times:
Limit the number of maximum uploaded pics at a time (say 10 or 15) and get rid of the baddouble thing.
That way when you get rid of the baddouble, it wont result in a huge amount of uploads, because they are limited. Plus due to the restriction, the photographer has to be more specific and choose only his/her best shots.
Boieng747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1007 times:
I have to disagree with the limit of pictures at one time, I'm sure there are a lot of people like me who don't always have enough time to upload but when they do they upload 30 or more shots at once. I don't think it would help in any case for bad doubles, remember CKW uploaded a shot a year after the previous one...
AAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 542 posts, RR: 51 Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 979 times:
Of all the rejection reasons the "baddouble" generates by far the most traffic on this forum. There's almost always a topic about a "baddouble" rejection on the current page from one photographer or another. And they never seemt to go away, the latest being replaced a few days later with another. I know because I've participated in some of the earlier threads. I learned some time ago that it was an argument that doesn't seem to ever be resolved and I've seen little changes to how it's applied in my opinion.
I personally have no problems when I get some bad double rejections. Perhaps I didn't check previous uploads to see that I had a similar shot and uploaded another of the same aircraft. No problem there since the shots are very similar just a different day. I do have problems, however, when I upload two of the same aircraft from the same day, perhaps one shot coming toward me and one going away, and one gets rejected as bad double. My problem with this being that the rules say you can upload 1 or 2 best shots of a series. Some screeners take these no question, and I thank them, others just blatantly reject them right off the bat.
But I recently had a bad double rejection that just made me laugh. I've appealed the shot and am awaiting Johan's decision, but given this thread I thought I'd share the shots with you.
The accepted shot of this aircraft and the only shot I have in the database of this aircraft.
I really had to laugh when I got that bad double rejection. OK, I see they are the same aircraft. And I see they are taken the same day and, yes, they are shots taken of the aircraft coming directly toward me. But they are clearly different kinds of shots on a whole. One is a closeup understudy of the aircraft and the other is clearly a scenic shot with ocean and people in it. Not even similar in terms of the message they are meant to convey. I have no idea who screened the photograph and I don't really care to know. But I have all the confidence in the world to believe that had another screener gotten this photograph it would be on the database today.
Many of the points made in the earlier messages of this thread are valid and should be considered in changing the application of this rule. It would certainly cut down on the number of complaints about the screening process.
Heliporter From Switzerland, joined Jul 2003, 140 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 975 times:
Yeah, an upload limit of pictures at one time doesn't solve anything regarding quality and badddouble. If you shoot a full day at AMS or JFK you have most probably more interesting pics to show as when staying a day on your local airfield.
Probably a case, where something can/should be improved is the numbers of pics a photographer can have in the db of the same aircraft taken at the same day. Just yesterday was uploaded the 6th !! pic of a certain aircraft taken at the same date/place by the same photographer (beside another 6 of the same date/place by other photographers). This is not the only example!
A rule which would really improve something would be "max. 3 (maybe 2) pic per aircraft per day". Every photographer should be able to meet this rule and would therefore select just the best shots, and will not upload another 2-3 some days/weeks later. An easy rule, cristal clear for everyone and easy to do.
RESULT: Less pics in the upload queue, less work for the screeners, less similar pictures in a.net, higher quality and more viewing pleasure for everyone!
Markus Herzig - Swiss Helicopters, Pilatus Porter and Aviation Photography
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 955 times:
Jason, I would never have started this thread unless I thought it could be a positive contribution to the site - I'm not worried about that shot in particular, and don't intend to appeal it.
So the offer is there, if you want to use this thread to discuss how to change the standards and rules of the site for the good of everyone. Please do so
Well, I started the thread with a description of what I see to be a problem, and 2 possible solutions. It has provoked some discussion, including some support for my suggestions, as well as others. So will you now take these forward to discuss with the screeners? Or do we need more people to chip in?
If the screeners give some serious consideration to the problem and perhaps make a proposal to Johan, I'll have acheived my aim. I would have hoped I had made my intentions very clear at the outset.
Whether this results in a change is secondary, provided we photographers get some considered feedback. I suspect Derek's views on the treatment of photographers is becoming more wide spread - an appropriate response to this is not necessarily to grant all our wishes, but perhaps a little more
respect for the role photographers have in the future of this site.
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 21 Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 928 times:
I can take the comments about badDouble on board but this is little more than 'we need to apply common-sense here'. To be honest I'm hoping for a more wide-reaching discussion about all the rules /standards issues we have with the site and then some definitions of what we would / wouldn't be happy with as a new / modified definition of the rule.
* How is badDouble applied to different photographer's shots? [if at all]
* Is head-on, front 3/4, side-on, side-on closeup, rear 3/4 acceptable as a sequence of shots? If not which ones should get dumped?
* Is there an appropriate time period between uploads that makes a shot acceptable even though it breaks these rules?
* Is a close-up and a full a/c shot from the same angle a double?
* Is a pan shot and a frozen action shot of an a/c at the same time [roughly] badDouble?
Basically what I'm saying is that if you want rules that suit you better then lets define them here but at the same time let's fix the consistency issue by defining a rule that actually has a chance of being applied consistently.
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 57 Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 926 times:
If you shoot a full day at AMS or JFK you have most probably more interesting pics to show as when staying a day on your local airfield.
and so you should upload all of them at once? I get really pissed off when I want to look at pics from AMS and all I see is 4-5 pages of pics taken by the same photographer. Same with LHR... 50-60 shots of the same angle taken on the same day by one photographer is very annoying...
don't think it would help in any case for bad doubles, remember CKW uploaded a shot a year after the previous one...
Look what I said: Dump the baddoube rejection.
an upload limit of pictures at one time doesn't solve anything regarding quality
I think it does. You get back from the airport and you look at your pics. Then you have to decide which ones to upload. So naturally you pick your very best and upload them. You cant pick the lesser ones, because you have a limited upload allowance. So as a direct result, the quality of the submitted pictures will rise. And because everyone has a lower number of pics submitted, everyone has a higher exposure.
I'm sure there are a lot of people like me who don't always have enough time to upload but when they do they upload 30 or more shots at once
Well I think it is more than enough to have 15 pics accepted in one week. (they should all be accepted, since you will now only submit your very best)
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 910 times:
OK Jason, I see what you're getting at, and maybe each rule in turn needs careful re-consideration (I doubt all can be done in one go!). But first I'll fire a question back to you and the screeners:
Exactly what is the purpose of the baddouble rule?
It can't be to avoid duplicate shots of an aircraft (badcommon does this). If, as Andy asserts, the individual photographer is irrelevant to the purposes of the site, then if 30 shots of subject X are acceptable, why does it matter if the 30 shots come from one photographer or 30 photographers?
My understanding is that baddouble is to prevent photographers "abusing" their upload privaleges. If this is the case, then it is a bad rule since well behaved uploaders are being penalised because of a few badly behaved uploaders. If I'm correct (and please let me know the correct definition if I'm not), then let's cast the rule accordingly:eg.
"Photographers may not upload more than 3 shots of the same aircraft in the same livery (and location?) within less than a 6 month period. If more than 1 shot is uploaded, each of those shots should show a different aspect or setting of the aircraft."
adjust numbers to suit. Pictures which survive this test would still, of course, be subject to the badcommon test.
Possibly the rule should be renamed badupload to better distinguish it from badcommon.
Heliporter From Switzerland, joined Jul 2003, 140 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 867 times:
In general I see the problem not only in baddouble - it's with TOO MUCH in general. And given rules like "Photographers may not upload more then 3 shots .... " are not valid today. It looks more like a.net want to have as fast as possible 30 pics from an aircraft (doesn't matter from which photographer) ... this is IMO against quality (hammered down on the first day and then baddouble or badcommon).
The most important approach in this matter would be, that Johan and the crew should tell us what a.net want to have - before uploading. The key points photographers have to know are already mention above, but maybe more focused on numbers of photos than on what angles. It would be easier and the photographer has more room to decide by himself what he want to upload (if the very same is not already in the db!)
yes and no - I also do not like these 2 pages same angle, same day ... but an upload limit would be valid for ALL. This means 15 pics for an AMS photographer and 15 pics for a seen somewhere in the field photographer. Therfore my concern about quality and quantity - we would still have the multiple somewhere in the field of the same aircraft (as much annoying). Actually the already given rule (3 pics per photographer per aircraft ...) should just be used! Maybe with the addition "max. 10 of each aircraft at all" and the possibility to replace them)
Markus Herzig - Swiss Helicopters, Pilatus Porter and Aviation Photography
25 EGBB: If all the various rules are intended to improve the quality of the pictures which are available on the site, then why can we not replace some of the
26 Mirage: I say again, it would be a lot easier and flexible for the system and for us if we could have available a "Delete this photo" button. What harm can th