Aagold From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 542 posts, RR: 51 Posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4068 times:
If I have any complaint at all about Airliners.Net this is definitely it as you might have guessed by the number of posts I've started and added to on the topic. I thought we'd made measurable progress back in January when Johan responded positively to the thread I started then. But, now, not quite six months later, I see we're back where we started.
Baddouble can only be used when the photographer has similar photos of the same aircraft already in the database (or upload queue). "Similar" is not an exact word but photo screening is not an exact science. Let's all agree upon that before I go on.
Screeners can use Badcommon if you upload photos of aircraft that we already have a large number of similar shots of.
If you upload more than one shot of the same aircraft/date/location you run a high risk of getting just one of them accepted and the rest rejected with baddouble. I do encourage you to upload more than one shot if the additional photos are of very high additional "value" (another vague word). If you upload a full side view do not expect to get a close-up of the nose or tail accepted. If you upload one take-off shot, other similar take-off shots are likely to be rejected etc. Such are the rules we've decided to adopt after years of experience here at Airliners.net. Still, if the aircraft is very rare or the shots are amazing you can get a hundred photos accepted of the same aircraft. "Rare" and "amazing" are, as always, defined by the screeners. If you disagree with them (which all of you will do at one time or another), use the appeal function and I'll have a look at them (although I've understood the appeal is working rather poorly right now, I am about to fix that).
As for the baddouble rejection pointed out by Art, I am siding with the photographer on this one. It seems this can be a case of "high additional value" as the shot is clearly very good (although I haven't seen a high-res version). It is very different from the first shot and would in my view be a valuable addition to the database. I suggest the photo is appealed (or better, re-uploaded as the appeal script is working so-so at the moment).
I will discuss the issue with the screeners.
Regards,
Johan
Comparing the three shots that I uploaded for this aircraft to what Johan wrote I find the following:
Definitely not bad common with only two shots in the database beforehand.
Didn't upload multiple side-on shots or a nose tail shot.
Did upload a rotation shot on takeoff and Johan wrote: If you upload one take-off shot, other similar take-off shots are likely to be rejected etc. Personally I wouldn't call the rejected shot "similar" in any way to the rotation shot.
I'd say a 727-24C is pretty rare these days and I only tried to get three accepted not 100.
I can't believe the above while at the same time I find these three pictures taken on the same day, by the same photographer, of the same plane and, to top it all off, two were accepted sequentially obviously by the same screener. (No offense intended to you Alexander.)
And, just for the record: there are 95 other pictures of that aircraft in the database ... I would say the three above are sufficiently the same ... and it's definitely not a rare aircraft by any means. Am I missing something about those shots that I should know to believe three of them deserve being in the database. If I am, please tell me what it is as I haven't a clue.
Can we fix this thing once and for all so we can eliminate posts like this. Please
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 49 Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3987 times:
Well, the majority of us here are not crew members, so there's not much we (or, at least I) can say about it other than that you present an extremely valid case.
Unfortunately, this post and your last post (baddouble posts. How ironic ), are nothing more than futile attempts at correcting what seems to be a combination of human error and misconceptions. I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt--and a lot of it--so I think that it's entirely possible that in the case of the three nearly identical LTU A330 shots, they may have been screened by three different screeners simultaneously, hence the inadvertent acceptance of all three shots. Why it hasn't been rectified is beyond me, though.
I can't see how Johan could really fix this problem...but it IS frustrating and is definitely a sign that something has to change. Be it an amendment to the screening process, or something else.
Baddouble can only be used when the photographer has similar photos of the same aircraft already in the database (or upload queue). "Similar" is not an exact word but photo screening is not an exact science. Let's all agree upon that before I go on.
...
If you upload more than one shot of the same aircraft/date/location you run a high risk of getting just one of them accepted and the rest rejected with baddouble. I do encourage you to upload more than one shot if the additional photos are of very high additional "value" (another vague word). If you upload a full side view do not expect to get a close-up of the nose or tail accepted. If you upload one take-off shot, other similar take-off shots are likely to be rejected etc. Such are the rules we've decided to adopt after years of experience here at Airliners.net. Still, if the aircraft is very rare or the shots are amazing you can get a hundred photos accepted of the same aircraft. "Rare" and "amazing" are, as always, defined by the screeners. If you disagree with them (which all of you will do at one time or another), use the appeal function and I'll have a look at them (although I've understood the appeal is working rather poorly right now, I am about to fix that).
What's bold, and especially underlined is what I believe to be the screening process's tragic flaw. There shouldn't be this many 'vague' ideas and processes involved in screening. Leaving acceptance to the screener's discretion is making this anything but Airliners.net. Now it's more like 'www.AndyMartin.net' or 'www.CarlosBorda.net.' (Sorry to have to use your names, guys. Trust me, there's no underlying connotation.) I had a shot that I privately showed to one screener who thoroughly enjoyed it and saw it as an acceptance, but it was rejected. Why? Because the screening process is an opinionated, biased procedure, and not a pre-defined process as it is essentially claimed to be.
As I said...this is the tragic flaw. Sorry for your rejection, Art...I do believe that Johan or the screeners will recognize this mishap and accept it, but it shouldn't have to be done like that.
FlyingColors From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 73 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3969 times:
Looks like the "double standard " of screening to me
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3960 times:
I think that the LTU A330 must have been an oversight / error, IF (repeat IF) they were all taken on the same date - I'm not going to open them and give them a hit each just to verify that they were taken as a sequence.
As to your LAS 727 pictures... Well, some variations in interpretation of Johan's guidance is possible, maybe even likely, as even he himself admits!
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1045 posts, RR: 37 Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3927 times:
G'day Andy
Don't you think this one is pretty easy to define and fix.
IE If uploading more than one photo of the same aircraft on the same date/location a maximum of 3 photo's is permitted peiod end of story sorry no exceptions.IE pick your best shots.
All three photo's must be different perspectives by an angle of at least 45 degree's regardless of phase of flight.
Easy to define,easy to understand and easy to implement.
What do you think?
Darren
Dazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5447 posts, RR: 53 Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3886 times:
Regarding the LTU - Shot on the same day, 2 were accepted May 30, the other May 31. Mistakes happen, but 2 should be removed from the DB then.
Sulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2029 posts, RR: 35 Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3809 times:
Art,
It has been tightened a little bit in my recent experience. A while back I uploaded two shots of the BBMF Lancaster. One was side on and the other was three quarters (I thought both were appealing enough to upload) but the three-quarter shot was rejected as baddouble. I didn't agree with it but I respected the screener's decision and just swallowed it - and uploaded the rejected one elsewhere.
It's possible that the screeners have an eye on the burgeoning size of the database; I don't know, I can't read their minds. Andy is quite correct in reinforcing that there will inevitably be variations in interpretation, and certainly there will be occasions where images creep through when perhaps they shouldn't - understandable given the huge amount submissions.
Either way, you've got many, many great images here Art. Sure it's dissappointing that the rejected shot (it is pleasing) didn't get in but don't sweat it, other opportunities will come your way.
Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, RR: 47 Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3795 times:
Sorry, I can't help myself stop laughing!
So again, baddouble is the same a/c from the same photographer, badcommon same aircraft from different photographers. Now if you ask me, I wouldn't care less seeing the same aircraft from different angles from the same photographer. Instead, having 10 pictures of the same aircraft from the same angle... Well, some pictures even taken 15 minutes after each other.
LGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3772 times:
Hi all,
This is no dig at Art himself but in my view you should be allowed a couple of shots of the same aircraft from the same shoot if from different angles but its self screening thats the key.
Imagine if all of us uploaded 3 shots from every aircraft we saw takeoff! The database would send us all asleep!
As I say I think a couple of a set is fine but I just feel its down to the photographer to select 1 or 2 from a set which they like the most. If I uploaded 3 shots or more from aircraft I shoot taking off or landing I would have thousands of shots in the db.
Out of your 3 727 shots I like the rejected one the most, if it where me I would have uploaded that one first to make sure it didnt get baddouble but of course out of the 3 you may have another favourite.
Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, RR: 47 Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3764 times:
Imagine if all of us uploaded 3 shots from every aircraft we saw takeoff! The database would send us all asleep!
That's right, Ben. Therefore, it should be implemented with the rarity of the aircraft/airline and photo quality. Say, 3 shots of the already legendary BA A319 compared to 3 shots of Air Koryo Tu-134. Anyway, there's only 1 picture of the latter...
Zege From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3645 times:
Joge on reply 9
Sorry I'm using these photos again as an example, but this phenomenon happens really often in Helsinki.
Indeed Joge, indeed. Sometimes two or three photographers can upload picture which is taken same time, because they do not know each other and therefore there is no communication between them. That is not so bad, if plane is rare. You don't know what is uploaded before you and if it get accepted. That is not of course case on those pictures you put on your message.
So far only thing which has been a bit annoying for me is that here is a few guys who don't even bother to look from db if they already have upload picture of that plane. They can upload almost once a week, almost same kind of picture of some extremely rare plane in here like OH-LPD. And that because each time they are on EFHK they basically upload every picture on a.net. And yes, even this summer is not a good one (lot of rain and otherwise bad weather) they are here now pretty often...
But hey, I don't say that even photographers know each other there can not be "communication failure"
Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, RR: 47 Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3577 times:
Indeed Joge, indeed. Sometimes two or three photographers can upload picture which is taken same time, because they do not know each other and therefore there is no communication between them.
So that's why we should take those guys first for a beer which after they know us and can start asking for every picture if they can upload them here or not.
Yeah, but that particular plane is rare enough to have at least two "baddoubles"
That is true, but even then I would like to see different angles, let's say, one of you had upload a picture of the plane from a bit front angle and the other like it is now.
Oh sorry, the other IS a bit more from the front!
Another point is, that people upload pictures too quickly to this site. For instance, 10 guys all take pictures of the same plane, upload the same day the pictures were taken... Checking for existing pictures won't help in this case, the responsibility is now on the screeners, will they spot the badcommons or not.
Jormy From Finland, joined Jan 2000, 231 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3580 times:
So that's why we should take those guys first for a beer...
What if these guys are something like 15 years old? Anyway, I'm affraid this "tactic" won't work in long run but just for some occasional uploads...
That is true, but even then I would like to see different angles
That's true and that's what we're trying to do within FAP if we upload pics of same planes. Anyway, as Zege pointed out, those HS-SEB pics were a "communication error"
Zege From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3442 times:
Well, Joge I don't want start any naming here. Maybe he has that kind of attitude or maybe I was talking about someone else. But sometimes it get a little bit annoying if photographer's pictures are also uploaded to the Other Site as well. And I mean exactly same pictures and over and over again.
Anyway that kind of thing I meant. But hey, who am I to decide who and what can be upload here. That screeners and admins business. And we critically look Mr Koskinen's pictures shown on your message, both of those got more hits than for instance this one of mine
So rare or not, it doesn't always tell is that something people want to see.
And what comes to the original subject, I like that picture which got rejected. Even (sorry to say) I personally like more to see whole plane and not just a part of it
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3383 times:
I think 3 shots of the same aircraft is too much. However, saying that why was the most interesting angle of the aircraft rejected? Thats what really gets me, it happens so often that maybe you have 2 or 3 shots where 1 is a bit special and 2 are good quality but boring and the 2 boring shots get accepted, whilst the special one is rejected for one reason or another.
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3379 times:
it happens so often that maybe you have 2 or 3 shots where 1 is a bit special and 2 are good quality but boring and the 2 boring shots get accepted, whilst the special one is rejected for one reason or another.
Maybe the blame should be on the photographer. Why not upload the special one by itself?
25 ExitRow: Maybe the blame should be on the photographer. Why not upload the special one by itself? I agree Chad. Blame the photographer: View Large View MediumP
26 Maiznblu_757: Thanks, that was a series of shots.. HAHA. Thanks for plugging my shots, taint! And you plugged them backwards, its supposed to go 1-3 not 3-1... Nice
27 Rotor1: I totally agree. Photographers really should pick the technically and asthetically best shot (or two) and upload them rather than dumping the entire m
28 Maiznblu_757: Mike, Should I explain my signature to you in person? Maybe bad double should also mean getting kicked out of the same area near an airport more than
29 Jan Mogren: Chad, I'll interpret the above response as you having trouble finding any argument giving validity to your previous statement. /JM
30 Maiznblu_757: Say what? I had some shots rejected from that upload for baddouble. Lots of haters here, I must go. Thanks for plugging my shots folks.[Edited 2004-07
31 Jan Mogren: Only it's been said here over and over that is not the way to do it. /JM
33 ExitRow: I uploaded them and left it in the hands of a highly acclaimed, talented screener to choose which ones he thought should be uploaded. Wow. An admissio
34 Maiznblu_757: Well, maybe Ill remember that on my next flight, or two, or three.
35 ExitRow: Chad... The boom operator could have taken those same shots. All your talent is in your camera's processor. Boast away about your access if it's all y
37 Maiznblu_757: All your talent is in your camera's processor. Wow, that was harsh! I guess I should stop shooting then... But, since that is what you want, I must ke
38 ExitRow: Quit editing your posts Chad. It's an admission of wrongdoing.
39 Clickhappy: lol Chad, the emotional tampon of the Airliners.net Aviation Photography Forum. What a dick.
40 ExitRow: This little tantrum by Chad illustrates two problems with this site. 1.) While Art is getting his very good and interesting shots rejected for baddoub
41 Maiznblu_757: He bitches about another photographer's ability to self-edit, and yet he's one of the worst offenders. I should have better explained my statement. My
42 Maiznblu_757: Mike, I shot many more photos that day. It was far from card dumping.
43 JeffM: All I can say is I don't think there are enough Phantom shots in the database period. I would like to ask everyone to go out and shoot at least one. I
44 Maiznblu_757: Exitrow, Jan Mogren, Your arguments go right along with the idea that airliners.net should not focus on the photographer's abilities or the artistic c
45 ExitRow: Your arguments go right along with the idea that airliners.net should not focus on the photographer's abilities or the artistic characteristics of the
46 Wietse: I was meaning to stay out of this, but with this remark: Your arguments go right along with the idea that airliners.net should not focus on the photog
47 Maiznblu_757: If there are 2 people on this site that are in absolute favor of the artistic image instead of a side on database, it would be William and Jan! Well,
48 Wietse: It was a reaction to your "Dont hate; Appreciate" line. Surely the shots are artistic, but they are that way more by you simply being there than by an
49 Futterman: Oy veh. I have not once hyped up my photos or my abilities, but, now I must say, if he had an eye for style, artistic shots, he wouldnt have said that
50 FlyingColors: If this forum was a toilet..... I'd say its was over-due to be FLUSHED. Pee eewu! Mike
51 JeffM: Please, Let us get back to the important things... Phantoms.... !
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 542 posts, 
), are nothing more than futile attempts at correcting what seems to be a combination of human error and misconceptions. I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt--and a lot of it--so I think that it's entirely possible that in the case of the three nearly identical LTU A330 shots, they may have been screened by three different screeners simultaneously, hence the inadvertent acceptance of all three shots. Why it hasn't been rectified is beyond me, though.
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1045 posts, 
From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, 
But sometimes it get a little bit annoying if photographer's pictures are also uploaded to the Other Site as well. And I mean exactly same pictures and over and over again.
And we critically look Mr Koskinen's pictures shown on your message, both of those got more hits than for instance this one of mine 
Printer friendly format 
