Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5025 posts, RR: 17 Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3717 times:
What really sucks is to put a photo in the queue, wait 10 days, and then get a rejection which can be fixed, then upload it again for another 10 days...one single photo could end up making 2 or 3 passes thru the queue and 3 weeks to a month of time...
So how about this idea. Creating a special queue for "corrected" photos which have already been screened once and need some fixing....so that these would not have to wait as a new photo. I'm not sure how it could be implemented but there should be some way just like when you do a database reupload, if its not exactly the same photo it won't go thru. so this would permit ONLY those photos which are identical to the rejected one except for a fix based on the rejection reason...and if you could set a limit say 3 times and then the rejected photo cannot be submitted (fixed) again.
What does everyone think? good idea or bad?
bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3685 times:
What really sucks is to put a photo in the queue, wait 10 days, and then get a rejection which can be fixed, then upload it again for another 10 days...
Get it right first time and you won't have to wait again.
Creating a special queue for "corrected" photos which have already been screened once and need some fixing....so that these would not have to wait as a new photo
Many many times photographers do not fix the problem, or they introduce a new problem. So they'd still need screening, which would take time away from the main queue. Why should second attempts resulting from failed first attempts effectively get priority over those who are submitting a picture for the first time?
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 35 Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3665 times:
The only hesitation I would have is that it would make it very, very easy to upload reworks. This is a good and bad thing: I'm sure there are many, many rejections, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to give people an easy route back into the queue.
It's human nature to take the path of least resistance, and I'd imagine such a facility would get thoroughly exploited by a minority making small fixes and firing the picture off for another pass.
What I find a little more worrying is people uploading stuff then asking if it's suitable quality. If you think about it, that really shouldn't be happening!
707cmf From France, joined Mar 2002, 4885 posts, RR: 32 Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3662 times:
I don't think that would be good for reworks.
However, for Badinfo, for instance, if the screener judges only the info is incorrect, then the picture should not be rejected - neither accepted of course, a good thing would be to put the picture aside, give the oportunity to the photog to correct the info, and then have the info re-screened by a database editor, since the problem is not on the photo itelf anymore.
However, that would need some work for henks and Johan - maybe a good thing would be to implement that at the same time the 'editable' upload queue is launched, as it is quite similar.
Rotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3657 times:
srry,
i agree with Andy. If you photo is rejected, then it is rejected - easy as that. Just try to get it right, when you 1st upload the picture .. , dont see a need,why a photog should benefit, if his pic was rejeted , and then get a faster screening again?
Paulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3654 times:
The problem comes with when you upload something that using things like buildings in the back ground as you refrence for level and lining up the grid in photoshop for it being level and you the runway is no where near level and a screener does not realize this. So does this make the picture that you upload a bad picture NO it does not. My example is this in ATL the runways and taiiways are no where near level.
Now feel free to download it and open it in Photoshop then apply the grids it is level according to every pole and building in the background but the aircraft is going uphill. I guess what I am saying is that I think pictures like this is what Bruce is talking about more.
And one added thing the statment above about get it right the first time id direct opposite of what the email says that you guys send us.
"Don't worry, everyone has their photos rejected from time
to time. Our standards are very high. It is and should be difficult to get photos accepted."
Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56 Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3650 times:
I agree with andy and Robin. No special Q's for reedited shots.
And for 707's idea. Just some examples.
If the reg is for example clearly visible on the plane and its not filled out than it should go back to the uploader. Same for not using the now mandatory Autofill function. Not used --> Return to sender.
MauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2477 posts, RR: 28 Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3647 times:
well since the most photos are rejected the queu will get longer and longer with the re-submit ideas, and i think they are already long enough don't you think? although 707's idea sounds pretty good i guess, because screeners don't have to check the whole photo but just the info...
707cmf From France, joined Mar 2002, 4885 posts, RR: 32 Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3627 times:
Peter, I almost entirely agree with you (wow !), there is no way lazy photographers should have easy screening that way - I mean how many times do I see the c/n not filled up when it is already on some previous pics of the database.
However, I am sure sometimes there was no lazyness from the photographer (like ticked the wrong box, and, while the info is not good, the photo is okay. Does it need three aditionnal screeners to get through ? I think you have better things to do. That's why, what I suggest is merely an additionnal tickbox for you screeners, that would let the normal screening process go through, and - at your discretion of usage (I mean, you are the screeners, not I) - you could tick this box that would mrely say "old for badinfo".
That way, the picture would not come back 10 days later, making the screeners go all over that same picture again.
That would not prevent the picture to be rejected for badquality, badangle, baddirty, badelbonianphotographer, but that would prevent a good picture ntoo be lost, or to come back later to re-clog the queue.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3605 times:
There could (I repeat COULD) be an argument for putting pictures rejected only with BADINFO into a special queue, which is handled by the corrections team rather than the screeners. Badinfo --> photo in special queue (and not yet on database) --> photographer advised --> when photographer submits a correction and the corrections team are happy, photo goes onto database.
However, I suspect that the number of pictures that would go down that route would be minimal compared to the total queue size, and that such a process would involve quite a bit of coding by Johan and/or Henks.
Beechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, RR: 46 Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3565 times:
Hi all,
Maybe I´m wrong, but my impression is that one reason for the Q being so long these days is that the number of uploading photographers has rapidly increased.
Currently there are 1824 different Photogs waiting for their uploads and as I see it, the new photographers site on the search page is showing a complete set of new one almost each single day.
Now i was thinking, maybe a new photgrapher should have to send a portfolio of let´s say around 3 or so of his pictures to a different Q, as his personal application.
If all, or a minimum percentage of those pictures are accepted, he will become an accepted member and is free to upload normally as everyone else.
If he fails to present that number of acceptable pictures he could be "banned"
for a month or so, before he would be allowed to try again.
Now, i don´t know if this feature would be misused by just uploading under different email adresses, but maybe this could be prevented by IP tracking or a personal Photographer account, as mentioned in other topics.
This concept would probably mean an increased workload during an initial phase, but maybe it will pay out as it is established...
But, then again, it´s just a thought.
What do you (especially crew) think?
best regards,
Denis
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
707cmf From France, joined Mar 2002, 4885 posts, RR: 32 Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3553 times:
However, I suspect that the number of pictures that would go down that route would be minimal compared to the total queue size, and that such a process would involve quite a bit of coding by Johan and/or Henks.
indeed. But Henks and Johan have told us a few weeks ago that they were working on an editable queue, so that photographers could modify pictures/data while they are still in the queue (which makes me think, this should be locked as soon as at least one screener has looked at the picture, but let's not digress). Adding a "badinfo" queue to that might not be a lot of aditionnal work, then.
Now i was thinking, maybe a new photgrapher should have to send a portfolio of let´s say around 3 or so of his pictures to a different Q, as his personal application. [...]
I think that is not a bad idea. From what I read here, there are indeed a lot of new photographers all the time, who usually dont submit A.net material pics. Maybe nt the screeners, but a group of experience photographers with time on their hand could take care of that 'screening', provided that they take the time to explain to a wanabee what is needed to improve their shots (we are used to the rejection reason after a while, esp. if we are reading the forums, but a newbie often won't know what is behind the "badquality", since it can havfe a lot of reasons).
I would say this is another idea to look into to un-clog the queue - and adding to that the fact that Johan and Henks are working on the new queue (editable and) secure, with photographer account, this could be coupled with that...
I think there are a few good ideas in this thread.
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3496 times:
I think the main problems are the photographers, who do not have images in the database so far, but are trying hard.
We had some cases here in the forum during the last weeks, people plugging 10-20 shots which are currently in the Q and have not been screened yet. As we all know, almost not a single one of these images was acceptable.
I think this is a big problem that makes the Q very long.
Why not adding some big sign at the top of the upload page telling unexperienced people to upload only 1 or 2 shots, too see if they're A.net material, not 20 at the same time.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3487 times:
Maybe I missed it, but can someone tell me what the extreme urgency is? I would like to see a list of people that have had Zero rejections. Then hear what they have to say.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3480 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
that Delta 732 shot is clearly not level, it would also be rejected for bad quality I believe...
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56 Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3460 times:
Why not adding some big sign at the top of the upload page telling unexperienced people to upload only 1 or 2 shots, too see if they're A.net material, not 20 at the same time
Cause people will ignore it anyway like they are now ignoring the upload-FAQ and the Help Textes on the upload page.
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5025 posts, RR: 17 Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3456 times:
Andy wrote:
Get it right first time and you won't have to wait again.
In some cases that is not possible. Things like amount of sharpening, colors (if you use an un-profiled monitor), motiv, and horizon may look fine to a photographer but not to a Screener. That's to be expected. Almost everyone who has been around this site for a long time knows that there are good photos, and there are a.net photos, but not every good photo can be an a.net photo without sometimes making adjustments to the photo to fit the standards of this site. Even among you Screener guys, one of you may find a photo acceptable but another might not.
Under the old queue order system at least it was a bit easier as you could immediately fix a photo and put it back in and it would not go to the back of the line (usually).
I dunno. I suppose one fix might be to just reduce the total queue size to begin with!
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Zander From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 610 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3451 times:
I have another idea about the queue, it won't help much for the volume though...but still a great improvement.
I was thiniking about to have the opportunity to delete your own photo/photos from the queue if you want to, sometimes you upload a photo which you directly afterwards notice that info is incorrect or you realized that it won't get through the screening.
I guess it's quite easy to add a little box to each photo in the queue where you can mark the ones that you want deleted from the queue, like the appeal page...or what do you think guys?
Use a good graphics card (with at least 24bit color) and a monitor with resolution 1024x768 or higher and properly calibrated. You are advised to download this monitor calibration program.
And with a bit of experience the things like amount of sharpening, horizon (which is pretty strauight explained in the rejection message) and so on are not that dificult.
Under the old queue order system at least it was a bit easier as you could immediately fix a photo and put it back in and it would not go to the back of the line (usually).
Again why the hurry if its nothing new or from a major event????
I dunno. I suppose one fix might be to just reduce the total queue size to begin with!
AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 50 Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3439 times:
Denis,
way to go. I kind of like your idea and why not give it a try.
Newbies and people with less than i.e. 100 photos have to proof themselves.
They can only upload 2 photos at a time and wait for them to be processed.
Once they graduated, the get to the next level until the reach the position .......upload king or 100% acceptance rate. Just kidding for the last part.
This could be a productive approach to weed out some of the rejections later on......
707cmf From France, joined Mar 2002, 4885 posts, RR: 32 Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3430 times:
Newbies and people with less than i.e. 100 photos have to proof themselves. - They can only upload 2 photos at a time and wait for them to be processed.
wow. That's pretty harsh. At the current rate, that means more than one year (16 months, to be precise). Assuming they get a 100% rate.
Nah, I prefer the idea of a paralel queue to help newbies reach the standards as I explained it in reply 13.
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5025 posts, RR: 17 Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3418 times:
Peter, yes it is important to have a calibrated monitor. But not everyone can afford a calibration device! I can't.....so I HAVE to eyeball it....
bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56 Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3416 times:
Hint 1: You can download the calibration program from the upload page.
Hint 2: In Photoshop (if you are using it which i diont know) theres also the possibility to calibrate your monitor).
-
25 Mario340: I totally agree with Denis. Hey, it's not a big deal. Why shouldn't they apply being part of the whole thing if they have no pictures in the database
26 Paulinbna: Peter did you use the grid like I said or just eye ball it I looked again using the gid and every thing lines up perfect including the roofs in the ba
27 PUnmuth@VIE: Paul, I didnt write any remark regarding your delta shot.[Edited 2004-08-13 18:56:04]
28 Clickhappy: Paul, the shot is clearly not level, I hear what you are saying about the runway slopping, but have a look the the vertical references, they are all c
29 KC7MMI: Perhaps someone could write a guide for new photographers including info on standards, post processing tecniques and what not to do (upload then plug
30 Runway23: There's been a very good guide for ages done by Gary Watt, http://www.airliners.net/faq/examples.main Albeit it doesn't say how to process a picture b
32 Beechcraft: Hi again, In my opinion a guideline itself, may it be the best written and most informative probably won´t help. IF people will read it at all (how m
33 Rsmith6621a: This topic was discussed earlier this week..... http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/143846/
34 Bruce: Peter, I was talking about a more sophisticated calibration program like Colorvision Spyder or similar ones. Is the a.net calibrate program that good?
35 Willo: Newbies and people with less than i.e. 100 photos have to proof themselves. It would be interesting to see how some of the old hands who keep on calli
36 Beechcraft: All those good new photographers would pass in initial screening anyway, since quality is screened in either way. I think the idea i presented would j
37 Sulman: Denis, Another site that features photos of jets uses a system like that. I don't know how effective it is. Might be something worth investigating. Ch
38 Beechcraft: What? There is another site that features photos of jets?!? Anyway, Sulman, are you refering to my last reply or the whole situation? regards, Denis
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5025 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From France, joined Mar 2002, 4885 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2477 posts, 
although 707's idea sounds pretty good i guess, because screeners don't have to check the whole photo but just the info... 
From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 610 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
