Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bad Double / Good Double  
User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2639 times:

Hello everyone.

I was hoping a few of the longtime uploaders and whatever screeners still participate in this forum might be able to help me with a recent rejection.

And, yes, first of all, I am not happy with the rejection, so I will just get that out of way right now, but more important I want to understand how to avoid this kind of rejection in the future.

Here it is.. This image was rejected for "Bad Double":


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Tom Turner



Apparently because I have the following image successfully uploaded back in August ?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tom Turner



So, I need to understand the double rule. Is the rule "one image, one reg in one location" if they are even vaguely similar -months apart? The rule is not really specific, but this rejection seems much stricter than I recall. Did the standards change, and if so, when (more or less)?

What really made this worse, is I received a canned attachment threat to not repeatedly upload the same image or I will be banned. Why am I getting such a message?

Very Confused, and hoping I get some help here....
Tom

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2521 times:



The more I look now, the more confusing this is...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2519 times:

I am resisting the urge to say very mean things. I'll just say that everyone who reads this post thinks the same.

User currently onlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5508 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Yeah I agree DLKAPA, I will resist though. I fully support you Tom.

User currently offlineNeilalp From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1034 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2465 times:

I'm no screener, but I'd say both of ::cough cough:: Sam's are blury in the center by the engines and center cabin.

I think it is starting to become apparent that this site as really gone downhill over the past few months. There seem to be many great photo takers who no longer will upload due to bannings, new rules, and other reasons.

I enjoy all the photos and the great work everyone does, but it seems the politics are really heavy here and "connections" really help you out. It is to much like a full time job. Who you know and what they can do for you.


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2455 times:

Ok I'll probably be banned for saying this but it needs to be said. Both of those photos of sam's are crap. Sheer and utter crap. I'm not just saying this to say this either, so I'll point out all the flaws in the photo that had I submitted these photos they would be reason for rejection.

  • Sharpening halos like crazy. Everywhere

  • Soft

  • Blurry

  • Grainy


  • I'll give them this the shot does appear to have been shot in good light. But seriously come on folks just because it was submitted by Chui doesn't mean that if you reject it you'll go to hell.


    User currently offlineCrank From Canada, joined May 2001, 1559 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

    Sam's shots were accepted more than a year and a half ago, when the starndards were far from what they are now. I don't think you can really compare...

    User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2423 times:

    I'll give him credit he does have some very nice photos in the Database, for example:


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Sam Chui
    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Sam Chui



    Unfortunately there's also this:


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Sam Chui
    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Sam Chui



    Both just don't seem like they have stellar quality, and by stellar I mean average. One is ripe with heat haze, the other just has that "too much modification" look to it.



    User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2403 times:

    Erik, no harm meant, but you're going to get my thread deleted and I will never get my answers.

    There is a good bit of difference I am afraid to what many people see from one monitor screen to the next and dodgy images will be accepted and nice ones rejected from time to time. Some people will forever like soft images and others like them oversharpened. People will want aircraft high in the frame and low in the frame and the screeners are not robots... there's probably not much anyone can do about that.

    I don't wish this thread to be about Sam. His work speaks for itself, as does everyone's in one way or another apart from people dissecting images here piecemeal. None of us would like that if someone did it to us. Thats a non-starter.

    I want to know about "doubles" that taken/shot months apart, and for someone to step to the plate and explain why I should be threatened with a ban from uploading.


    User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2390 times:

    OK since it seems I missed your point I will take my points elsewhere.

    Good luck getting your answers, but I am still confused, as I have 4 photos of 2 aircraft same day same airport in the db. I think mine got in because there's few pics of said airport in the db, mostly by me, and they are of different angle. Does that help?  Smile


    User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2386 times:

    No problem.

    Keep shooting Erik...and let JeffM know we miss his salty posts.. at least I do.  Smile

    - Tom


    User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
    Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2324 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

    I sympathise with your confusion Tom.

    I think that with all that has been going on here over recent times it would be an opportune moment for Johan and the crew to issue an updated set of guidelines/rules for acceptance of photos to the site.

    My feeling - though I can see why this may be seen as too 'diplomatic' for some - is that this should be put out for 'consultation'; by that I mean there will be an opportunity for photographers to ask for clarification about issues without being perceived as implicitly (or explicitly) criticising screeners for a specific acceptance/rejection. So, for example, when the bad double rule is clarified this would make it clear whether the key theme of this rule relates to variety of images per se within the database in general, or the photographer's own images, or variety for a specific registration. So, the example that you show us Tim is either evidence that the rules are not specific enough - both for uploaders and for screeners to follow - or it is simply a mistake by the screener involved - or it is a screener using their discretion (that some may not understand the basis of). Whatever - it needs clarification, not because screeners have to be robots, but to help photographers understand things better. As I have said in other threads, these issues should be possible to discuss without it becoming a free-for-all, with photographers criticising unpredictable screening methods and screeners having a go at photographers fro demanding robotic-style screening.

    But back to the topic - I am relatively new to uploading and I have seen almost identical shots of the same aircraft from the same location on the database, I believe because they are by different photographers. Is that okay or should it not really have happened? Would it be okay for the same photographer to have basically identical images on different days? Or would it be okay if the photos look identical but they are of different airframes on the same day/different days?

    Some debate about these issues as an attempt to clarify the rules would, in my opinion, help everyone. I think it is unreasonable for the photographers to expect all screeners to act as if they would all make the same decision every time - seems to me that is unrealistic - but somehow reducing any variation and uncertainty has got to be a good thing.

    Something has got to happen that enables people to feel that the playing field is level - even if it is just further clarification to show them - politely - that it is as level as it ever will be and they have misunderstood something.

    All the best.

    Paul


    User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

    Hi Paul.

    Without being a member of the crew, I can clear up a couple of your questions:

    1> Identical Shots by Different Photographers - Same Reg, Same Day, Same Location.
    OK; Accepted. These don't do too much for the database of course in most instances (unless film, camera data is included, diff lense or filter used and noted etc.) - but it is the one very obvious courtesy to photogs and it allows photogs to hang out together that are keen to upload shots to A.net.

    2> Identical Shots - Same Day, Same Photog.. but different Airframes.
    OK; Accepted..same day or not. I take it you mean different Registrations. You plant your feet in one spot and take 20 AA MD-80s all in the same day, all look the same.. Yes, thats not a problem.

    3> Identical or similar shots - Same Photog, Same Reg, Same Location - Different Day.
    Yes, this is allowed. It happens all the time. To me, the closer the dates...and the more identical the shot, the less value I see it as having.. It will eventually turn the registrations into "Bad Common"s for no good reason etc. I don't see a reason why anyone would ever object to someone improving an existing shot either..but anyway, yes, allowed (until now?)

    I hope that helps.

    Tom

    In my case, the shots were taken months apart and a fairly nice shot as things go... and not quite identical. Now of course, I realize my shots are not setting the world on fire with the very high calibre of the best photogs here. But Unfortunately it appears I was singled out, and then encouraged to no longer participate.


    User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2236 times:

    This image was rejected for "Bad Double"

    Tom,

    If this was the only image you submitted of that airplane on that date, then the rejection is incorrect - your picture from earlier in the year has nothing to do with it. baddouble only applies to same aircraft, same photographer, same date.

    However, if you submitted more than one picture of the aircraft from that date, one picture could have been rejected baddouble on first screening, and then the second one (perhaps on second or third screening) might have been rejected for some other reason. This is the only scenario where the rejection could be appropriate.

    Andy


    User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

    Andy, thank you so much for responding here.

    You really deserve "hazard pay" at this point.  Smile

    Yeah, I checked my recent rejections..no doubles, so it must be a mistake.

    One question though - Although I am a prolific collector of Bad Soft, Bad Quality rejections, I am not familiar for some time with Bad Double Rejects. Apart from one a year or so ago..same deal as here. But does "Bad Double" *automatically* come these days with a final paragraph threatening a BAN?

    Or was that gratuitously added by the Trainee in Question?

    If its standard, its not very nice...

    Tom


    User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2136 times:

    Andy - just fyi.. turns to be "bad Reupload" box checked perhaps rather than bad double..though I guess that message references "doubles" in the text. Still not a reupload, but whatever... now taken out of appeal and resubmitted with a note.

    Thanks for your help.. I guess over-and-out from my end. ..the beat goes on...

    Resume Patrol....

    Tom


    User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
    Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2032 times:
    AIRLINERS.NET CREW
    PHOTO SCREENER

    Tom, the Baddouble text reads:


    BADDOUBLE
    These photos have already been added to the database or you have
    uploaded other photos that look very much like these. Please read more
    on this issue in the Upload-FAQ.

    Note: You could also get rejection message if there are photos very similar
    to these that have passed the first screening and are waiting for the
    second, final, screening. Also, generally if you submit a number shots of
    an aircraft taken at the same time, only the best 1 or 2 will be selected
    and rest may have been rejected as doubles. You can better control
    which ones we accept by only uploading the 1 or 2 best shots from a
    sequence of photographs of the same aircraft.

    Please check the database carefully for already existing photos of this aircraft
    before uploading new photos and retain from reuploading photos which where rejected
    with baddouble. Continous reuploading might result in a temporary ban from the site.


    The badreupload text is:


    BADREUPLOAD
    The photo you uploaded seems to have no changes
    compared to the version that was already rejected. If you don not
    agree with the screeners decision please be so kind and don not
    reupload this picture again. Instead use the appeal link which is
    included in you confirmation e-mail further down to move this rejected
    picture into the queue of the site admin who will have the final decision
    about acceptance or rejection of this picture. If the picture was
    already appealed by you and rejected by the administrator please be
    so kind and don not reupload it again without trying to improve it.
    Continous reuploading might result in a temporary ban from the site.


    Notice that both contain mentions of a ban as part of the canned message. We get a lot of people that continue to reupload rejected shots, sometimes several times, and it is the leading reason for a ban.


    User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2000 times:

    Thank you Royal.

    That clears things up a bit. I received the "Bad Double" message after all for some reason. Never seen the Bad Reupload until just now thanks to your posting it here.

    I guess one of the disconcerting things is the part of "Bad Double" that reads:

    "Please check the database carefully for already existing photos of this aircraft
    before uploading new photos".

    That sentence implied to me that I should indeed go through the database and discover I had a similar image uploaded once upon a time and therefore cannot now add another, rather than a harmless screening error. It especially implied that understanding to me as it refers to "before uploading NEW photos".

    In retrospect I suppose it is to prevent the uploader from attempting to upload another image in the same sequence sometime later on etc...as well as someone tossing up two in a batch to let the screeners have to pick one, as is directly referenced in the text etc.. I don't really expect these messages can be 100% perfect to fit every possible scenario of course.. It just had me going this time..

    Thanks again,
    Tom



    User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
    Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1929 times:

    Thanks to Andy for clearing up some confusion with bad double.
    If I had seen the thread earlier, I would have posted the same reply.

    It was certainly a mistake, and with this you would have noted the screener to be "in training". Is it for this reason the posts about Sam popped up? He may be "in training" but this doesn't mean the rejection was his.
    Nevetheless, the "in training" text suggests that if you're not happy with the rejection that you appeal.....

    In the end the mistake has been identified, I can't help but notice instant replies against a screener in training.... posting threads that read similar to "slinging mud" against a screener doesn't go far to helping the situation.
    You can have your say, but I don't think there was any need for it - especially when you note the original cause was a mistake.

    But nevertheless..... I'll comment.

    Quotes:
    "The more I look now, the more confusing this is..."
    &
    "Unfortunately there's also this...
    "Both just don't seem like they have stellar quality, and by stellar I mean average. One is ripe with heat haze, the other just has that "too much modification" look to it.



    The first two are completely acceptable by the rules. So apologies on behalf of the screener who rejected yours in the first place.

    The second two....
    They are both acceptable shots. I know Sam to be a minimal editor as well. So I don't know how "too much modification" comes into it.

    Anyway.....
    if you ever get another rejection from a "in training" screener, you're not sure about. Please either appeal or ask the question of screeners. We're more than happy to explain the reason to you - especially in a clear cut rejection like the one you experienced.

    Regards,

    Glenn



    Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
    User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
    Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

    Tom, maybe the rejection was to be badinfo instead of baddouble and the screener just clicked the wrong box? Look at the date.....

    Mike


    User currently offlineXiphias From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 75 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

    Good point, that picture won't be taken for 2 days. Big grin

    As for the baddoubles. I've had the same problem, baddouble rejection with 2 totaly different angles, or a baddouble on a reg where I was uploading my first image of.

    One question, where do you see that screening was done by trainee?

    BTW Cicadajet, that banked shot looks great eventhough the % of plane in the picture in verry low. But that's what you get with those slim long planes.

    Keep clicking,

    -XiP



    Xiph"i*as, n. [L., a swordfish, a sword-shaped comet, fr. Gr. xifi`as, fr. xi`fos a sword.]
    User currently offlineF9Widebody From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1604 posts, RR: 10
    Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1869 times:

    If it is done by a trainee, the rejection notice will say

    PLEASE NOTE:
    These photos were screened by a screener-in-training. If you
    have any objections please DO NOT HESITATE to use the appeal
    function linked to lower down. Thank you for your patience
    and understanding.


    At the top.



    YES URLS in signature!!!
    User currently offlineXiphias From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 75 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

    OK, I never noticed. To bad I have 2 pics in appeal already and they have been there for 2 months already, so can't appeal them anyway.

    -XiP



    Xiph"i*as, n. [L., a swordfish, a sword-shaped comet, fr. Gr. xifi`as, fr. xi`fos a sword.]
    User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1663 posts, RR: 66
    Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

    Tom, your shot should be accepted except probably badinfo if you submitted wrong on that field....I didn't screen any shot last week so I didn't reject, infact I love your NY JFK A2A banking shot....I will add them for you  Big grin

    Now to whoever is very mean to me in this post....you show no class at all. The 2 Cathay shot is added long time ago and that was acceptable in quality then. They're also taken on different dates, 3 months apart to be exact. By today's standard, I won't even attempt to upload that.

    Finally. I would like to point out, I don't get priority upload/acceptance, infact screener look harder on my uploads because of my name and standard, if a newbie and myself upload a marginal shot together, they will give in to the newbie, much more likely to give it to me, for the reason of someone complainting about big names, preferences etc. I would like to remain you I have many rejection in past months and years and got treated just like any other uploaders. (even my VS promotion shot is deleted just like others). I will never go into a post and drag it away and bring someone's shot to complaint, which is mean and childish.

    Sam



    User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

    Hi Mike.

    Yes, I became of aware of the date issue in the interim. Perhaps. Is the Bad double next to the Bad Info button?

    This would not have been quite an issue for me, but I've had the double experience previously in this context. Appealed. And Rejected for the same reason on Appeal. (Glenn - Please Note.) That was when I used to upload with only the month and year, and I have since added the exact date for the edification of one or two screeners. In that particular (appealed) rejection, I wrote the reason (different dates) and it was rejected anyway.

    If it were possible to contact the specific screener, I would have done so, but its not. I brought this up in Site Related a couple of days ago, but it is too long-winded on my part (having to anticipate all the knee jerk resistance) that probably no one will read it through. And which photographers read that forum with any regularity anyway? I just don't see emailing 25 people to get an answer or guidance from one makes any sense. I suspect it would annoy a few.

    Also, Glenn, you put my quotes next to the quotes of someone else. When I started the thread I specifically asked for help from screeners or "long time uploaders".

    Sam's images here were a function of a search on the registration, not to find a "screener in training". As Sam is a screener himself now and a screener to be at the time, and his 2nd shot was presumably approved by at least one other, if not three other screeners, it seemed relevant to my case. I made no comment on the quality of the shots in question. (They're perfectly fine in my opinion.)

    Moreover, Sam's shots were in line with what I stated to be *within* the rules as I understood them, and mine was the one I thought had been the "exception". Hence, no "special treatment" accusation.

    Was I really "confused"? Not entirely perhaps. (apart from my own date mistake that is). I was a bit suspicious of an uneven screening hand really, but I wanted to be civil.

    Did I expect to get the responses the immediately followed? It did cross my mind to be honest that *might* happen. I tried to provide timely "correction" for what its worth as to the direction of the thread. However, it might be worth noting the thread was sinking like a rock to the bottom of the forum until that point.

    Unfortunately, if I started an "Awesome Picture, Sam" thread tomorrow, you'd likely see the same types of comments. That's the nature of this "community", as it exists in the forums, and not completely unrelated to why you need anonymity as a screener.

    Still though, Glenn you're certainly right in the main.

    Sam, I apologize if I offended you.



    25 Psych : Tom, Just a brief note of feedback - I, for one, have found much of the content of your thread very informative and helpful. I certainly feel that I h
    26 Post contains images Glennstewart : Hi Mike, Apologies for mixing quotes.... it's a pet peeve of mine to mix quotes. I shouldn't do it myself . You've nevertheless understood the point I
    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    An12 T/off Frm Over My Roof? Will It Be Bad Double posted Mon Aug 7 2006 00:09:46 by AirMalta
    Admin: Bad Double? posted Fri Jul 7 2006 11:07:29 by Rotate
    Admin: Bad Double posted Mon Jun 19 2006 13:54:13 by Rotate
    Would This Be Bad Double posted Wed Apr 26 2006 11:28:15 by CallMeCapt
    Does This Rate As A Bad Double? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 21:14:43 by Malandan
    Bad Double? Clarification Please. posted Tue Apr 11 2006 23:16:18 by QantasA332
    Wouldn't This Have Been A Bad Double? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 00:25:19 by Jorge1812
    Bad Double? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 16:21:29 by Rotate
    Confusion With This Bad-double. posted Wed Sep 21 2005 22:15:55 by Mx330
    Would These Be Bad Double? posted Tue Aug 9 2005 11:33:30 by Fergulmcc