Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Was This Rejected For Badcommon?  
User currently offlineEZYAirbus From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2460 posts, RR: 52
Posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3797 times:

I recently had this picture rejected for badcommon, what does it mean??

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/GMIDXELDRIDGE.jpg

Glenn


http://www.glenneldridgeaviation.com
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineA346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1283 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3786 times:

Glenn,

I believe it means there are already many photos of that particular aircraft in the database, so any additional photos of the plane must be of excellent quality to get in.



You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
User currently offlineEZYAirbus From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2460 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3774 times:

Obviously millions of the same aircraft taken at the same time on the same day at the same airport then eh??

What a load of complete and utter BOLLOCKS!!!

Glenn



http://www.glenneldridgeaviation.com
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3767 times:

Glenn,

There's 94 images of G-MIDX in the DB; that'e enough to warrant it as a common aircraft. In essence, it means that any further additions will have to be particularly high quality.

Badcommon can be frustrating but if you think about it, it is fair.


Cheers


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3758 times:

A bright spot is it was rejected for Badcommon, not for quality. Good luck in future uploads.
Gary



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3707 times:

With the database growing by leaps and bounds, this is the future so I guess we all better get used to it ...


Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineA346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1283 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3698 times:

I have a question though, eventually nearly every aircraft will be common and then the database will grow excrutiatingly slowly. Wouldn't it be better to have many photos of every aircraft than say "OK, that's enough"?


You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
User currently offlineEZYAirbus From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2460 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3683 times:

I agree with A346Dude, if they reject that for badcommon what about the endless number of BA A319s/A320s??

Just be nice to get pics like that on there, not often I get mine accepted when I get a half decent pic they come back with that crap!

Glenn




http://www.glenneldridgeaviation.com
User currently offlineAerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7184 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3684 times:

The problem is there are very good photos and there are older scans and poorer quality photos from when the acceptance criteria wasn't as high that have deemed the aircraft too 'common.' Perhaps if some of the older ones could be reassessed on today's standards you would stand more of a chance of acceptance if your photo is up to the correct standard.

User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3766 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3670 times:

what does it mean??

Because of this you post a thread in here? Look into your rejection email!
Everything explained there.

Oh btw. You've got a nice big dustspot above the SQ logo and also smaller one's overall the image. Should have been badquality!



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3631 times:

No reason to freak out over this.

Two factors play a role in this situation.

1. Commonality
2. High Quality

1. is applicable, and therefore 2. should be present as well. You fail to meet that requirement. It is dull, 3/4 rear angle, there are dustspots etc etc. The shot is not good enough for a common plane.

if they reject that for badcommon what about the endless number of BA A319s/A320s??

Those are different registrations, and therefore a lot of different planes. I cannot even remotely begin to understand why that would be a good ground for badcommon. Eh?

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineCpn360 From Belgium, joined Mar 2004, 200 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3493 times:

EZYAirbus,

I rejected it and the FIRST reason was "badquality" and not ONLY "badcommon" as you mentioned. The reasons why and how are explained by Wietse.

So you have now 2 options:
-Or you appeal and waste someone else time.
-Or you try to improve the photo and ask help in a CONSTRUCTIVE way in this forum.

With these kind of childish reactions you won't gain much.

Hoping this helps and made this all clear to you...

Serge




There is more in life then Airliners.net... Belgae Gallorum Fortissimi
User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1924 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3480 times:

Hi Serge,

I have a question regarding badcommon.

If there are too many photos of the same plane but if it was captured at a new location or airport, will it still be badcommon?
In other words, if the plane has lots of photos, let's say at LHR and if turns out at CDG for the first time, will it still be badcommon?

If new locations were allowed in the database for the same plane, I think it would be nice. It will show some history to where it has flown to. Researchers might benefit from it or something.

What do you think? Are there any clear guidlines?

Many thanks.


User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3766 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3469 times:

It will not get a badcommen rejection if there are already 200 photos in the DB but your image is still perfect. So high quality, nice motive,etc!

But the posted one above was not, as we know.



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1924 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3460 times:

I know what you are saying Florian and I believe that every photo should have a minimum quality requirement below which it will be rejected.

I agree that the posted one of this topic might get rejected even if it weren't common.

My question, will it be harder to get the plane in the DB if it were in LHR than CDG, as stated in my early question. I mean, is it common at a certain location or very common in general?

Thanks.


User currently offlineVir380 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2002, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3461 times:

Im afraid your not on your own in having a "badcommon" rejection ... i had one recently and i have no problem with it ...

just deal with it and move on .... without bad language  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

regards Tony



User currently offlineCpn360 From Belgium, joined Mar 2004, 200 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3455 times:

Hi Vatche,

Well, we have a lot of things to check on each photo.
But most important factor is the quality of the photo...
For me, the mentioned photo is/was badquality and the supplementary reason is/was badcommon.
So if you have an excellent quality shot, disregarding the location and quantity in the DB, it will get in for sure.

But location will not get priority on quality for common things unless the location is VERY very rare....

But as said, each photo is judged on a lot of factors and the combination of those will gives a result of acceptation or not.

Hoping this answers your question,

Rgds

Serge



There is more in life then Airliners.net... Belgae Gallorum Fortissimi
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3430 times:

We do not have time to go through every existing photo of a subject to see whether the one just uploaded is at a new location. Besides, its the subject and image quality that matter. Once we have a representative selection of pictures of a specific subject (I'm talking registration, NOT generic type) then further uploads need to be of better than normal quality to be accepted except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. if it was shown crashed, or something like that), or if the picture is something different to what we already have (e.g. a flight deck pic of a common subject may get in if all the other pics are externals). A picture of a common subject may be rejected badcommon even if it is of an "acceptable" standard - the same quality as a subject we have less pictures of.

Andy


User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1924 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3426 times:

Many thanks Serge and Andy. I agree that it will be very time consuming to check every location for a common subject. Also, it will definitely create more pointless arguments in here as well  Smile

All the best to you.


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...
Why Was This Photo Rejected? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 19:07:00 by Bravo45
Your Opinions: Why Was This Pic Rejected? posted Fri Sep 10 2004 13:54:11 by IDAWA
RE: Why Was This Photo Rejected posted Thu May 27 2004 23:45:50 by CactusHP
How Was This Rejected. posted Sat Mar 18 2006 02:51:36 by Pauara
Why Was This Not Baddouble? posted Tue Jan 11 2005 10:20:00 by Xpfg
Was This Rejected Cause Of The Ramp Lice? posted Wed Jan 14 2004 20:08:57 by Gmonney
Why Was This Cockpit Shot Not Accepted? posted Fri Jun 22 2001 06:49:54 by CYKA
Would This Be Rejected For Motive? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 20:47:41 by San747
Would This Be Rejected For Bad Personal.? posted Fri Mar 25 2005 06:08:12 by JumboJim747
Should This Really Be Rejected For Baddark? posted Sat Dec 18 2004 21:35:08 by KC7MMI