CYEGsTankers From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 245 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3769 times:
When an uploader checks there photo stats and the progress on the screening for the queue, how closely timed is the information they are reading? At the exact time this is being reviewed by the uploader, is it old news or is it current? I have found that photos that sit in the queue that are currently being screened sit for atleast a day or two in that section before appearing on the site. So, to further this, when one looks at the stats and sees thousands of photos still to be screened is this information kept up to the minute or is it old?
Are there hundreds of photos that sit in the high quality section for the final approval then once all are accepted by the last screener are they added to the site right away at the same time?
By seeing 13,444 photos and 1763 Photographers is the screening really slow this time of year or something or are there hundreds being accepted/contributed each minute and we just don't see it?
Secondly, do the screeners get paid for there efforts? Just seems a lengthy wait again.
UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3757 times:
If you are talking about one photo that says in screening that means that a screener looked at it for priority screening and choose not to award it of that upload privilege. So until it has waited its time in the pin it'll say that it's in screening. In terms of is the queue high, yes it is. In terms of how up to date I would say by the hour if that. I have always gotten photo's added and then dropped from the queue within the hour. I've been so busy I forgot I had a shot in the queue. The crew did a great job that past few weeks to keep the queue to around 9k-10k but 13k! Wow! Regardless its a long process that we all have to go through. Seeing as it is vacation for many it should be like this for the next few months!
No screeners don't get paid so that contributes to why it takes even longer. Which if you think about it isn't a bad deal b/c the person screening the shot is a great photographer themselves. They do it all free of charge and on their own time.
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1923 posts, RR: 34 Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3721 times:
I just found out the other day that the upload queue rules have changed and there is a limit now to have only 30 photos at a time in the queue. And looking at the numbers, there are between 1500 to 2000 photos being uploaded every single day. That is just amazing and shows how popular both aviation photography and this particular site are becoming.
A question to Peter and to other screeners in general. Do you think that the "30 photos" rule can be changed to become more like 50 or something? It used to be 30/day/photographer.
Maybe, this 30 photos limit will be welcomed by other similar websites since some may look for alternatives to upload their photos instead of queueing them on their hard drives. The weather is so tempting nowadays and gives greater opportunity for photographers.
What do you think? Will the 50 photos suggestion (by myself) be too hard for the screeners to handle?
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 61 Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3701 times:
Come on, the Q currently has about 14k of photos, so I don't think bumping the limit from 30 to 50 would be good for any of us! Not for the screeners, and not for the ( impatient, it seems.. ) photographers.
The team does hard work every day, I think we all can wait these 5-7 days photos take to get screened, can't we?!
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 61 Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3681 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 4): Come on, the Q currently has about 14k of photos, so I don't think bumping the limit from 30 to 50 would be good for any of us! Not for the screeners, and not for the ( impatient, it seems.. ) photographers.
Quoting OD720 (Reply 6): I never said that the screeners were not doing a hard work. Thus a quote from my post:
Quoting OD720 (Reply 3):
Will the 50 photos suggestion (by myself) be too hard for the screeners to handle?
This means that I do know that it's already hard work! Please don't change or twist my thoughts.
I just answered your question, saying a 50 photo limit would not be good for screeners and photographers.
The "impatient, it seems" part was added because of the thread title and
Quoting CYEGsTankers (Thread starter): is the screening really slow this time of year or something or are there hundreds being accepted/contributed each minute and we just don't see it?
Seems like the usual bashing.
I didn't say you don't know how hard the screener job is, but as it seems some people haven't got an insight ( see quote thread starter ), and that's why I added the "screeners do hard work" part!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3011 posts, RR: 59 Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3662 times:
It is true, photos are taking along time to get screened these days. This is definitely the longest in terms of time the queue has been since I begun uploading.
However, that does have some advantages - I have been checking to see how my photos are doing in the queue rather less than I used to do, which is better because, strangely enough, it never seemed to make any difference to how quickly they were looked at .
But it has made me wonder at what point the Crew consider that it may be worthwhile to take on more screeners. Whilst there is no doubt that they work hard there needs to be a balance I would have thought, because I reckon there would be a point where photos taking something like a couple of weeks after uploading to be hosted could become a disincentive to some uploaders, which ultimately is counter-productive for the site.
I reckon there would be many photographers out here itching to be given the chance to get into screening.
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1923 posts, RR: 34 Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3649 times:
Fair enough Florian. I accept your explanation. I feared that my post waas being misinterpreted.
But my main worry is this:
Quoting OD720 (Reply 3): Maybe, this 30 photos limit will be welcomed by other similar websites since some may look for alternatives to upload their photos instead of queueing them on their hard drives.
I mean they (other similar sites) may start attracting more photos from photographers because of the limitations that are "imposed" in here.
It is clear that this concern is reflected by Paul as well:
Quoting Psych (Reply 8): Whilst there is no doubt that they work hard there needs to be a balance I would have thought, because I reckon there would be a point where photos taking something like a couple of weeks after uploading to be hosted could become a disincentive to some uploaders, which ultimately is counter-productive for the site.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2236 posts, RR: 50 Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3606 times:
I think that the people who upload 2 or 3 shots a week will continue to do so. Normally these are the people who self-screen their shots carefully for quality and originality, comparing them with the present content of the the database before uploading.
Those who are discontent with the screening speed and wish to upload massive loads of shots, can choose to take them elsewhere. It'll benefit the other people I described above too.
By going elsewhere they'll probably find that other queues are just as congested. It's a popular hobby and there resources (=screeners time) are scarce. Instead of increasing screener capacity as a solution, I think all photographers should try to limit themselves and upload very selectively. It benefits all, increase the database quality and will prevent badcommon rejections.
About upload-limits: This discussion comes back every year before summer when the supply of pictures increases substantially and so does the Q. Instead of increasing the limit, I think it should be reduced to 10 or so...
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3011 posts, RR: 59 Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3578 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 10): Instead of increasing the limit, I think it should be reduced to 10 or so...
That's an interesting idea Eduard. I'm all for better self-screening, to improve the overall quality of the uploads.
It seems to me this is about getting the balance right - a smaller limit may lead to better self-screening, but if the queue is very long because, for example, there are simply not enough 'active' screeners working at any one period of time, it may be a bit harsh to limit uploads in that way. If I have some great shots from an event, and the queue limit is, say, 10, and the queue is 10 days long, then my 11th photo will not appear for 20 days, assuming good quality. That would be a very long time after the event.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2236 posts, RR: 50 Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3563 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 11): If I have some great shots from an event
And that's where priority screening comes in...
Anyway, reducing the number of pictures per photographer in the Q at any point in time will for one reduce the Q length. I said 10, but basically I mean dropping it significantly from the 30 we have now. Second, if you don't upload all your shots at once, but -say- 1 or 2 a day, you will never run out of upload capacity, as every day 1 or 2 of your shots are screened. A positive side effect is that IF your shots get uploaded at an 'unconvenient time' (like when many screeners are screening at the same time and additions go so fast that your shots disappear into database nirvana in a matter of minutes), the 'damage' is not too big...
Too bad the idea of an upload limit related to the individual acceptance ratio has not come to life (yet?)... That, in my opinion, is still the best way to tackle the Q problem and make the screeners work more enjoyable...
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 61 Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3543 times:
I think the best thing we can do is sticking with the system we have at the moment! I am 100% on the quality over quantity approach, and I NEVER used the 30 photos upload limit so far to its maximum.
As mentioned by Eduard, every spring and summer, the Q starts to rocket skywards, just because days get longer and people go out more than in winter. All the ones who complain should get used to that, and accept that photos take about 1 week to screen! If they don't... nobody says they have to stick with Airliners.net!
DRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3527 times:
yeh im actually for that, limiting the number of photos to maybe 15-20...this should bring it down. Since the q is now 13610 that is indeed alot and for such a good site maybe be a little much in my opinion since alot of great and big photographers comes here they should not have to wait that long. However screeners are probably not always at the comp, but they are doing a great job!
Oh wel let see what the boss might say about this issue!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3011 posts, RR: 59 Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3523 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 12): A positive side effect is that IF your shots get uploaded at an 'inconvenient time' (like when many screeners are screening at the same time and additions go so fast that your shots disappear into database nirvana in a matter of minutes), the 'damage' is not too big...
That's a really good point Eduard. I have had many shots that I thought would do reasonably well on the 'hits' front disappear very quickly into the abyss of page 2, 3, 4 etc, never to be seen again .
I understand the point you were making about priority screening, and agree. The point I was trying to illustrate was that the potential for a very long time lag between uploading and acceptance may be a disincentive to some. For me, I'm still chuffed when I get photos accepted here, so it's a good exercise in patience.
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1923 posts, RR: 34 Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3505 times:
I have no problem with time and I never brought it up anyway. I remember, last year we were waiting for more than 20 days for our photos to be screened and I never complained then either.
What I'm refering is the 30 photo limit/photographer and was asking if the screeners could cope with an increase of this limit if it were to be adopted.
But I see that Eduard makes a good point by actually suggesting the opposite. I think this would fit better for photos from places like AMS, LHR, CDG and many other busy airports where there are so many photogs to catch the action.
But for a place like Beirut, where there are only few photogs and me being the most active at present, it will be difficult to show a fair number of photos on my own. If there were 10 like me, I wouldn't have minded the limitations.
It would be like, having an upload limit for a certain airport. There could be 1000 photos from AMS is the queue with the current limitation but only 30 or 60 from BEY.
And please don't misunderstand me, I'm not asking for any priority here, I'm just presenting my observation.
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1923 posts, RR: 34 Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3485 times:
Where did I say that photos from Beirut are more important than those from any other location? In this example, I'm saying that this particular location is not covered as AMS and othres. As I said at the end, it's not about asking a priority. It's more like an observation.
Can't I just post a concern here???
First I'm accused of undermining the screener's work, then about the long time the screening takes and now making photos from BEY more important than AMS!!!
I say the current rules are great. If there were to be any other changes in the future, that would be fine as well.
Ghostbase From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 354 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3342 times:
Quoting 9A-CRO (Reply 22): I'd like to see systems that automatically puts photos with registrations that not yet exist in DB to the top of the queue.
Now that is an *excellent* idea! This is a database after all...
Quoting OD720 (Reply 18): It would be like, having an upload limit for a certain airport. There could be 1000 photos from AMS is the queue with the current limitation but only 30 or 60 from BEY.
I can see that this is not going to be a popular idea as the brusque tone of Tim's reply illustrates. However there is some logic to it and I think that it is worth considering. I would personally prefer to see photos from the more exotic locations round the world. KLM 747 nose shots from AMS lost their appeal a while back.
Personally, as a 90+% slide/film scanner, the current 30 photos in the queue limit is just fine, uploading any more than three a day takes forever so to have to wait a week to 10 days is no real concern. What it does make me do is self-screen much more.
More Screeners is not the answer as that will most likely increase the moaning and groaning regards consistency.
"I chase my dreams but I never seem to arrive"
25 TZ: We recently lost one of our highest quality, most productive and long-term screeners. That hasn't helped the length of the queue. We're discussing red
26 DRAIGONAIR: Tamsin, Thanks thats a good idea and maybe that will help bring it down! cheers Nick
27 CYEGsTankers: That's sad to hear. Will there be a replacment for the vacant screener spot? A reduction in upload spots might solve some of the long waiting periods.
28 DRAIGONAIR: No problem CYEGsTankers. Would be a good option to add more screeners, because i think every year we will see more and more photographer as this site
29 RG828: Thats really too bad. Looking at the screener list however, there are 30 screeners listed - well, now 29. That seems like a reasonable amount, I reme
30 BO__einG: I personally think that the limit should be reduced to like 5 photos per person for each week. That will definetly help cut down the queue and cause m
31 Pepef: My personal views aside, the long screening queues will oneday start to affect this sites popularity. Not from the photographers viewpoint necessarily
32 INNflight: So if I go and shoot a whole charter day at INN during January and want to upload my best photos, I have a backlog lasting until May with only 5 shot
33 DRAIGONAIR: I also agree with Pepef, i also upload to other sites and within a day the pics are on the site. Maybe something drastic should be done here to keep i
34 StealthZ: Hi all, Tamsin's point brings me to a question I had been thinking earlier in the thread, what is the turnover rate of screeners? Is there a process
35 IL76: There will always be some sort of cycle: Queue is long, people complain and leave... The queue then becomes shorter, the same people that left come ba
36 Pepef: I don't think it's feasible the rookie has as many slots in the queue as Sam for example. Just adds up to a lot of frustrating rejections. 1-1.000.000
37 Pepef: I thought my last idea was so good I tried to add myself to my respected users list. "You may not have yourself in your respected users list. Bummer."
38 Psych: Peter - isn't there something slightly wrong here? Surely average view per photo would be the best indicator, following the logic of your argument, u
39 StealthZ: This is going to be dangerous ground but here goes... How about an upload limit based on Accept/Reject ratio? Obviously this could not be applied to n
40 TZ: Well, there's an idea we wish we ourselves had had Tamsin (a.net screening crew)
41 INNflight: That's a great idea, this would be a good way to go! Florian ( only had 2 rejections [ badpersonal, badcategory ] the last 2 months )
42 Granite: Hi all As a Head Screener I am always on the prowl looking for possible screener candidates. Lots of things need to fall into place. There is one slid
43 Pepef: At any given time I only have 0-3 photos in the queue, so my interest is purely academic. But... Wouldn't it be more objective if you let the "distinc
44 DRAIGONAIR: yeh, also one thing. The accept ratio might have been bad when someone (like me) didnt have digital yet some time ago. I do now, and accept ratio is o