Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Confused About A Baddouble Rejection.  
User currently offlineFiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 15
Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3078 times:

I was sort of blown away by this rejection I got this morning. This shot got rejected for baddouble. I DO have another approach shot taken from the same aircraft on the same day. That shot was taken approaching Tulsa International, this one that was rejected was approaching Richard L. Jones airport. I don't get it. Is there no way to get this shot in besides appealing? I'm usually pretty satisfied with my rejections but this one doesn't make sense to me.

Here is the shot of the approach to TUL:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Danny Fritsche



And here is the rejected shot:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...jections/big/N6105VRVSApp43005.jpg

Danny


Bring back Bethune!
61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCxsjr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3063 times:

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is a baddouble rejection?

I've had a few rejections myself but never for that reason.


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3064 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Danny,

That must be frustrating for you. My understanding would be that there should be no reason for a baddouble rejection unless the approach was the same - which clearly it is not.

So long as you have not got another shot in the queue of the same approach as the one rejected I wonder whether this is simply a mistake. Unless someone comes up here with some other view/information I would be tempted to appeal the shot, adding an explanation about the rejection. I think that once it has been rejected the only way to take the issue forward is to appeal.

Good luck with that.

Paul


User currently offlineFiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

I have this other shot taken from the same plane of the SAME airport (KRVS) taken on the downwind leg. I uploaded that as an overview. It was rejected for badinfo, which I saw my mistake and have already re-uploaded. That was an overview and this is not it my opinion. I will include a link to that shot as well. Maybe it was a mistake and I could appeal and get it through. I would like a screener comment before I put it through the appeal process. Here is the overview rejected for badinfo. Thanks for the feedback guys.

Danny

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/RVSOverview43005.jpg

(Yes, the horizon on that overview bugs me, but the skyscraper in the distance lines up.  Smile)

[Edited 2005-05-07 18:08:48]


Bring back Bethune!
User currently offlineCxsjr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

Hello? My post not worthy of a reply?  grumpy 

User currently offline747 4-ever From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 604 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3035 times:

Cxsjr:
From http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejection_reasons.txt

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.


User currently offlineFiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

Update...I appealed the rejected approach shot last night and explained that sure, it was the same plane, same day, but it was a different airport, different approach. Well....that didn't work...shot down again. Just doesn't make sense to me. Oh well I guess...time to move on.  Sad

Danny



Bring back Bethune!
User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2730 posts, RR: 41
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2962 times:

Just out of interest, what happened here?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Hellmann



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Hellmann



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Hellmann



I know that it might be a rare plane...but 3 shots all pictured at the same airport, all picturing the same plane on the same day....?

Not having a dig, just curious to see what happened.

Simon



Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineKarlok From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2957 times:

Quoting Airplanepics (Reply 7):
Just out of interest, what happened here?

Photo dated 1995 is the trick.


User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2730 posts, RR: 41
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

Quoting Karlok (Reply 8):
Photo dated 1995 is the trick.

Yes, but 3 photos?! The first 2 are almost identical!



Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineFiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2952 times:

I'm aware standards have changed since then. You can still get shots like that in though...have a look at LAX pics for 1/22/05. Specifically, F-GEXA http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...uary%2022,%202005®search=F-GEXA I just don't see how it plays as baddouble in my case, a shot depicting approaches to 2 different airports. I'm glad everyone else understands.

Danny

[Edited 2005-05-08 16:08:21]

[Edited 2005-05-08 16:14:50]

[Edited 2005-05-08 16:15:06]


Bring back Bethune!
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2946 times:

Quoting Fiveholer (Reply 10):
Specifically, F-GEXA http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...uary%2022,%202005®search=F-GEXA

Not Baddouble! Baddouble only applies to photos submitted by the same photographer.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2933 times:

Quoting Karlok (Reply 8):
Photo dated 1995 is the trick

But uploaded April 30 2005.

Staffan


User currently offlineFiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2911 times:

Quoting Wietse (Reply 11):
Not Baddouble! Baddouble only applies to photos submitted by the same photographer.

I'm aware of that as well...I guess I snuck in 2 shots of F-GEXA's t/o at LAX in the database then.  Wink

Danny



Bring back Bethune!
User currently offlineLaw4fun From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 135 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

Does a screener care to comment or is there some double secret underlying reason for rejection that the rest of us cannot know?


Canon Shutter Slut
User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2829 times:

Nice screening on the SXM 727 shots  yes 

I just had a baddouble rejection, even appealed and rejected from this
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...s/big/APPEAL_F-WWTO-260405-TLS.jpg and this is the shot already added
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Dopson - AirTeamImages



I thought they were sufficiently different and I am allowed to "upload my best 1 or 2" from a sequence...Guess I should have uploaded a sequence of the A380 where it appears you can get away with 3 take off shots  banghead  I see why you uploaders get annoyed with the screening process  Wink


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24906 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2813 times:

Sukhoi, I thought you were a screener?  Confused


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1660 posts, RR: 66
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2779 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Paul

Thanks for showing your rejection. I think the 2 Thai 345 takeoff shot of yours differentiate from each other well enough. I would give it ok on them if I am screening. I was thinking to upload something like that too, now seeing yours rejected I may have to re-assess the situation. It is all about how individual screener taking on this baddouble issue.

Beautiful shots by the way!

Sam


User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2751 times:

As with all rejection reasons, a rule is applied differently depending upon the image itself. But I'll break the rule down as simply as I can for the purposes of an explanation.

Basic Rule:
* Best 1 or 2 shots accepted from the same photographer, same registration, same day

Must take into consideration:
* Rare or common - If it's common, it's likely only the best single shot will be accepted, but also impacted by other considerations
* Quality - If quality if good (not excellent), it's likely only best single shot will be accepted - once again, other considerations taken into account
* Special event/Newsworthy? - If it's a special event, once-off or generally something that is newsworthy (like an accident or even the first A380 take off), the rule might even be extended to cover 3 shots.
* Angle: Best 1 or 2 really means that the angles or shots must be significantly different. So a close up on a nose and a wide angle might be okay, or a shot from front 3/4 and back 3/4 on same take off, might be okay - but once again, other considerations must be taken into context.

If you want to avoid bad doubles, I would recommend questioning motivation behind uploading 2 of the same reg, same movement, same day. Why would you bother uploading two of the same thing?
Accident? Rare? Newsworthy? Special visitor? - Maybe these would be reasons for uploading two. But honestly, why would anyone be uploading two shots of a common, everyday airliners???

If you're doing this, and your shots are not absolutely perfect, then expect a bad double. In the process if you're uploading 3, 4, 5 or even more of the same thing (I've seen as many as 12 of the same thing), then the only thing you're going to be doing is wasting screener time and extending the queue screening time.

Worth noting though, that the screeners will generally try to make comments on doubles, trying to accept the best shot of those uploaded by photographers (i.e. If you upload 5, and they're good enough to accept.... we'll try to choose the best).
But really, you as a photographer should be choosing the best with your own opinions.

Glenn Stewart



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2730 posts, RR: 41
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2724 times:

Quoting Glennstewart (Reply 18):
Basic Rule:
* Best 1 or 2 shots accepted from the same photographer, same registration, same day

Must take into consideration:
* Rare or common - If it's common, it's likely only the best single shot will be accepted, but also impacted by other considerations
* Quality - If quality if goo

So what happened with the 3 727's at SXM? Might be rare.....but it's not THAT rare!



Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineFL350 From Belgium, joined Feb 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2722 times:

And what about Danny's approach pic, I thought different airport was not considered as baddouble?


Fabrice Sanchez - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineJAT74L From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 618 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2715 times:

I had a similar situation with a baddouble pair at SXM. When that was picked up here in the forum, one of them was immediately removed. I don't see this happening to anyone else.

John



I like trains just as much as planes but trains don't like the Atlantic!
User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2686 times:

To illustrate the point here are two shots of a "rare" NCA 747 shot the same day:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yuxiaobin



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yuxiaobin


Now those two are as different as my two, which is what Sam seems to think applies to mine and which is what I understood the Screeners could accept.

Gkirk, taking too many pictures to have enough time to screen along with some issues so I have retired....

Cheers

Paul


User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2659 times:

Quoting Airplanepics (Reply 19):
So what happened with the 3 727's at SXM? Might be rare.....but it's not THAT rare!

Well, in my opinion.... 2 would have been enough.
But, for calculations and easy explanation.

How many shots of this aircraft existed in the database prior to these shots?
None

How many chances are there to take photos on this aircraft in future?
None

Is there aircraft rare or common?
Rare

Are the shots of acceptable quality?
Yes

Is this enough to allow two shots?
In this example, a definant yes

Well, I think the case is closed on the 727.

Not sure if it is the case, but looking at the evidence.... it is possible that 2 were in the final queue of one screener and the other was in the queue of another screener.

Screener X accepted 2 of the same reg..... at the same time, screener Y accepted the third shot.

This is rare, but it is possible for the system to allow something like this.



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineLaw4fun From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 135 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

STILL no exlplanation about Danny's approach shots into different airports...Does any screener know what is going on there?!?!?!?!?


Canon Shutter Slut
25 Glennstewart : As I stated above.... you must take everything into account. And to put the icing on the cake, you have to also realise that behind the rules, behind
26 Fiveholer : Hmmmm....why is MY shot that started THIS thread being ignored? Other examples have been brought into the thread I created and those shots have had ex
27 Law4fun : Danny, I guess approach shots from RVS or TUL are not as juicy as multiple Thai A345 or Maho Beach approach shots. I, for one, thought your approach s
28 Clickhappy : Hey Danny, did you try appealing that shot? If it was rejected for baddouble, and it is a different airport (I haven't had a look) it should get in no
29 FL350 : Don't forget to read all the posts Royal, it was appealled and rejected. Cheers Fabrice
30 Post contains images Fiveholer : Yes, Royal, it WAS appealed and rejected again overnight. Should I re-upload again and make note of it to the screeners? Thanks for a response from a
31 Clickhappy : Hi Danny. I don't know if reuploading it is the correct thing to do, you would run afoul of the badreupload rule. I don't know how many screeners are
32 Fiveholer : Thanks Royal, I am hoping it was a mixup. I just don't see the baddouble in it. I just know I appealed and it was rejected again overnight while I sle
33 Psych : I have been banging on about this issue of transparency in my current thread about badcommon. Thankfully I was given an explanation for my rejection w
34 StealthZ : mmm.. That is kind of scary.. I understand that screeners devote a lot of time to the task they volunteered for and also like to enjoy their chosen h
35 Post contains images Sukhoi : Chris, The Screeners dont pay much attention due to the amount of crap that's posted in here, ask many long time contributors to the site and your fin
36 StealthZ : Paul, I can accept that there is a lot of crap... but maybe a little more dialogue from screeners would reduce the crap. By avoiding the forum the scr
37 JAT74L : I'm pretty shocked to read Royal's statement that the screeners have "given up" on this forum, and that Sukhoi is saying that the screeners don't pay
38 Post contains images Glennstewart : Bad double only applies to same photographer, same airport, same registration, same day. If the rejection was purely bad double and there were two ai
39 Glennstewart : Sorry Danny.... not my intention to ignore your shot. But my replies are quite general and do apply to your shot as well. Glenn
40 StealthZ : Glenn, Great to see screeners reading at least part of the thread!!! Danny did appeal and was rejected again... by your explanation it should have go
41 Post contains images Xpfg : He's already appealed it...so if you admit it as a fault, what do you suggest to do now? I myself am quite interested at this point.
42 DC10Tim : It would appear that much of the ambiguity here and indifference towards the screeners on behalf of the photographers is largely due to personal perce
43 Post contains links Glennstewart : Hi Danny, I guess you didn't realise that I'd replied already 3 times before writing this. I'm very busy, but apart from managing to "try" to help yo
44 Post contains images Fiveholer : WOW! Where to begin, lol First off, I am glad both Royal and Glenn have joined in on the screening side and I thank you for that. The one thing that I
45 Post contains images Glennstewart : Tim, Screening guidelines are quite specifc with their guidelines, and I think quite well designed for a website processing as many images as this on
46 Glennstewart : Heheh.... no worries Paul. I wouldn't tell you how to "suck eggs". Comments for the enthusiasts and photograhers. I enjoy at least taking time out on
47 Post contains images Glennstewart : Hi Danny, First of all, I'm at work.... so replying very quickly (hence so many mini posts instead of one big one). Yeah, understood. If you appeal, o
48 Post contains images Fiveholer : Glenn, Thanks for replying. God, is it tomorrow already?! I guess its time to close the book on this one. I may not agree with the screener's interpre
49 Jan Mogren : It was rejected on appeal. I don't think he is asking for priority? Just asking if ok to reupload. It is a *different airport* from the other shots.
50 Sulman : Having read the odd thread from a couple of years back, It looked much the same to me - certainly the same complaints. If some screeners are more com
51 Sukhoi : That works both ways that why not all the Screeners actively participate in the forum, I should have made myself a little clearer in that "most" of t
52 Post contains images StealthZ : Maybe all screeners read every word written here... but that falls short of participating. Feeding back anything important to the Screening group yet
53 Post contains images Sukhoi : Ohhh that gives me an idea Cheers Paul
54 JumboJim747 : Paul why dont you throw that screeners hat on your head and give the guys a hand as the Q is a little high. Im sure the screeners are coping well and
55 Post contains images Sukhoi : Yeah they need to pull their fingers out I have a few in the queue too Maybe they will have me back one day, but at the moment I'm too busy taking pic
56 Post contains images Fiveholer : That's a part I was unclear of...I had stated that I had appealed and it was rejected but yet, appealing was still part of the equation. Exactly...I
57 Post contains images Glennstewart : Probably worth reading all of my replies. Your use of my quotes shows you need a decent re-read. No thick skin required. We're here because we enjoy
58 Jan Mogren : I swear I'm not trying to be an ass, but one of us does not understand. As far as I can see the question hasn't been answered unless it's in this quot
59 Glennstewart : There weren't simply 2 shots involved here. We're talking about 4 shots uploaded and a 5th uploaded. So this was a very particular example. If it's t
60 Post contains images FL350 : No offence to the photographer here, pictures are shown to illustrate the baddouble rejection rule. It's a bit weird to see that rules are applied onc
61 DC10Tim : Fabrice, There are hundreds of more blatant 'baddoubles' on airliners.net than that, even 'badtriples'. I wont post any of them in here, as I don't th
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...
Help... Confused About Badcategory Rejection posted Tue Jun 14 2005 22:05:22 by Roots
Confused About Badmotiv Rejection! posted Thu May 27 2004 14:06:01 by Jkw777
Confused About A Rejection posted Fri Mar 4 2005 19:43:42 by AGD
Flabbergasted About A Motiv Rejection! posted Mon Sep 25 2006 18:23:22 by Avro85
Question About Distance Rejection posted Fri May 19 2006 13:16:45 by Edoca
Confused About TC's For Canon posted Sun Oct 2 2005 04:16:46 by WakeTurbulence
Confused By NOA_size Rejection - Advice Please posted Fri Aug 26 2005 21:52:29 by Norfolkjohn
? About Baddouble posted Fri Aug 12 2005 18:12:05 by Spartan13
Confused By This Rejection posted Wed Mar 23 2005 23:29:18 by Atomother
Question About A Badcenter Rejection posted Mon Dec 13 2004 02:43:26 by Asgeirs