Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1544 times:
Recently I submitted a photo of an F-16 taken at an air show in Rhode Island U.S.A.. The photo was rejected for "BADINFO". After going over the photo several times, confirming the registration and comparing this photo to the only other one of this registration in the database, I could find no information discrepancy. So, I re-submitted the photo kindly but specifically requesting a personal message from the screener clarifying the "BADINFO" rejection should the photo being rejected again. After patiently waiting another 5-6 days for the photo to be reviewed, it was rejected again for a different reason. This time it was rejected for "BADINFO/BADEXPOSURE". Furthermore no personal message from the screener was provided.
Subsequently, I appealed the photo Johan explaining the situation and was hoping for some sort of guidance or explanation regarding this inconsistency in the screening process. After several more days I received another computer generated standard email response stating the same information furnished in previous rejections.
How can a photo be rejected twice for two different reasons?
Is there a set of standards used by screeners to review photos?
Why wasn't my personal request for clarification from the screeners or you granted?
Why was my Repeal to Johan met with the same cold computer-generated response?
I am normally very patient and understanding when it comes to rejections, I understand that standards are high. As a paying customer of this website, I don't expect any special privileges when it comes to getting photos accepted. However, I do expect a higher level of customer service than I have received. Not only do I pay membership dues, but I visit advertiser’s links and constantly promote this site to members of the aviation community.
Any advice on this situation would be greatly appreciated!
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Thread starter): Why wasn't my personal request for clarification from the screeners or you granted?
Because they are very busy people
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Thread starter): Why was my Repeal to Johan met with the same cold computer-generated response?
See above
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Thread starter): I am normally very patient and understanding when it comes to rejections, I understand that standards are high. As a paying customer of this website, I don't expect any special privileges when it comes to getting photos accepted.
Then why did you start this thread?
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Thread starter): However, I do expect a higher level of customer service than I have received.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1516 times:
Hello,
The issue of the emails resulting from rejections is often discussed on this Forum. Many people complain that they are not given appropriate information to put right their rejections, and also many complain about the impersonal nature of the emails. Another factor that you can often read about is where photos are rejected for one reason, resubmitted, and then rejected subsequently for another reason. Also, the theme of screeners not correcting 'minor' mistakes in uploading that can lead to rejections, is explored often.
I think it is fair to say that most photographers here are familiar with such frustrations and the Crew have said that work is being done to improve the emails we receive. One of the biggest frustrations for us all is the inherently subjective nature of the screening process - no matter how well the rejection reasons are defined there will always be that subjective element, and when you are on the wrong end of a rejection, this can be tough. But there is no doubt that screeners do a difficult and time-consuming job, and the liaison between screeners and photographers is an area that can always be worked upon.
It can be difficult to get personal feedback on rejections - even when you ask for it through the appeals process - and I think one good function of this Forum is to post issues here and ask for guidance. Screeners do often pop up here to give their advice and guidance. So my suggestion would be to post a thread and you will usually have many questions answered.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1481 times:
Been waiting for ANet to come back online to make a full reply!
Thanks Paul for some insight into my original post. It's unfortunate that DLKAPA has to resort to flamebait/harsh language to get his voice heard. I hope he found some amusement in mocking me.
Unfortunately he missed the main question addressed in my original post:
How can a photo get rejected twice for two completely different reasons?
Are new screeners aware of the original reason for rejection on re-sumittals?
Do they read the "message to screeners" posted at the bottom?
Furthermore, had my original photo been rejected for "BADEXPOSURE" in the first place, I would have accepted the opinion, and moved on without objection...Lord knows I've done it before! (which is probably why I'll never be a screener!). It was the fact that it was rejected twice for two different reasons that ruffled my feathers. And a request from someone human for some sort of insight...even Johan was met with the same computer-generated response. The quality of the photo is not the issue...I think all my photos stink...that's why I would make such a terrible screener!
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56 Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1456 times:
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 4): Do you have anything positive to say?
And that does match to your own replies exactly how?
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 1): Nobody cares
...
You should feel so proud of yourself, but again, nobody cares.
...
If you actually want anybody to take you seriously, stop bitching and post the rejected photo.
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 6): It's unfortunate that DLKAPA has to resort to flamebait/harsh language to get his voice heard. I hope he found some amusement in mocking me.
You know each to his own Sometimes you have to ignore the BS.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1428 times:
This definetly helps!
However, if you type "AF940041" into the photo submission auto complete form along with the airport code "oqu" it pulls up this photo where it says "Click here to view all photos of AF940041" http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=AF940041:
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1418 times:
Interestingly enough if you type AF940041 into the regular search form it doesn't pull up anything! It only pulls up the photo (above) when you type it into the autocomplete on the submission page...
The plot thickens!
Diezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 12 Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1414 times:
The help for registrations on the photo upload page says:
"For military aircraft, list the serial in the registration field and the additional code if any in the code field. USAF and USArmy aircraft are listed with the full serial including the fiscal year, e.g. 43-12453 or 85-0035, for the US Navy use the full six-digit BuAer number, e.g. 160457."
So I guess 94-0041 is correct and AFS940041 is wrong.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1411 times:
Interesting...
I never went into the help section because i didn't think I needed any. This was my first military submission. In other words when I typed in AF940041 into the autocomplete it pulls up a photo of the same aircraft. In my mind there was no question that this was the correct registration. Little did i know that this one photo is obviously an exception, or mistake. The rules have obviously changed since this photo (above) was added.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1359 times:
Well it seems someone has suddenly corrected this little error since my last post. AF940041 no longer references the photo shown above (ID826233) when typed into the autofill section of the photo submission page. I just wish the screeners would admit this obvious system error and accept my photo, for the original rejection was based on an autofill information error. This aircraft *was* listed under two different registrations at one time...Guess my vindication will have to be personal...like my photograph.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 618 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
