Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58 Posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2466 times:
I just wanted the opportunity to voice some thoughts I have been having over the last day or two about the doubles rule. Please let's try not to get into slagging the rules off or pointing to examples of inconsistencies - this is not the aim of this thread. It is just to discuss issues.
One aspect of my understanding of the NOA_Double rule is that you can have a photo rejected if it looks very similar to a previous photo already accepted on to the database that you have taken yourself. I had a nice morning out at the weekend in some (all too rare) beautiful soft sunlight at Manchester, and I headed off to my favourite vantage point. After editing some of my favourites I realised that a few I had put in the queue looked uncomfortably similar to photos of those same planes that I have previously submitted and had accepted. Hence I have pulled them.
Of course, we all have different tastes and perspectives: for me the lighting of a photo is key. I would argue that, for all those examples, the photos I have had to pull from the queue for fear of a 'double' rejection were quite definitely superior to those that are already in the database - particularly in terms of clarity and the overall quality of the light. Far superior in fact, and of much more interest to viewers.
Now I recognise that you can't necessarily 'trade' new shots for old, and because part of the role of the database is 'historical', it would be unhelpful to lose shots already present. Seeing how things develop is interesting - be it locations; the state planes are in; editing quality etc etc. That didn't stop me wishing there was the facility to swap one of these new shots for one already present, as it is so much better. But for someone like me, who doesn't really travel around to many venues, but enjoys working to improve the quality and interest of my A.net 'portfolio', this rule is preventing me being able to put forward shots that otherwise I would be confident would be good additions.
There is, of course, a similar discussion that could be had about 'common' issues, as the database builds further.
I would very much like to see A.net retain its premier position for aviation photography. My concern is that there are occasions when the past - i.e. what is already on the database - might prevent otherwise excellent photos from getting the airing they deserve. The 'double' and 'common' rules seem to me to be the way this may happen.
This is not a criticism of these rules per se, but just an opportunity to consider how the database is going to develop in the future, and how these rules will affect the way things go. I would be very interested to hear what others think on this issue.
As a final point, I pulled the shots in question because they were taken from pretty much the same place and the plane was at pretty much the same location on the tarmac. However, it looked very different due, primarily, to the vastly different lighting conditions. I am assuming the double is relevant because of the orientation of the shot - but am I wrong? Could it be argued that, because the lighting is so different, even though the photos look very similar from the point of view of location/focal length etc, the lighting makes them potentially 'different'?
Apologies - wordy as ever, but I wanted to try to get my point over clearly. All the best.
WillFang From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2420 times:
I agree with you that it can be frustrating sometimes. Especially since airlines sometimes schedule the same planes on the same routes, resulting in the same registrations repeatedly showing up at a certain airport.
However, the way I understand it, the doubles rule is for photos taken on the same date? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2413 times:
Quoting WillFang (Reply 1): However, the way I understand it, the doubles rule is for photos taken on the same date?
Unfortunately it is. I just screened a side-on, blue sky shot of a plane that the photographer already has in the DB in the exact same composition, only taken one day earlier.
The reasoning behind uploading it again completely passed me by...
But I'm not allowed to reject it...
Sometimes... Screening can be quite frustrating...
I am almost frightened to suggest you have this wrong, Ed, but my understanding is that you CAN get a rejection for a photo that looks very like a photo of the same plane taken BY YOU on a previous occasion. I had a photo rejected for this very reason which led to an alteration to the rule some months ago.
i.e. Very similar photo - same aircraft - same photographer - different date = rejection
EDIT: Never mind the first part, as Eduard seems to have been mistaken. :p
As for people uploading nearly identical photos taken on different dates, I don't mind as long as the photos aren't boring. In the case of a standard side-on blue sky shot, I think over time individual photographers will start to realize how boring and reptitive they become, and stop uploading them.
At least that's what happened with me. When I was just starting out, getting every shot I took uploaded and accepted was the ultimate goal. But over time I realized how ridiculous and pointless that was and began practicing self-screening. I think everyone goes through this process (hopefully). Because after all, isn't it better to have a portfolio showcasing your best work than a portfolio showing all your work?
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
Thanks to all for your contributions so far. Ed - no need for the white flag - you still have my great respect.
I'm glad that we have cleared up the rule - but I'd still be interested to see further discussion on the key issues I was trying to raise, particularly this notion of past decisions (i.e. acceptances of photos in days of old, when possibly standards/criteria were different) having a direct impact on what can and cannot now be accepted to the database.
I think my thoughts here were partly prompted by the very interesting debate about cloning in the recent thread - a good discussion about how things may or may not change with the site. As for that topic area, I think good arguments can be proposed for differing points of view. For example, I understand the argument why it is acceptable to have 10 photos of the same aircraft at the same place on the same day, taken by different photographers (i.e. not fair to be penalised by the uploads of other photographers). But, as a visitor to the site, I may only be interested to see the best of those photos - not all 10; variety may be the issue for me there, not quantity. Equally as a viewer looking for photos of a specific aircraft, I may be keen to see the best quality images I can find, and therefore you might have your work cut out to justify to me why some excellent photos are not available for me to have a look at simply because the photographer has some poorer quality images of that plane already accepted.
I recall discussions where it has been argued that it would not be appropriate for the acceptance criteria applied to uploads in the past to be used as a benchmark by which current uploads are judged. A fair position to take. However, it could equally be argued that it is then not appropriate for my current photo's motive to be judged on the basis of a previous motive for that aircraft already in the database.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2328 times:
I have been thinking of ways around this problem. I understand why the 'baddouble' rule applies - primarily to stop someone going to Myrtle Ave. everyday for the next 5 years and uploading the same shot of G-EUPH landing.
However, there are wider implications of this, which I understand is why Paul has started this thread.
Instead of having the 'baddouble' rule apply to someone taking a similar shot, perhaps several months apart, wouldn't it be sense to just widen the 'badcommon' rule for such shots?
Hereby, whereas now someone could get 'badcommon' for uploading the same same reg. after they reach a certain number (is it about 10 off the top of my head?), they could be allowed to upload the same number of shots of that reg. from whatever angle they want, then the 'badcommon' rule come in and not touch on 'baddouble' at all.
What I'm saying is, at present if I have 10 shots of the same reg. in the DB, it is ok as long as they all look different. Under my proposal, you could upload the same shot of the same aircraft everyday until you reach a certain number of that reg. in the DB, then you get a 'badcommon'.
It would just seem to get around this obvious problem of penalizing photographers who happen to have one similar shot of a particular aircraft already uploaded from some point in the past.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2266 times:
It appears as though this topic area has not prompted much discussion - maybe this can be seen as evidence that many are content with the 'double' rule as it now stands.
One final point I thought worth mentioning further, that was raised in communication with an A.net colleague. The above mentioned aspect of the 'double' rule has taught me that if, like me, you often take your photos at the same venue, it is worth considering your current choice of uploads with a view to what might happen in the future. To illustrate, I have always been very keen to upload good photos almost every time I go out to the airport with my camera. Sometimes - well often, in fact, if you live in Manchester - the weather is less than ideal for photography. Now I am not in any way suggesting that the site should only accept photos taken in nice sunshine. But it may be worth thinking about uploading certain types of shots in less than ideal conditions because, if they get accepted, it could mean that at some future date your photos of the same aircraft with the same motive will not be accepted following a trip out in gorgoeus light because you will get an NOA_Double.
This is the position I found myself in at the weekend. I had 4 photos I was very pleased with in the beautiful early morning autumnal sunlight, but I feared they'd all be victims of the revamped 'double' rule because they were too similar to previous shots already taken by me in the database. Thus, my desire to get photos uploaded previously was now coming back to bite me.
Given an understanding of this rule, it may be worth thinking about this next time you take a shot in your favourite place when the clouds are over - uploading it may prevent you getting that great shot accepted at some point in the future when the photographic conditions are far superior.
AIHTOURS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2248 times:
I was thinking about the badcommon rejection the other day after one of my Photos of G-BYZJ was rejected. There are 106 Photographs of this Aircraft in the database currently. I don't have any problems with the rejection, but as the database grows, we will eventually reach a point where more and more of the registrations will have 120+ Photos in the gallery and getting a Photo on Airliners will become increasingly hard.
I'll use East Midlands Airport for an example. You may get a Photo of a rare Aircraft for EMA like a First Choice 757, G-OOOZ for example, but there could be 110 Photos of it already in the database, and your Photo suddenly needs to be beyond the standard A.net standards. If it hasn't happened yet for certain registrations, I'm sure it will. When the number passes 120, we are all going to lose out in some way.
What is the plan when a large number of registrations start becoming really common? It is thought provoking.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2144 times:
A little further recent experience to hopefully add to this debate:
Though I felt I had to remove some photos from my queue, as I explained above, I did leave 2 photos there that I was somewhat concerned about. But I left them because I liked the photos and these 'double' and 'common' rules are simply not specific enough to make it clear what you should do in certain circumstances. I am also not keen to end up only uploading conservatively because of the criteria. I don't think that is in the interests of the site.
I have a few in the database of this aircraft, but convinced myself that this angle above was sufficiently different to potentially avoid the NOA_Double. I know some consider a close crop a double of a whole aircraft photo, if they are taken from very similar positions. The 2 key photos that I was concerned about were these:
Though I haven't read the rejection email, the rejection reason given in the 'My Photos' section is NOA_Common, despite the fact there are 70 less photos of 'IP' in the database than there are of 'BB'. I am wondering if the double issue was a factor, because my understanding was that 'common' was not a rejection reason used in isolation.
The bottom line is - assuming you are of the opinion that both my uploads are of a similar quality - these rejection reasons could be seen to have led to different outcomes. Of course, I am sure there are alternative - and potentially no less legitimate - reasons for one having been accepted and one rejected.
But to echo the point raised above by Tony, I would like to think there is a way to help photographers be clearer about these rejection criteria, so helping them in their choice of uploads. I would also like to think that the 'right' photos continue to be uploaded to and accepted by A.net.