Work4bmi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1200 times:
First of all, I accept every rejection with understanding and aid to improve. However, the worst rejection for me to possibly get is this one, "badcommon"... The main reason is, my local airport (EMA) has very limited possibilities for areas to shoot from.
I have had the following rejected, which bother me slightly because my upload ratio will go down now due to commonality issue and not a quality issue.
To be fare, I appreciate the screeners view to some degree, "oh yes another baby shot he has taken before from this location"... I can see their point, but I get the impression that if "joe bloggs" had uploaded it, it would be accepted because its a different photographer, dispite the same shot?
In other words, its not the photo thats the issue as such, just the fact the same photographer had uploaded an aircraft in a similer view as before on more than one occasion?
Please dont feel am all angry, and bitter towards the screenes - am totally not, its just I'd like to know if anybody else has any views on this? Either way, I'll do my best to improve and hope a.net accept the future photos
Cruiser From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1002 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1173 times:
I personally am getting a lot of noa_common lately, and most of the time, there really is not a similar shot in the database (puff of smoke on landing). I think that it is more a case of there are 60 shots of the plane with a blue background in the database, so it is considered to be a common aircraft, and therefore, not wanted in the database. I honestly have a problem with this, but I don't see it changing anytime soon. I think that there is one screener who is using the Noa_Common for any picture they do not want added for any reason.
Leahy on Per Seat Costs: "Have you seen the B-2 fly-by at almost US$1bn a copy? It has only 2 seats!"