UnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, RR: 1 Posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2147 times:
I had an idea after my last few rejections.
What if we were to pay (voluntarily) a little each month to receive a brief explanation as to why our photos were rejected. Instead of the usual NOA_Quality or NOA_Exposure, the screener would actually (briefly) describe why the photo was rejected, i.e. dust spot top right corner, shadow grain under the wing, photo needs a bit of CCW rotation...
I know this is what the NOA_Personal is used for, but I feel that it is grossly underused. It only leads us to posting our rejections in the forum, and most of the time I don't like having other people see my sometimes simple mistakes.
This idea of mine has not included how much an uploader would need to pay, that should be left up to Admin obviously.
UnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2115 times:
Quoting OD720 (Reply 2): A general idea is already given and more specifics are being discussed here in this forum.
Sometimes I think a "general idea" is too vague. I would like it if the screener was a bit more helpful than saying "This photo is not up to A.Net standards, have a nice day".
Quoting OD720 (Reply 2): Now people who don't pay, will start complaining here that they are not getting fair treatment.
Why would they expect fair treatment? It won't be fair at all.
Quoting OD720 (Reply 2): On a technical side, who will get the royalties out of the payments? Johan or the screener who is investing the time in typing the reason?
That is not for me to decide. Maybe better Christmas gifts for the screeners... feed an orphan program... that's up to Johan.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2082 times:
Cadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9081 posts, RR: 34 Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2080 times:
Quoting Pepef (Reply 4): I'm afraid I don't have enough money to pay for the info on all my rejections. Wouldn't it be better to bribe them into accepting our photos?
regardless if it costs or not i feel that we should be given atleast a bit of info as to why it was rejected so to know what to edit in PS or w/e also would save time as opposed to posting a photo on the boards and waiting for a responce.
Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
Gary2880 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2064 times:
so. Basically. You want to pay to get photos rejected on a website, DSLR ownership not take a big enough chunk out of your bank balance? You want to pay someone to tell you why your photograph is crap (according to a.net standards)
are you feeling ok?
Besides, what's this forum for? come here and you can pay me ill tell you what's wrong with it just pop the amount into my paypal. If I cant I'm sure others will
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2062 times:
Although I am in favor of more info paying for it would require an extra mortgage.
With the number of uploads against the number of screeners it's obvious that there is simply no time to do this whether we start paying or not doesn't change that.
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2055 times:
Quoting UnattendedBag (Thread starter): What if we were to pay (voluntarily) a little each month to receive a brief explanation as to why our photos were rejected.
Then what, pay more for the tips on how to improve?
UnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2055 times:
Well, Im sorry for wasting everyone's time with such a ridiculous idea. My apologies.
Please continue with the ambiguious rejection reasons.
UnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2022 times:
Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 10): I would be bankrupt if I had to pay for each rejection...
I don't recall stating that we should pay for "each" rejection. That would drive everyone broke! A simple fee of a few quid/bucks/wan per month for a little added info. Some users think paying $5 for 'first class' membership is a worthwhile cause. I think a little added rejection info might be a worthwhile cause.
Quoting Lennymuir (Reply 15): It probably explains why a lot of people don't, or can't, ask for help.
I have posted rejections in the past. The thing is, when I upload a photo, I believe I have corrected every known deficiency from being too dark, removing dust spots and making the photo level. It is in my eyes, acceptable and meets The Standards.
Ander From Spain, joined Jan 2005, 367 posts, RR: 23 Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2002 times:
I think the problem here is not money, it's more about the time screeners can spend on each photo, so giving money would not solve the problem at all.
On the other hand, I don't have any problem with people seeing my rejected photos. It is very instructive to see all kinds of rejections. Besides, there is a lot of expert photogs in the forum who somehow do the job that screeners simply can't afford to do.
Ander From Spain, joined Jan 2005, 367 posts, RR: 23 Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2002 times:
I think the problem here is not money, it's more about the time screeners can spend on each photo, so giving money would not solve the problem at all.
On the other hand, I don't have any problem with people seeing my rejected photos. It is very instructive to see all kinds of rejections. Besides, there is a lot of expert photogs in the forum who somehow do the job that screeners simply can't afford to do.
Gmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2158 posts, RR: 22 Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2002 times:
Well i think if we had less rejections then we could put a special note in every rejection... but if you look at the number of photo's that we get, its simply impossible to inform... i think this is why the forum was intorduced... you can ask questions for FREE... or wait guys, someone wants to pay for your advice!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1919 posts, 
From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4598 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jan 2005, 367 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2158 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
