Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A Kick In The Guts And Boy Does It Hurt.  
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5349 times:

I was on the trail of trying to get a good acceptance ratio but now its been shot down.
I uploaded a picture of an aircraft with only one other in the database with the livery and asked for priority
I made a note to the screeners that there is only one other in the database.
I received an email with the rejection and a comment from the screener saying if we have it why ask for priority.
The picture in the DB wasn't showing the full livery and mine was i thought it might be worth an upload and a priority screen.
I think this matter of rejecting a shot just because a screener doesn't think it warrants a priority is wrong.
We are here we love Anet we love to upload here why make us feel bad about it.

Just to make things a bit more clear the livery is of a QF767 with the socceroo painting on the side Vh-zxb
Cheers

[Edited 2006-03-18 00:11:34]


On a wing and a prayer
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineP2philip From Austria, joined Jan 2005, 99 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5343 times:

How long has the other shot of that aircraft already been in the database? If its not brand new I understand that it does not justify priority screening - can we see the photos in question pls!?

User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5339 times:

Quoting P2philip (Reply 1):
can we see the photos in question pls!?

The photo is of the aircraft Vh-zxb .


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Qiu Cheng



My shot was an airborne shot with the livery vi sable



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineP2philip From Austria, joined Jan 2005, 99 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5336 times:

Well, this has been around for almost two weeks so I guess the time gap between your photos is just to big to make you shot newsworthy...!?

Also the rear end of the aircraft has normal Qantas colors applied, so the picture in the DB actually shows everything of the special markings.

[Edited 2006-03-18 00:18:58]

User currently offlineParsival From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5336 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I haven't quite understood what you mean. Is there really a new rejection reason "bad priority"? Or was it only an additional comment from the screener and the pic was rejected "bad xy"?
Bjoern



sorry for my broken english...
User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5327 times:

The higher powers will certainly lock this thread in 5...4...3...2...


I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5309 times:

The picture was rejected .
That is why I'm a little upset about it.
It counts as a reject and is in the stats now.
this wasn't made clear to us .
If my shot was not priority fair enough but why have it counted as a rejected shot.?
I think the system is not fair.
The rejection reason is (Personal) and the obove coment left by the screener.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...g/20060317_vh-zxb170306sydalan.JPG

[Edited 2006-03-18 00:36:29]


On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineP2philip From Austria, joined Jan 2005, 99 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5301 times:

I see what you mean but why are you so upset about it. When you tick a wrong category you'll get a reject as well, requesting priority screening for a picture which is not newsworthy in the screeners eyes is almost the same. Just upload to the normal queue, looking at the quality of your pictures it should not have a problem getting in.

User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5289 times:

I'm not overly upset about it but we where told that if its not priority it just counts as that.
But now we find out that it counts as a rejected shot.
If i knew that before hand i wouldn't have bothered and maybe i would have emailed the screeners to ask if it warrants priority if i get a no from them then its fine.
But this way you also get a rejection a bit of a bummer if you where trying to achieve a personal goal .
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5281 times:

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 8):
I'm not overly upset about it but we where told that if its not priority it just counts as that.
But now we find out that it counts as a rejected shot.

There was ample warning here that it you asked for priority knowing that it is not you would get an automatic reject. Since there was another in the DB already you should have known better. Also you should also know that you can always email a screener if you are not sure before you upload and not risk the rejection. Move on. Your acceptance ratio will recover.


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5281 times:

Hey Jim,

I think thats pretty low actually as many other shots have been placed into the database for having new paint or a special sticker applied to it from all over the world. As for having it rejected because it did not warrant being important enough is total crap. Why not just send out an email outlining that the shot did not warrant screening, so its been placed back in the Q to be screened when screeners come to it? That would have been the better way of dealing with it instead of slapping you with a rejection and now having to wait another 12 days in the Q to see if it gets accepted, plus by then, the could be 20 others of the same shot in the DB.

Just a quick note too that it might pay to fix the jaggies on the tail and reupload, if you still want to. You just might kicked again for "jaggered".

Martin


User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5277 times:

NIK we where told that the system is new and there will be a little lenient that was my first use of the feature its not like i was using it for every shot.
I was under the assumption that if things change we would be told .
Does that sound fair to you.?

Quoting Eadster (Reply 10):
Why not just send out an email outlining that the shot did not warrant screening, so its been placed back in the Q to be screened when screeners come to it?

That's all i was asking Martin.
thanks for understanding.



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4005 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5267 times:

I asked priority this week for a pic of the aircraft carrying Slobodan Milosevic's body. It was not granted but the pic remains in the queue.

What you did is obviously considered a break of the rules. Although 'new', like other things on a.net, is not defined, anything already on the site by the time you upload is evidently not to be considered 'new', and I can see why.

Well, you know that now. Try to relax about rejections Jim.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5263 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 12):
Well, you know that now. Try to relax about rejections Jim.

I am very relaxed my friend.
The point that I'm trying to make is if a new rule has been in forced i would have made sure i abide by that rule.
Telling me that i broke a rule is another matter.

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 12):
What you did is obviously considered a break of the rules

I wasn't aware of breaking any rules .

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 12):
It was not granted but the pic remains in the queue

Well mine is no longer in the Q and is sitting in the rejection aisle.



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineParsival From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Priority screening is a new feature and I find it a bit harsh to reject a photo "bad prio" while we all are still learning to use this feature in the right way. The better comment would have been "NEXT time we would reject this but THIS time we will keep the picture in the normal queue.". This would have had the same learning effect but in a more elegant way.

Bjoern



sorry for my broken english...
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5229 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Whilst I can understand the reason for not giving priority to this photo, the existing photo had been online for sometime and there may be others in the queue. I do feel the outright rejection was a tad harsh.

Eduard said this barely 30 hours earlier..

Quote:
Exactly. Now the feature is pretty new, so we'll be a bit lenient, but when the prio-queue start containing loads of non-HOT photos, measures will be taken. Like a NOA_Priority rejection?

Things obviously move quickly in the Airliners.net universe!

Hoping sanity prevails here!

Regards

Chris



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5211 times:

Hi Jim, I understand your reasoning, and it does seem harsh if the picture had been otherwise perfect. Unfortunately, if you take some distance, I fear that this pic would have been rejected anyway for being oversharpened. I'm not a screener but I found it oversharpened.

Granted, it would have been better if you would have received some feedback on the actual quality of the pic, but I think that even without priority, your acceptance chances for this picture were not guaranteed.

I can only assume that that has counted as well in the admittedly harsh decision to kick it out entirely. Still, it would be good to get some further clarification.

Just my 2 cents... Keep  Smile


User currently offlineCathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5210 times:

Totally understand the reason for rejection, the "help" field attached to the "Priority Screening" button covers exactly why this was not a priority worthy upload.

Now, that being said....... it's a nice shot but is it just me or are there some chronic jagged edges and fuzzyness around the empennage (tail and horizontal stabiliser)?


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5192 times:

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 11):
NIK we where told that the system is new and there will be a little lenient that was my first use of the feature its not like i was using it for every shot.
I was under the assumption that if things change we would be told .
Does that sound fair to you.?

Well it still sounds like you ignored the fact that you will not get priority for a shot that is already in the DB. You can micro-manage the fact that the angle is different but the fact remains.


User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5186 times:

I'm sorry to all if i come across as bitter and twisted over a rejection as suggested to me by a friend but this is not the case .
I don't take rejections personally.
Anyone who knows me would tell you I'm not that sort of a person.
What my issue was as Chris pointed out in the above post that things move so fast at times its hard to keep up.
All I'm saying here if i knew the rule was already enforce i wouldn't have done what i did.
Anyway having a look at the picture from what Craig and martin have pointed out the quality may not have been up to scratch as i can see some jaggies myself.
Again thank you to all who replied and i hope to put this behind me and move on.
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5099 times:

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 6):
If my shot was not priority fair enough but why have it counted as a rejected shot.?

Because it was not accepted.

It's a nice shot. Upload again without the 'priority' tag.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5082 times:

Quoting Viv (Reply 20):
Because it was not accepted.

It's a nice shot. Upload again without the 'priority' tag.

That is my problem at the moment it was rejected but no reason given.
I'm not sure if its possible to re upload the same shot and risk a ban.
Thanks for the kind words Viv and all
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5066 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Alan.

I am sorry to hear about your experience.

This raises a couple of points for me - when the rules for rejection are constantly in flux, what is the process by which uploaders' attention is drawn to any changes? Is there a need for the rejection criteria to be linked more clearly on the first of the upload pages? It doesn't seem appropriate if people should have to be familiar with loads of threads in this Forum to know what the rules are (I'm thinking again of those paint scheme categories, where the 'Help' menus have not been changes despite a thread here some time ago). Or how about another element to the drop-down menus for the 'Send Us Your Photos' section that includes 'Rejection Criteria'. Maybe even both would be a good idea - a new link in the drop-down menu and also a clear link on the first page of the 'Photo Upload' section.

There's also an issue of communication for me. It seems you have been left with the impression that the photo was rejected because you 'abused' the new priority rules. If that were the case, that would indeed be harsh, as we were told there would be some latitude in the early days. I wonder if the reality here is that the screener did take a look and rejected the photo for quality - those jaggies around the tail area are enough I think, Alan, to warrant a rejection - but did not make that clear. Maybe you will be able to get further clarification on this one.

Take care.

Paul


User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5064 times:

Quoting Psych (Reply 22):
wonder if the reality here is that the screener did take a look and rejected the photo for quality -

Believe me Paul if that was the case the thread would not have seen the light of day.

Quoting Psych (Reply 22):
Maybe you will be able to get further clarification on this one.

I'm waiting patiently for one and hope it comes.
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4878 times:

I got a message from Johan to email the screeners and see what they can do about this issue of the rejected shot .
I have emailed the screeners as i was told these rules are not in force yet and an upload will only be counted as a rejection if there is a case that is clearly abusing the system wich in my case i was not doing.
Will keep you informed to see how it pans out.
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 25, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4732 times:

Dear all Johan has taken an interest in this matter and sorted the problem out the photo in question may be reworked but not at the moment as it has caused enough drama for now so i will maybe leave it in the collection for a while.
If i have offended anyone with this thread then I'm sorry .
Anyway thread ready for locking please moderators .
Cheers

[Edited 2006-03-19 11:16:12]


On a wing and a prayer
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...
What's This? And Why Does A.net Think It's A 747? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 08:00:21 by D L X
Should I Leave This One In The Queue, Or Pull It? posted Mon Dec 19 2005 14:09:11 by Viv
Is It Just Me Or Does It Seem That The Photos.... posted Thu Sep 1 2005 23:27:51 by Tappan
Watermarking: Who Does It And How? posted Sat Apr 16 2005 16:33:09 by Tappan
Is This Worthy Of The DB, And How Do I Upload It? posted Sun Apr 10 2005 23:41:20 by Sulman
Baddark.. Hell It Was Early In The Morning.... posted Wed Feb 16 2005 14:00:26 by StealthZ
It's Uploaded But Not In The Queue posted Tue Feb 17 2004 22:01:51 by Karlok
Would This Make It In The Db? posted Fri Jul 26 2002 00:26:02 by Clickhappy
Who Spots And Lives In The NY & NJ Area? posted Mon Jun 17 2002 05:35:06 by AA 777
What Film Do You Use, And How Much Does It Cost? posted Sun Feb 24 2002 12:56:10 by Hkg_clk