Cosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1421 times:
I had 2 photos rejected for "motive". Due to the fact I have other photos in the database of a similar nature, I appealed both also citing other photoid's, from other photographers, to back up my appeal.
The headscreeners were very efficient and replied quickly.
The thing is, they decided the rejections should have been for "soft".
Had I received "soft" as a reason for reject in the first place, I wouldn't have appealed.
I guess that due to the "wrong box" being ticked it will affect my ratio.
Whilst I appreciate how big the queue is and how busy the team is, I would like to think a little more diligance could be applied to the rejection tick boxes
Cosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 2): I'll bet they would like to reject fewer 'soft' images. Diligance is a two way street don't you think?
I usually treat rejections in a positive way, part of the learning curve. So if I get a rejection for "soft" then I will try to learn from that for future uploads. Thus trying to cut down on "soft" rejections.
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1120 times:
Quoting J.mo (Reply 7): Good lord people. Is reading that hard?
That's exactly right.
Ok so a screener in training rejected it and yes they are learning. But I've requested this recently too from screeners that aren't in training. If the image has a bad motive but its also soft then let us know that. Then we don't upload a sharper version of the image when its going to get rejected for motive a second time around. Once its there and its going to be rejected, tell us all the reasons. That way the Q is shorter and we aren't wasting each others time, and we learn.
Why does it always come down to screeners vs Photographers. All I am asking is if we help each other with a few things we maybe able to improve these few things.