Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A Small Gripe  
User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1463 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

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1440 times:

 Smile

[Edited 2006-06-23 11:12:48]

User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1391 times:

Quoting Cosec59 (Thread starter):
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

I'll bet they would like to reject fewer 'soft' images. Diligance is a two way street don't you think?


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9635 posts, RR: 68
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1366 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Your images were rejected by a Screener In Training.

What's the problem?


User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1343 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.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 3):
Your images were rejected by a Screener In Training.

What's the problem?

As I said, I appealed the "motive" due to the reasons I stated above, but wouldn't appeal any other, as stated above.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9635 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1306 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Well, the screener is learning. Apparently one of the Head Screeners disagreed, so I am not sure what the issue is. I agree with the original motiv rejection. The crop is akward.

If you are worried about preserving your upload ratio, and you think the screening team is doing a poor job, next time why not start a thread and get the opinions of others before you appeal?


User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1289 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 5):
you think the screening team is doing a poor job,

I never said that.


User currently offlineJ.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 663 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1215 times:

Good lord people. Is reading that hard?

Quoting Cosec59 (Thread starter):
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

Mark the right box. That's all he is saying.

JeffM can't help but be a  raincloud , so you can always disregard his contribution.



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1162 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.


User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1138 times:

Quoting Eadster (Reply 8):
All I am asking is if we help each other with a few things we maybe able to improve these few things.

Exactly


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...
Small Self Gloss - 1 Million Views posted Tue Nov 4 2008 15:36:50 by Opso1
How To Make Photos Small Enough For Upload posted Sat Aug 16 2008 13:02:55 by 76794p
Recommendations For A Small Camera posted Thu Mar 13 2008 10:23:50 by NQYGuy
PHX Small Doubt. posted Thu Feb 21 2008 04:55:22 by Mclaudio
Small Engine, Nice View Of London. Motiv? posted Sun Jul 22 2007 05:10:11 by SNATH
Are The Subjects Too Small Here? posted Tue Mar 13 2007 09:05:32 by San747
Vignetting On Canon 5D - A Small Test posted Wed Jul 12 2006 01:02:43 by Parsival
1971, Cessna Twin, Grand Canyon...plane Too Small? posted Wed Jul 5 2006 06:49:35 by MD-90
One Small Pet Peeve... posted Tue Mar 21 2006 17:59:35 by Sleekjet
Small Request posted Sat Mar 11 2006 00:02:46 by TimdeGroot