Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Upload Queue Limits Reduced  
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15465 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Hi guys,

To cope with the very high numbers of photos uploaded during the summer period, the upload queue limits have been reduced. They are approximately cut in half for most of you (check the current queue limits here).

At first, you might consider this a bad thing but think about it:


  • The upload queue will be cut in half
  • Your waiting time will be cut in half!
  • Photographer pre-upload self screening will increase.


So if this change works as intended, the queue will be shorter, waiting times shorter and photo quality higher!

Our goal is not to continue decreasing the queue limits for everyone, quite the opposite. Our long term goal is to remove all limits for everyone and cut down screening time to 24 hours or less. But please understand that it is very, very difficult to accomplish. Good photo screeners are hard to find and there's a limit to how much screening one can do in a day. We will work to improve our screening interface and introduce improvements for photographers and screeners alike and hope to one day be able to remove all kinds of limits.

But for now, let's try this and see if the situation is improved. Please do not hesitate to post suggestions if you have any ideas that might help the queue situation.

Thank you for being an Airliners.net photographer!

Best Regards,
Johan


Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
270 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineXenon From Belgium, joined Aug 2001, 494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15453 times:

Sounds good!

Thx Johan!



AirTeamImages -ATI-
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11417 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15443 times:

Good deal.

(2 for new uploaders though... wow.)

While you're at it, why not just set the queue limits to be a multiple of some index that automatically updated for queue size?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineJoge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1444 posts, RR: 39
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15437 times:

Quoting Administrator (Thread starter):
Our long term goal is to remove all limits for everyone and cut down screening time to 24 hours or less.

Back to the good old days? Man, that would be nice.

-Joge



Bula!
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15437 times:

Quoting Administrator (Thread starter):
So if this change works as intended, the queue will be shorter, waiting times shorter and photo quality higher!

Our goal is not to continue decreasing the queue limits for everyone, quite the opposite. Our long term goal is to remove all limits for everyone and cut down screening time to 24 hours or less. But please understand that it is very, very difficult to accomplish. Good photo screeners are hard to find and there's a limit to how much screening one can do in a day. We will work to improve our screening interface and introduce improvements for photographers and screeners alike and hope to one day be able to remove all kinds of limits.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you........

It was about time that actions are taken, (I mean this in a very positive way)

One thing that still boogles my mind is the upload ratio......someone who uploads 50 side on approach shots of BA 319 and 320 at LHR has an acceptance ratio of 100% thus is rewarded with a picture upload allowance of 25 or whatever number currently in place, so in the next batch we see 50 BA 757 on approach to RWY 27

But I guess this is the system.....

Anyway I hope that your actions will bring some improvement in handling the queue, so in a few days the queue will be down to zero.

Regards
Vasco Garcia


User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15423 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Quoting AKE0404AR (Reply 4):
someone who uploads 50 side on approach shots of BA 319 and 320 at LHR has an acceptance ratio of 100%

Unless those 319's and 320's have never been uploaded to Airliners.net before, they will be very difficult to get accepted. If we already have a high number of photos of a particular registration, our requrements are very high (even for Airliners.net standards!  Wink )


Regards,
Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineSinkrate From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15414 times:

Sound good. It would be great to see the queue times down to less than 24 hrs.

Michael


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5714 posts, RR: 44
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15414 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Johan,

I think this is a positive step,
Just this morning I was looking back over that marathon "Slow Queue" thread and wondered if it would result in any changes.
Pleased to see this kind of action.

Regards

Chris



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15403 times:

I have mixed emotions about this. I feel this is a band-aid for a problem that continues to grow. We all see how many new photogs join here on a daily basis and every summer it will just get worse. How about getting out there and finding at least two or better yet three new screeners and training them. Then screen an average of 1200 pics a day if not a little more. I think getting a pic screened in 24 hours is a fantasy. 3-5 days for off peak times and 8-10 days max for extremely heavy times is a bit more practical. I don't see why making people that do pre-screen have less uploads for the sake of those who don't. If you get people who constantly upload poor photos and who don't pre-screen deal with them on an individual basis. What I see happening is as soon as the queue corrects a bit and the wait is back to a shorter time everyone is just going to say let's go back to the old limits.

User currently offlineOlympus69 From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15397 times:

It seems like a good idea Johan. I'm just wondering if it will really work as expected. Some of the more prolific photographers will probably upload more photos from their backlog as soon as some of their photos in the queue have been cleared, one way or the other. When their allowance was bigger they may not have had a backlog, and thus uploaded less frequently.

However, I certainly Hope it works as expected. There is another way you could have dealt with the problem - ban everything except airliners. I can imagine how popular that would be  Smile


User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 15384 times:

Good start.
I think a positive approach to handling the over saturation of this site.

Not sure if anybody here remembers when Johan would do the screening himself. Overnight processing for many cases.
When things started to creep over 3000, he gave it to the screeners. When things started to creep over 10,000, out came the barrage of new screeners and some tougher measures. This part is probably within the 10,000 measures.



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineJetAv8r From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 15355 times:

The wait will only be cut in half if every body currently fills their queue to maximum capacity. Do many people do that? It's rare for me to do that, but I had 60 slots. I don't really care how long it takes, but if it'll stop some of the complaining in this forum I guess that's good.

Alex.


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 15352 times:

Good to see something has come from that massive thread/argument!

Hopefully it will make a difference for a while.

Only thing to do now is sit back and see if it all improves...


User currently offlinePaulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 15302 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 8):
hen screen an average of 1200 pics a day if not a little more

I agree with this statement 100%, I don't think this is going to work for this reason:

Quoting JetAv8r (Reply 11):
The wait will only be cut in half if every body currently fills their queue to maximum capacity

How many people actually fill the queue to the limit.I have now but I usually don't. Every one I know about 6 people that upload here don't either. So how is this going to reduce the queue by half.

This is from the upload page:
There are a total of 13702 photos from 1936 photographers waiting to be processed on the upload page

That is 7.07 pictures per photographer.

Wouldn't be easier just to "hire" 15 more screeners. Since they work for free no cost to the admin at all.



Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro
User currently offlineDLX737200 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1930 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 15297 times:

So everyone expects the que to go from 2 weeks long to 24 hrs or less. If this were true, lower que limits may not be so bad. But I HIGHLY doubt it to drop to that time limit. I'm afraid this is going to turn away more new, upcoming photographers with a lot of potential. With a limit of 2 for someone without any in the database, it'll become very discouraging. Even for those people who have photos in the database but are still low in numbers, it's a loss. If it drops the time significantly, good move. If it changes by a few days only, I am totally against it. I'd rather my que limit be 60-70 like it was and take 2 weeks rather than it be 30 and take 10 days like I feel it will. I guess we'll see

-Justin


User currently offlineRes From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 417 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15284 times:

I'm all for it, but is this more of a temporary action or permanent until it needs to be drastically changed either way (more or less photos in the limit) ?


FLY NAVY
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11417 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15278 times:

Quoting DLX737200 (Reply 14):
I'd rather my que limit be 60-70 like it was and take 2 weeks rather than it be 30 and take 10 days like I feel it will. I guess we'll see

Does ANYBODY really need to upload 60-70 shots in any given two week period?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15265 times:

I think I like it. I'm not at all impacted, now down to 15 but I've never ever had more than 10 in simultaneously.

I think people with more than 15 or 20 spots in the queue do not have a reason to complain, but that's my personal view of course. Even if you live close to a major airport and have enough photo opportunities to fill such a large queue, some restraint will probably be good.

I would be a bit concerned about the absolute minimum of 2. That is very drastic. Maybe a tweak would be that you raise to 5 as soon as 1 is accepted? But that's really something we non-screeners can't decide I guess. If a big part of the problem is that beginners fill up their current 5 slots with so much rubbish that it does clog the queue, then by all means go to 2; but if it is rather on the high end of the spectrum that most uploads sit, then 2 is a little harsh.

Just my thoughts!


User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15263 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
Does ANYBODY really need to upload 60-70 shots in any given two week period?

 checkmark 


User currently offlineUA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15239 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
Does ANYBODY really need to upload 60-70 shots in any given two week period?

The need might not be there but as a photographer that is their right. Thank you Johan for helping out in making the queue shorter.

Thank again,

Matt



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently offlinePaulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 15236 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
Does ANYBODY really need to upload 60-70 shots in any given two week period?

Say you have a queue limit of 50, over a 15 day period. That is 3.3 pictures a day does not sound like a lot to me. Say in that two week period you go to an airport like JFK, ATL, LHR or LAX or any other large airport for 3 days. I know at ATL that could mean more then 100 aircraft taken a day so you have 300 aircraft in 3 days. 50 uploads is not that bad from 300. Even better 3 per day.

All I am saying is that 50, 60 or 70 upload spots for one person is not that unreasonable when you have the traffic at an airport to fill them.

Remember not every body, by far, is uploading to the limit.



Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I certainly would agree that we should applaud any attempts made by the site management to tackle the issue of the queue length.

Only the crew members themselves can know the make up of the queue, but those stats mentioned above by Paul above do seem to suggest that generally photographers are not uploading in huge batches - unless of course that mean is made of up of a lot of big uploaders, balanced by a large number of people with only very few in the queue.

My main comment would be on the very low allowance for new photographers - only 2 slots feels very restrictive. One of the reasons for this is that intuitively you would think that a proportion of the photos uploaded by new guys are very easy to screen - i.e. they don't have the required quality - and thus can be rejected rather speedily on first review. Is this a correct assumption to make?

Back to my argument in that previous thread about reinforcement - my worry would be that, unless the queue length reduces very quickly, people having to wait quite a long time to see what happens to their 2 photos will quickly be attracted elsewhere, where they might get their feedback more immediately. So I would argue a limit of 2 would only be okay if the queue length was already very short. Equally, you could argue that lowering the upload limits is a sensible way of keeping control of the queue, once it is already low - but, to get it down to low levels, the priority must be more screening resource to catch up with the backlog. With that in mind, once the airshow season is over, for example, might it be worth setting a very temporary high restriction on uploads for all (say, for just a couple of weeks when the team know a lot of screeners are available), to allow the screeners to catch up. There would be little difference for photographers, who would have had to wait about 2 weeks anyway, but a 2 week 'window' with only very few uploads could allow the screeners to make a big difference. Then, once low again, it might be easier to keep the issue under control.

Cheers.

Paul


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11417 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15204 times:

Quoting Paulinbna (Reply 20):
All I am saying is that 50, 60 or 70 upload spots for one person is not that unreasonable when you have the traffic at an airport to fill them.

Think about it: it's not 60-70 at one time, it's 60-70 every two weeks. Nobody needs that. If someone is doing that, they're emphasizing quantity over quality.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePaulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15193 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Psych (Reply 21):
temporary high restriction on uploads for all (say, for just a couple of weeks when the team know a lot of screeners are available), to allow the screeners to catch up. There would be little

Now that is an idea I could get behind you could even say on the upload page temporary halt for uploads and point the person to a page that explains what is going on. Of course the priorioty screening queue would still be active.

It would not take long at all say about 7 to 10 days to clear the queue then re-open the upload part of the site. If the screeners can keep the queue at 14500-15000 then why can't it keep it at 1000-1500.



Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12625 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15189 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting D L X (Reply 22):
Think about it: it's not 60-70 at one time, it's 60-70 every two weeks. Nobody needs that. If someone is doing that, they're emphasizing quantity over quality.

A few folks are uploading large quantities of scanned old slides from the '70s & '80s (or even older). We're stemming the flow of those valuable additions to the site.

Personally, I have doubts that reducing the upload limit will have that big of an effect. More often than not, the average shots/photographer is less than 7.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
25 9A-CRO : i think that there is too big difference between minimal and maximal photo limit maxlimit shouldn't be more than 30 if minimum is 2
26 Viv : This is fine as far as I am concerned. I think it will probably reduce the size of the queue, but let's wait and see.
27 Paulinbna : Very good point. My point exactly.
28 Cosec59 : This seems to me to be a cop out. There are 2 ways to reduce the screening time (if that is deemed to be neccessary) and I feel that the easy way has
29 Bruce : Very good point, Paul. The number has been in the 14,000 range consistantly for some time. It would be just as easy to keep it at 1,500. As for the i
30 LGW : Johan, Good move in my view. My uploads have been cut but if my shots are screened faster it doesn't make a big deal in the long run as I can upload a
31 TimdeGroot : Let's just all wait a month and see where the queue is at. We are working very hard at the moment, and we are down about 2K from last week. Not bad wi
32 Post contains images Rotate : Yep, Q is allready going down ... , thx for the hard work. Also I think we should wait and see whats going to happen. I think the Q will be down , bu
33 LIPH : But when will the upload limit return to normal (i was just "promoted" to 10 a few days ago....) ? Regards
34 JumboJim747 : Mine has been cut by half . Half that i rarely used anyway but a chance that my photos will be screened faster without any real loss to me ill take th
35 TimdeGroot : probably never, it will stay like this. Even with a lower queue it results in faster turnover and more variation. Tim
36 JumboJim747 : Tim one thing that does worry me thou is if say a well known photog that tries to push the limit on here and there is a lot of them . What happens if
37 Danny : I'd say " to cope with lack of Peter on the screening team". The uploads are more or less constant all the time. But I am ok with that, never upload
38 Rotate : Yes, thats also a problem I see .... Robin
39 LIPH : But will there be still the possibility to gain more slots as always ? Regards
40 Viv : Yes, based on number of acceptances.[Edited 2006-07-20 12:33:05]
41 Post contains images Ptrjong : Upload Queue Help The number of photos you can have in the upload queue at any one time is dependant on: The acceptance ratio for your last 50 upload
42 Post contains images AirMalta : Hi I know that this action was taken in the interest of airliners.net and the photographers themselves because this thing is a round circle but my min
43 LHRSIMON : Can someone confirm .... 1) What is classed as a common aircraft on the DB 20-30-100 photo's ??? 2) Does location come into effect. For example an IB
44 Viv : (1) I wxould guess 70-100 shots. (2) No.
45 Post contains images Scbriml : Just been bitch-slapped with this. I was keeping half my upload slots free for Farnborough. Now I have a whole 4 free (don't want to delete my shots t
46 IL76 : We need to find people who: - ...upload pictures with a constant good quality, so (s)he has good editing skills and recognises editing issues/flaws f
47 TimdeGroot : Common is not so simple. A rare situation or just brilliant photo might not be rejected for common whereas a normal sideshot might if it's a borderca
48 Eadster : Out of the 10's of thousands of users here, surely someone fits the bill...
49 Post contains images Ghostbase : Ooooh!! Actually I would like to suggest that *airliners* should be banned and everything else encouraged. That would neatly solve the problem of 50
50 Post contains images Photopilot : Absolutely NOT ! ! ! What absolute rubbish to make a statement such as this. Just F.Y.I. Of my first 18 uploads to A.net, all 18 were accepted. That'
51 TimdeGroot : Steve, you are an exception, probably with a few others. Speaking from experience I can say that is indeed true that beginners struggle to get shots
52 Viv : Yes, but your shots are not typical of beginning uploaders, who generally do not have the possibility of making air-to-air shots. Your shots are much
53 LGW : And please don't assume your experience of uploading your first shots are the same as everyone elses, you were senior Aviation Photographer for Bomba
54 Post contains images Granite : Hi all About 60% of stuff I screened last night was rejected. Clear rejects and not marginal ones. Regards Gary
55 B076 : Maybe it is better to hire a new screener that filter out all these shots. If I remember correct this was done in the past to. William
56 NIKV69 : Yes, the photogs here that just shoot anything that goes by and then uploads it so their total pics in the DB can get higher. Wrong, the site gave pe
57 TimdeGroot : The acceptance ratio is still in place so it kind of works this way already. Usually these people have very high acceptance rations and a high number
58 JetAv8r : Keep one thing in mind. If they hire new screeners that means more shots added per day. That means that shot you had that could've been top of the day
59 Viv : They don't matter - and mean little. They are certainly, in many cases, not an indicator of photo quality, just of popularity, which can be because o
60 KFLLCFII : Johan: It's great to see the well-needed changes take effect. I think there's one more thing left to be done, which should alleviate the current waiti
61 Joge : Wasn't the queue even halted once? Or maybe it's just me... -Joge
62 Psych : More interesting discussion. The fact that this thread and the recent one about queue length has generated so much comment seems to me to indicate the
63 AirMalta : May I ask a stupid question please!!Is the screening process done on a 24hr basis(Continuation?) another thing which comes to my mind is when you have
64 Granite : Hi all Agree with Viv, crap statement. Hit's don't mean anything to me at all. You better believe it. Regards Gary
65 NIKV69 : Yes, because the aircraft is rare, or the airport is rare or the airline is new or the shot is of high quality and or composition or it's an angle or
66 Post contains images Linco22 : I am baffled why this place is hooked on hits. Anyway, hopefully the que will improve but its not that important. Regards Colin
67 Post contains images Mikephotos : They sure do, I know I do. Especially when researching registrations, color schemes and other aircraft details. To me, the (wannabe) artistic stuff j
68 Post contains images LHRSIMON : Well i like to take good quality photos that firstly i like. And secondly other people enjoy looking at. The best way to judge that is to see how many
69 LGW : If you knew some of the images I have sold through a.net you would know that you can never know what someone is looking for or what someone likes, as
70 D L X : OT: I'll stop caring about hits when I pass 100,000. Maybe. In any event, why do you care if someone else does or doesn't care about hits? And if hits
71 Linco22 : The hit counter will show us the most popular photo of that particular day. Take Farnborough for example. They get hits for obvious reasons. But every
72 JetAv8r : If I didn't care about getting views why would I upload here, the prestige? I couldn't care less about what people think about the quality of my phot
73 TimdeGroot : Indeed. Hits on their own don't mean anything but to know that behind each hit is a person viewing your shot does mean a lot. It's part of why this i
74 JetAv8r : Exactly my point. Alex.
75 Linco22 : Each to their own....
76 JetAv8r : So if some one said "that shot sucks" you'd be offended? The only opinion I care about is my own, I don't shoot to please others. But hey, to each the
77 Photopilot : Well that's the joy and the pain of the present A.net website. Some of us (me included) simply scroll right past the endless, mindless series of dull
78 Post contains images TimdeGroot : Just a guy who happens to love his sideshots though Tim
79 Cosec59 : I disagree. I think there should be room in the database for both. I too scroll past the side on sunny side up, tightly cropped, brilliant blue sky b
80 Viv : Because there would be no challenge involved.
81 Post contains images B076 : William
82 Jan Mogren : So, if it could be arranged that your shots had to go thru the same a.net scrutiny, but end up on myaviation only, you would be happy? /JM
83 NIKV69 : Glad someone here can tell it like it is.
84 Mikephotos : While you might not like the "boring" shot, trust me, a perfect (and I mean perfect, not what most here consider a side-shot) is a lot tougher to acc
85 Post contains images Javibi : I am quite sure Johan does not agree with that statement j
86 Viv : Sure, why not?
87 Viv : If not a single person agrees, that's fine. Each to his own.
88 Post contains links and images 9VSPO : Why did you upload this then? View Large View MediumPhoto © Stephen Liard I understand what you are saying but please don't generalize like that
89 KFLLCFII : If it was, so be it. One more time couldn't hurt, especially when combined thereafter with the new upload limits to further reduce the possiblity of
90 Viv : You'll get there. I'm pretty close right now.
91 Post contains links and images Cosec59 : I think most of us are referring to shots like this regarding the side ons. And not those of aircraft on the ground View Large View MediumPhoto ©
92 TimdeGroot : Exactly Mike! That's what makes the perfect rampshot so difficult and why many people don't understand. Unlike runway shots you can't just stay in on
93 Viv : You guys are doing great work. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise - and don't be discouraged by negative comments.
94 Post contains images Futterman : For the record, the expression is, "to each his own." But hey...to each his own... Carry on, Brian
95 Post contains images Mikephotos : Sounds like a great plan Tim. You have my permission to take a few hours off during the day to shoot boring ramp shots, but only if it's sunny. At ni
96 LGW : Being a snob about types of photos take is pretty low in my opinion, we all like different things and probably more importantly we can only shoot what
97 Post contains images LGW : Many of your first shots were accepted 5 years ago when getting photos on a.net was much easier As you rightly say different strokes for different fo
98 JetAv8r : Haha, I'm trying to be politically correct Brian, no gender bias statements! Well not really, but it's a good excuse for messing up. Alex.
99 Granite : Hi all [quote=9VSPO,reply=88]Quoting Photopilot (Reply 77): Some of us (me included) simply scroll right past the endless, mindless series of dull and
100 Post contains images Photopilot : That photo won me a private bet by getting it into the DB here. Why is my business, but it was quite worthwhile. It takes talent to make the difficul
101 PUnmuth@VIE : You have no idea what you are talking about here.
102 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Yes you can if you don't open the full size images Regards Gary
103 Post contains images 9VSPO : Yeah and if I had the money and the privilage and the location and the contacts I could quite easily do the same. Feel a little something for those t
104 Post contains images Mikephotos : Ah! Now we know why Gary screens so many pics Mike
105 Post contains images Granite : Mike Shhh, don't tell everyone. Shouldn't be watching this thread, should be screening instead. Adding a post like this results in 5 images not being
106 D L X : just 2000 more... I've slowed down recently. Don't knock the people with side on shots. My most popular shots were those little surprises that happen
107 NIKV69 : How so? Doesn't this site continues to grow at an huge rate? More new photogs are uploading at all times during the year. Is is too much to ask that
108 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Cough......watch this space Regards Gary
109 TimdeGroot : I just said we will be adding more... Edit: Gary beat me to it Tim[Edited 2006-07-20 20:39:49]
110 Photopilot : Oh I'm sorry, I forgot. Those were all handed to me on a silver platter earlier in my life. Money..... don't have any. Privilage..... wasn't born wit
111 Beechcraft : i think Peter was referring to screening 1200 pics a day... Denis
112 Post contains links PUnmuth@VIE : yes he did. and why. i thought you (taken from What Is Being Done About The Slow Queue? (by Navigator Jul 5 2006 in Aviation Photography) )
113 Post contains images KFLLCFII : I see it worked:
114 Post contains images Interpaul : Where's the application form? Jan
115 TimdeGroot : Can't say too much yet, be patient. Tim
116 Post contains images 9VSPO : Your's got lost in the mail! Seriously though, I find it hard to believe that in such a huge site, it isn't possible to find 3 or 4 eligable new scre
117 Post contains images Futterman : Well folks, the proof is in the pudding. Say what you want, but the A.net clock hits midnight in just under 3 hours, and there's already been a signif
118 Futterman : Absolutely, positively no one here is "eligable" for the new screening positions. And you can quote me on that.
119 Post contains images 9VSPO : If that is true then that's amazing but how did you work that out?
120 Post contains images TimdeGroot : There are two or theree people in this very thread who I'd love to have on the team. Now figure out who Tim
121 Post contains images 9VSPO : Sorry to dissapoint Tim but I have other commitments.
122 TransIsland : Sounds like site X will be busy....
123 Post contains images NIKV69 : I think you will find this to be consistent with the rate the upolads were cut back with the new upload limits. Same number being screened, less numb
124 Futterman : - Number of Photos A Few Hours Ago - Number of Photos Now____________ - 500(ish), but now more I left out all the calculus and trig so everyone can u
125 Post contains images Mikephotos : The problem is you left in the subtraction part, that's a tough one I say we hire Nick, Futt and JeffM as team screeners, that'll be a riot. You thin
126 Post contains images Cosec59 : You mean there's people here with no sense of humour?
127 NIKV69 : Jeez, what a riot. I am still green and am still learning how to use CS2. Jeff wouldn't be a bad candidate, I am going to send him all my uploads so
128 Post contains images Javibi : No, not Peter again!!! j
129 Post contains images LGW : Hi all, Screeners doing sterling work at the moment, the queue is well on it's way down, impressive stuff especially on such a lovely evening you guys
130 LHRsunriser : Excellent! Can we keep it this way forever please!? Cheers Dom
131 Bubbles : The queue is dropping from 14K to 12K. I think screeners are currently working very hard to beat the long queue. It seems that the new limit has lower
132 NicolasRubio : When I first read the news, I was about to buy a two-way ticket to Sweden and kill you Johan!!! But then I thought it as I should've done before, and
133 D L X : Dude, are you for real?
134 QANTAS077 : absolutely..and the hardcore spotters don't give a rats about shot's taken control towers or passing cessnas, they buy them more for the rego and typ
135 CJA : Agreed. I am a relative newbie here and I don’t mind that its tough to meet the standards but having your nose rubbed in the dirt like this is very
136 Post contains images ThierryD : SOMETHING is being done about the queue length; the attempt alone deserves some applause Will decreasing the upload queue limit solve the issue? Let's
137 APFPilot1985 : I find those points interesting, considering the leader here has meets neither one of them. You don't have to be an artist to appricate art. Maybe th
138 Post contains images Philhyde : No need to beat around the bush... just ask me! Kudos to the screening team and administration for doing something about the queue length. cheers, Ph
139 Granite : Hi all Thanks Ben. Putting up with the abuse is part of the job. Like water off a ducks back now. Regards Gary
140 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Tim, you're reading the wrong forum Regards Gary
141 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Regards Gary
142 Post contains images Javibi : As I said before, I am pretty sure Johan (the owner of the site) does; I am sure MOST of the people uploading here do (why go through all the hassle
143 Granite : J I don't despise hits, just don't care for them. I upload images for people to see. Like Monty, don't care if one person views or 1 million. I have i
144 Post contains images Javibi : Finally we agree in something!! Regards j
145 Post contains images IL76 : Well, it's a bit off-topic, but I do care about hits.   It tells me that people are interested in looking at my photos. If I expect a shot to only g
146 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Eduard's a Hit Whore! Only kidding........now get back to screening. Regards Gary
147 TimdeGroot : Barely 12 hours later we are now nearly under 12k! Tim
148 Beechcraft : Just imagine we keep going like this for a couple of days... Anyway my eyes are ruined now, i´m going to hit the next lake for some refreshment. Deni
149 Dendrobatid : I don't despise hits, but nor do I care too much, particularly with my old stuff. One hit from someone who has memories of a particular aircraft, loca
150 Psych : Great news and I applaud the work of the screening team. I remain very interested in these 'waiting time' issues and their resolution - is this chang
151 Post contains images Bubbles : to the crew! _Hongyin_
152 TimdeGroot : I would say a huge effort by some screeners is the main reason for this dramatic decrease in queue length. The new upload limit has probably helped a
153 Post contains images INNflight : Well deserved. You should rather use sun protection though Denis I quietly followed this thread so far, but it's great to see the new limits are here
154 Psych : That is as I figured, Tim. I think this shows how the queue is influenced by certain key variables, and tackling it (assuming the goal is to achieve
155 Post contains images Linco22 : Yesterday only 700 odd photos were added to the que. I would say thats down to the new que limits. Regards Colin
156 Post contains images LHRSIMON : And now the queue's below 12,000 !!!! 11,955 and going down....
157 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Thanks for all the comments.........especially those from registered 1st Class Members Regards Gary
158 Post contains images NIKV69 : So? I love Boeing Aircraft, In addition I love to look at an old DC-9 and L1011s too. I don't have to like what you and Monty do. Care to notice Mont
159 JumboJim747 : Well done to the screeners and Crew for this achievement just a note it looks like the total photogs uploading has also gone down this cant be a good
160 TimdeGroot : And you base this on what exactly? Stop talking nonsense. I have access to the screening stats and I can tell you that in the last few days we have b
161 NIKV69 : Your own photo stats in the upload page Tim. Also remember that newbies only have 2 slots as opposed to 5 so if they have pics in the queue being scr
162 TimdeGroot : Maybe individual photos, but the screening stats speak for themselves. We doubled our efforts the last 2-3 days, and the decreased queue is the resul
163 Eadster : Hey NIKV96, did you not get the hint the first time? Stop carrying on like a dickhead and post something worth while instead of keep this stupid argum
164 Post contains images IL76 : I'll show everyone a (backstage) little graph of screening in the last 2-3 days... You can see that yesterday was a top day of screening, especially t
165 TimdeGroot : Yes the more experienced screeners instant add more. Myself I instant add about 25% on average (which includes instant adds of shots that already hav
166 Post contains images TimdeGroot : Thanks for the graph Ed. Looks like I'm Eddie Bunker Today's dip is of course caused by the fact that the major screening period for today still has t
167 D L X : And the rest of us? Not worth it? I'll tell you what: if the queue gets down to an average of below 3 days, I'll join.
168 Post contains images Woody001 : It would be nice to see the vertical axis figures... A graph is nothing without all the information. Ian. Edit: typo.[Edited 2006-07-21 15:29:59]
169 Post contains images IL76 : I did that on purpose to prevent other spin-off discussions. It's just to show the peak we had yesterday and the general upgoing trend. E
170 Post contains images Woody001 : No problem Ed. Now get back to screening..!!! Cheers, Ian.
171 Granite : Hi Yes, everyone is worth it so thanks for your comment. Regards Gary
172 Granite : J Correct, not Peter. Regards Gary
173 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Nice graph Eduard. Glad to see the pencil colouring set Johan sent you for Christmas is getting good use Regards Gary
174 Granite : Hi all I am hoping to do a good bit of screening this weekend. Will try to reject and accept as many as I can without passing for second opinions. Thi
175 TristarYUL : Ed, i must have been Mr yellow cause my eyes hurt..:P cheers Eric
176 D L X : Who are you? :P
177 Woody001 : Whomever is Mr green wants to be careful....
178 Post contains images 9VSPO : Must have been having an off day.
179 Granite : DLX Read the About Us page. Regards Gary
180 D L X : I know who he is. ( :P means sticking out my tongue, jokingly.) It's just that we haven't seen him post much. I hope to hear more from him!
181 Post contains images Linco22 : Like ourselves Gary, hope you're enjoying it across the water there. Keep up the good work Regards Colin
182 Thowman : To me there are 2 main distinct groups of people that upload on anet. These are the spotters and the photographers. There is a third group of people t
183 Post contains images Mikephotos : Pusing the limits does not make you a photographer. Taking a photo does. There are just different types of photographers here but everyone who upload
184 Post contains images Skidmarks : Does that make me a "Spotographer then"? Andy
185 Post contains images Mikephotos : Actually, you're a Photospotograher Mike
186 Post contains images Skidmarks : I won't try THAT one when I've had one over the eight then!! Andy
187 Thowman : Maybe I should have called the the cataloguers and the artists?
188 Post contains images Mikephotos : But there's an art to cataloging, not everyone can do it properly Mike
189 Post contains images Thowman : Have you ever sold sand to arabs or ice to the eskimos
190 LIPH : What about doing it on a regular basis ? Let's say every 2 months... Regards
191 Post contains images Mikephotos : Yes, but only the better quality sand/ice that they could not get locally Mike
192 Post contains images NIKV69 : Didn't come across that way at all, I know where you are coming from. Well said!
193 Post contains images Jetmatt777 : I've been watching the Q since Johan started this thread and heres what I logged: Yesterday: 4:08 PM 12449 Pics 6:22 PM 12395 Pics 8:47 PM 12389 Pics
194 Post contains images PUnmuth@VIE : Properly in terms of what, defined by whom? Wow nice to see you can stay away from personal attacks vice versa other people don't have to like what y
195 TimdeGroot : Whilst you bicker amongst yourselves we have now reduced the queue to less than 11K Tim
196 DC10Tim : Not read all of the replies from the last day or so in this thread, but the new limits would appear to be having some effect. The upload totals for ye
197 9VSPO : I had another "error" rejection recently. Since the pic had been in the queue for neally 2 weeks I re-uploaded it and ticked the priority box rather t
198 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Everyone double check for dustspots. I am seeing 'instant add' images being let down for massive spots So easy to see too. Regards Gary
199 Eadster : Again well done, great effort. Lets try to get the Q waiting times to say a few days?? That would be great! Peter, it's like talking to a dead goat,
200 Post contains images Globalpics : Back to the subject in hand, the que is dropping nicely now and I think soon we will all be looking at waiting only a week for our beloved photos to b
201 Codeshare : This may be controversial, but here goes: since the Q limit is cut by half than the acceptance ratio base of 50 recent uploads could also be cut by ha
202 D L X : I'd be surprised if the number of pics in the queue would have any effect on the percentage of those accepted.
203 BrianW999 : ....which leads me to my 2 pennyworth. Plain and simple resolution to the problem. Either.... 1/ Freeze all uploads except the Priority queue. Make t
204 Jakbar : Gary, Peter and the rest of you guys who have worked so hard on getting the queue down the past couple of days....thank you. Your hard work is not una
205 Post contains images Eksath : I agree! Great work guys! Screw the high upload limits. Drop everybody to a max of 5 pictures at any given time PERIOD. Do we really need 40 waiting
206 Post contains images QANTAS077 :
207 Post contains images TimdeGroot : I'm sure Peter is working hard, but not on the queue Tim
208 Post contains images Jakbar : Whoops, you're right! I meant to post the name of a certain other screener who is working his tail off... (Thanks, Tim) Josh
209 Beechcraft : And now for something completely different.... The Q is now just below 10.000 photos. Denis [Edited 2006-07-22 22:46:25][Edited 2006-07-22 22:46:53]
210 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Another few hours of bickering............and the queue is down again. Thanks to the other screeners (no self praise for me) for getting stuck
211 Post contains images TimdeGroot : Here's some praise Gary As today's top screener you deserve it! I think a week ago the queue stood at nearly 16000. Not bad a for a week's work to be
212 Maiznblu_757 : Great job guys. One suggestion however, please forgive me if it already has been suggested in this thread but, frankly I dont wan't to sift through al
213 Post contains images Jetmatt777 : Screeners, you did a good job getting the Queue down below 10k. You really deserve a bunch of praise. Gary, great job! Keep up the great work! -Matt
214 Flyfisher1976 : If they've waited this long to upload these shots...then what does it matter? And what "flow" are we really stemming? You're comparing apples to appl
215 Post contains images Maiznblu_757 : Below 9000, you screeners are out of control.
216 Post contains images Beechcraft : Sorry Chad, i´ll try to behave from now on... Denis
217 Post contains images Jkw777 : Hi there. Alot has changed since I left, and since I'm back I wanted to voice my opinions on this one. Glad to see that Johan has implemented this red
218 A388 : Interesting thread. I haven't read all the posts but found this one more interesting, personally. I wondered how someone is 'screened' to become a sc
219 Post contains images Dcrusafon : Wow, incredible work from screeners I was looking the queue and there are 8700 in queue. Well done! Looks like new uploading limits are working DARIO
220 Post contains images Psych : Correct me if I am wrong here, but by my reckoning it is the case that increased screener activity is the main cause for the markedly reduced queue l
221 DC10Tim : Correct Paul, as it would appear the backlog from "high upload" days hasn't been cleared yet, but the number uploaded since the new rules each day is
222 D L X : Don't forget though, that those priority shots taken at Farnborough were uploaded and dispatched, sometimes in less than 30 minutes. They won't show
223 DC10Tim : Hopefully the screening rate will remain the same (ie. number of photos processed per day). So if the guys who have been doing Farnborough priorities
224 Post contains images Beechcraft : If i continue like that, my girlfriend would leave me real soon... Denis PS: Wait a tick, that means i´m single again!!! (Play Austin Powers Theme)
225 Post contains images Jorge1812 : I would understand you to prefer your g/f over screening .....really - and I have plenty of pics to upload. Georg
226 D L X : is it new thread time yet? This one is overloading my browser.
227 Post contains images 9VSPO : Delete your porn cache and you might be ok...
228 D L X : I have a whole separate computer for that.
229 Post contains images Javibi : In order to reduce the queue even further screeners should be banned from having girlfriends/boyfriends, IMHO. My j
230 Post contains images Aero145 : This post is for Non-Aviation, Ian.
231 Psych : Embedded in the last few posts is a serious issue to consider... How much screening would be required 'on average' to keep the queue ticking over nic
232 Post contains images ThierryD :      Thierry[Edited 2006-07-25 11:22:21]
233 Mygind66 : So... we understand screeners haven't boy/girlfriends! Slogan for next bunch of new screeners: " got to be neutral.." Cheers Enrique
234 Post contains images Cosec59 : Or in fact neutered
235 Dendrobatid : Don't think I could agree to that, though circumcision would be no skin off my nose........
236 Post contains images 9VSPO : Not complaining but I've still had a pic "in screening" for 3 days.
237 Bjcc : I noticed 2 things today... First, the number of submissions has gone up again to about what they were before this reduction.... And 2, the queue is a
238 9VSPO : I agree but there seems to be a mental block as far as embracing new screeners is concerned. I don't know why, I am sure there are enough competent p
239 Post contains images Willo : Good grief, it's all been happening in last few weeks. Just had a longish spell in hospital and come home find my limits been cut, I'm now suffering a
240 Granite : Hi all Codswallop, you don't know what is going on behind the scenes. Johan has been away too. Competent photographers doesn't mean competent screeene
241 LGW : As listed earlier in this thread:- "We need to find people who: - ...upload pictures with a constant good quality, so (s)he has good editing skills an
242 Scbriml : Sadly it isn't. This is the killer one: ...have the time and dedication to screen a reasonable amount of photos every day/week (this reduces the list
243 Norfolkjohn : There seems to be general agreement that the long term way of keeping the queue down in to have a larger screening team. This may well also take the p
244 Post contains images Linco22 : Thanks goodness I dont fit the criteria then lol The que is fine folks, down a fair amount since this thread started. People keep losing site that the
245 ANITIX87 : The queue is down a fair amount. But when did these new restrictions officially take effect (forgive me for not wanting to read every word of 244 post
246 Post contains images Javibi : There are a total of 6727 photos from 1478 photographers waiting to be processed on the upload page (6 waiting for Johan and 6721 waiting for the scre
247 JAT74L : GREAT word Gary! John
248 Dendrobatid : Having fairly recently become a screener, the decision to accept the post is not one to be taken lightly. It is hard work and time consuming, a fantas
249 Post contains images Skidmarks : As the queue is going down quite nicely now, and the wait is getting slightly less, I think the measures put in place are working. With that in mind,
250 LHRsunriser : This idea is working a treat! KEEP IT THIS WAY Queue is in the 6000 mark, amazing... Cheers Dom
251 Cathay111 : How about taking the upload page down, doing some modifications and coming back with a more streamlined method of uploading...... I find the a.net upl
252 Post contains images Flyfisher1976 : Having "too many cooks in the kitchen" leads to screening inconsistencies. No matter how hard you try to enforce standards for screening, at the end
253 ChrisZRH : I agree with Cathay111, it would be lovely to have a specific camera option on the upload page, it can be useful and also just out of curiosity,...som
254 Viv : Actually not particularly useful.
255 JRadier : agreed! And how much more work is it to upload 2x a number of photo's then 1 time twice that number?
256 Post contains images Flyfisher1976 : Useful how? I can't imagine that one could gather any conclusive information considering the number of uncontrolled variables. Post-processing in par
257 Cathay111 : Wow, with a response like that you should consider a career in debating! I take note of your comments though, thanks for that! I'm a long time airlin
258 Q330 : I think that's a good idea, Craig. It's off topic here so it won't get as much exposure or discussion. No reason for downtime. It wouldn't be necessa
259 Viv : Reply 256 (Flyfisher) says it very well. The critical factor in sharpness is how steady the hands of the photographer are ... how do you measure that
260 ChrisH : Knowing what lens was used gives an idea of what focal length is good for a certain spot. I've emailed photogs a few times before going to airports, a
261 Flyfisher1976 : Knowing what focal length was used would give you an idea of what focal length to use for a certain spot. Knowing what lens was used would tell you v
262 ChrisH : It tells me the focal lenght was between 100-400 yes... and for those of us who spend more time taking photos than posting on forums, making a rough
263 Flyfisher1976 : You would get further by...
264 ChrisH : well that contradicts itself. narrowing it down to one lens obviously tells you more (400mm vs 600mm makes a helluva difference).
265 Cathay111 : Indeed, agree 100% - which is why I took the time to contact the photographers and ask if they'd mind sending a couple of full size, unedited shots w
266 D L X : Only Dan Quayle says "potatoe." BTW, how bouts a new thread? This one is crashing my browser.
267 StealthZ : I know the exact focal length of every digital photo I have ever taken and if anyone asks me I would be only to happy to oblige with the detail, much
268 RG828 : I just happened to take a look and was greatly impressed as well, can't remember when the queue was that "little." Lets hope the screening team maint
269 Post contains images Bubbles : Under such speed, it won't take a long time to get into an awesome situation - all photographers would get result, couples of minutes after their upl
270 Bubbles : Now the queue is under 6K. There are a total of 5924 photos from 1341 photographers waiting to be processed on the upload page (22 waiting for Johan a
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...
New Upload Queue Limits posted Mon Jun 13 2005 19:39:29 by Administrator
Leave Or Remove From Upload Queue? posted Thu Sep 28 2006 12:07:49 by Raptors
The "Johan" Upload Queue posted Thu Jul 20 2006 14:11:04 by Spruit
My Upload Queue Photos posted Sun Jun 25 2006 20:45:57 by NicolasRubio
Upload Queue Up Again! posted Mon Oct 31 2005 18:23:06 by PipoA380
…I Have Deleted My Photos From Upload Queue posted Sat Sep 3 2005 12:58:49 by Eduard
Upload Queue Is Long! posted Wed Aug 24 2005 12:18:29 by PipoA380
Upload Queue Below 10k! posted Wed Aug 10 2005 09:16:39 by Manzoori
New Max Upload Queue Stats? posted Wed Jun 22 2005 00:41:13 by Aitek
Photo Sales Option In Upload Queue posted Sat May 28 2005 20:28:53 by Henks