Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Process Of Screening Debate  
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58
Posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6263 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have been a member of the site long enough now to recognise that there are periodic episodes of vocal disquiet about standards and how the site is run. We are in the middle of one of those now, prompted by Michael Carter's (Dacman) concurrent thread.

This is my attempt to start a process of rational debate about some of the central issues. My plea is that contributors keep the emotions out of the discussion, and there is some respect shown for opinions that might differ from our own. I make no apology if related issues have been discussed in the past - it can't hurt to give it a fresh look. If you are sick and tired of these kind of conversations, or have nothing useful to say, just move on to another thread of more interest to you.

Okay - the process of screening. Currently most photographs need three different screeners agreeing that the photo meets the site criteria before it is accepted. If two screeners pass the photo as acceptable, but one sees it as a rejection, the photo is rejected.

Some argue that this system works, is fair and there is no need to change it - one screener has found an element of the photo that doesn't meet the criteria, and that is enough. The protection against subjectivity or error is the appeals process. Others argue that it is fundamentally unfair and goes against the desire for consistency, as 2 to 1 should go in favour of the majority assessment, not the minority.

Let's have some debate about this. I would like to see people put forward the argument for things remaining as they are, and others the counter-argument. The various pro's and con's can then be thought through and possibly - just possibly - people may develop a better understanding of things.

I, for one, fully acknowledge that it is not in my gift to make any changes - the site has an owner and he has ultimate decision-making authority. It is not a democracy. But I believe part of this repeating cycle of distress amongst some photographers boils down to problems in communication - in its widest sense - and some misunderstandings about what really goes on.

Let's have a go at communicating.

Paul

81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6228 times:

Hi Paul,

How are you keeping? Thanks for getting something like this started. It would be good to keep all criticism constructive. With photography being a subjective thing the 'all 3 must agree' rule goes against this. I would like to see this changed.

The rejection emails are another big gripe for me. I have no problem with big ques etc etc, but when I get a rejection such as 'soft' or 'quality' I'd like to know more specifically what. Does this add a huge commitment on top of the screeners already? is this viable to put into place where each rejection, if neccessary, get a personal message. Say 'soft tail' 'too much noise in sky/fuselage/wherever'. I think this would help the rejection process alot.

Regards
Colin  

May I also add that this shouldnt be taken as screenr bashing. We all know their hard work and what they put up with. This should be a way to move things forward for the site I think

[Edited 2006-09-14 14:43:18]

User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6207 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'll make sure I'll reply to the suggestions made here as long as everyone "behaves". We've heard the complaints, we need solutions.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6203 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 2):
I'll make sure I'll reply to the suggestions made here as long as everyone "behaves".

Couldn't agree more Tim, I hope it stays that way

Regards
Colin  Smile


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6188 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Linco22 (Reply 1):
How are you keeping? Thanks for getting something like this started.

I'm okay Colin - keen to contribute to things getting better and ensure this is a good place to be. Thanks for your contribution so far.

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 2):
I'll make sure I'll reply to the suggestions made here

Great stuff Tim.

There are many aspects of the screening process about which many have strong feelings. For the purposes of clarity of discussion, can we focus on the one topic - i.e. 3 screeners saying 'yes' vs majority decision vs balloting vs 'blind' screening (i.e. the pros and cons of screeners knowing the previous views of colleagues) etc.

I would invite people to put forward what they would see as the optimum method for screening, and justify their reasoning. That way we can all consider the arguments - and hopefully understand better where different schools of thought are coming from.

Go ahead.....

Paul


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6183 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Please take into account take we can't have anything that will make the screening process more time consuming.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6174 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 5):
anything that will make the screening process more time consuming.

I would assume that adding a personal to each rejection would be a prime example? For that particular agruement of mine.

Good to hear you're keeping well Paul

Regards
Colin  Smile


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3961 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6156 times:

Quoting Psych (Thread starter):
Some argue that this system works, is fair and there is no need to change it - one screener has found an element of the photo that doesn't meet the criteria, and that is enough. The protection against subjectivity or error is the appeals process. Others argue that it is fundamentally unfair and goes against the desire for consistency, as 2 to 1 should go in favour of the majority assessment, not the minority.

The 'ballot' system is interesting, but not without its problems. If everything was to be screened like this, a screener could not reject a hopeless cellphone photo on his own - two red lights would always be necessary. This would increase the screeners' workload in an unnecessary manner - after all, the majority of rejections are clear-cut cases or so we're told.

So I think a screener should still have the option of rejecting a picture and removing it from the queue when he's positive that it's unacceptable - just as he can direct add it when he's positive it's fine. However, when he doesn't like something about the photo but is not that positive, he should have the option to give it a 'red light' without removing it from the queue.

By the way, the 'direct add' option might be reconsidered. I think it's doing more bad than good, as it occassionaly leads to an enthousiastic acceptance of pictures which really should not have been accepted.

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6150 times:

My opinion for what it's worth;

Firstly from an ex-screeners point of view, I can see the need for three screeners - I used to see things others didn't, obvious things like cropped borders, blurred images and dust spots. This wasn't a fault of the other two screeners, it was mainly down to me being a low volume screener and fresh eyes?
This also worked the other way around, other screeners would see things I missed.

I can confess to being on the side of not being that bothered to upload anymore images. I don't have that many images in the database <1K, but to have images rejected for stupid things like 0.02degs out of level is just driving photographers away.

About five photographers that I know well have said that they don't want to upload here anymore. One of them has just scanned in a whole batch of slides that his father took when he was a test pilot for Avro. He has recently had an image rejected for being unlevel - the image was taken out the window of his chase plane. He re-edited the image leveling it as best he could, re-uploaded it and it got rejected again for quality - it's a rare image that should have been given it's place on the site...

I'm going to stop now as this type of blanket rejection winds me up.

Ian.



If I could just get the afterburner working...
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 44
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6135 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 7):
If everything was to be screened like this, a screener could not reject a hopeless cellphone photo on his own - two red lights would always be necessary

Not at all, a variation of the current "Instant add" could be used I would think the system could be setup so that "hopeless cellphone photos" or TV screen grabs could be "Instant rejected" but for images that made it past an initial culling a 2-1 vote could suffice.

I don't think it would be a huge stretch to allow a single screener the ability to reject an image like--
Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 72kb


Where as it might require a 2favour:1reject vote to accept an image like--
Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 164kb

(was a quick 30 second edit so likely fail even the 2:1 vote!!)

Cheers

[Edited 2006-09-14 16:17:28]


If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4707 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6112 times:

Quoting Psych (Thread starter):
the site has an owner and he has ultimate decision-making authority.

Keep in mind that allthough this is Johans site, we, the photographers, have made it what it is and can reverse that as well. Thus we should have a saying in what goes on.

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 7):
The 'ballot' system is interesting, but not without its problems. If everything was to be screened like this, a screener could not reject a hopeless cellphone photo on his own - two red lights would always be necessary. This would increase the screeners' workload in an unnecessary manner - after all, the majority of rejections are clear-cut cases or so we're told.

I agree with your ideas.

I see it all this way:

Screener 1: 3 choices, BAD (obviously not up to standards), NO (according to him there is something wrong, but some other screeners need to look at it) and YES.
Screener 2: get's both YES and NO from screener 1, votes as well. 2x NO is rejected, 2x yes is accepted, 1x NO, 1xYES goes to screener 3
Screener 3: Ultimate decision

Only drawback is that screener 1 can still veto a picture that might otherwise be accepted.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6109 times:

Quoting Woody001 (Reply 8):
a whole batch of slides that his father took when he was a test pilot for Avro

We need more of this type of shot, not less.

Conflict between "aviation-value" and photo-quality value"?



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3961 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6098 times:

Quoting JRadier (Reply 10):
Only drawback is that screener 1 can still veto a picture that might otherwise be accepted.

Yes, but I would think the screeners might be quite happy to exercise some self-restraint when not entirely sure, and use the NO vote option.

I don't think this system will increase screener workload. Some pics that today get rejected will be forwarded to a second or third screener, but on the other hand, pictures with two 'greens' don't require a third screening.

[Edited 2006-09-14 16:44:42]


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineBubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1195 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6093 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting JRadier (Reply 10):
Screener 1: 3 choices, BAD (obviously not up to standards), NO (according to him there is something wrong, but some other screeners need to look at it) and YES.
Screener 2: get's both YES and NO from screener 1, votes as well. 2x NO is rejected, 2x yes is accepted, 1x NO, 1xYES goes to screener 3
Screener 3: Ultimate decision

Hi Jurgen,

Just out of my curiosity ...

If the ultimate decision made by those three screeners is 2x No and 1x Yes, the photo is to be rejected, according to your example. But if the photographer decides to appeal that rejected image, and the Head Screener says "Yes", the decision will turn to be 2x No and 2x Yes. If so, what should the decision be - accept or reject?  Wink

_Hongyin_


User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6083 times:

Good point Hongyin. Perhaps the appeal decision remains different from the initial screening process. As it is anyway.

I hope some good comes out of this

Regards
Colin  Smile


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3961 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6066 times:

Quoting Bubbles (Reply 13):

Sorry Hongyin, but it's not a good point. Think about it. If the appeal screener's say is not decisive, it's effectively impossible to accept any appeals at all Wink
But as Paul has proposed, let's stick to the basic screening procedure for now.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6066 times:

Quoting Viv (Reply 11):
Quoting Woody001 (Reply 8):
a whole batch of slides that his father took when he was a test pilot for Avro

We need more of this type of shot, not less.

Conflict between "aviation-value" and photo-quality value"?

Exactly!
Taken from the upload page:
We have lower rejection levels for rare shots (old, brand new, special paint scheme, accident, special situations etc).

Ian.



If I could just get the afterburner working...
User currently offlineBubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1195 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6052 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 15):
But as Paul has proposed, let's stick to the basic screening procedure for now.

Sorry for my message which may sidetrack Paul's thread! Okay, I agree - let's continue discussing basic procedure for now.

_Hongyin_

[Edited 2006-09-14 17:16:27]

User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6017 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Just my personal opinion for what it's worth:

1. Screening decision: For me, instant rejection/acceptance is the main problem, since the ultimate decision is left to one person only. I disagree that even for extremely bad shots this system would add CONSIDERABLY more work to the screeners, since these (obvious) bad shots will get screened very quickly. Therefore, the system "2 out of 3" seems like the best alternative, given the resource (screener time) constraint.
2. Rejection: If a picture is then rejected (2 NOs), then the message should be much more explicit than it is today. Particularly in the case of "quality" and "motiv", just stating these reasons alone do not help at all the photographer if he wants to improve and re upload that particular picture. I do not know exactly the screening system, but an idea could be to delete rejection option "quality" and include more subcategories in the others (or perhaps train screeners to include short personal messages more often).
3. Appeal: In order for this function to work properly, first of all the photographer needs to know EXACTLY why his picture was rejected in the first place (see 2.). I don't know exactly how many appeals the crew gets per day, but it would be also interesting to see the original screener and a head screener to discuss the appeal (and thus improved the learning curve of the screener), and again if rejected to be much more specific on reason.
4. Rules: Well, this site belongs to Johan, so he pretty much can set the rules he wants. However, in the particular case of motiv, the current ones are just not working for the community of photographers. A little more flexibility for the allowed motives and less subjective bad-motiv reasons would help a lot (a new thread could be started just for this one!).



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6001 times:

The issue is the drive to technical quality over aesthetic quality.

That for me is the problem.



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5950 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Ok here we go. I consider all issues above closed after I replied, otherwise there'll be no end.

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 7):
By the way, the 'direct add' option might be reconsidered. I think it's doing more bad than good, as it occassionaly leads to an enthousiastic acceptance of pictures which really should not have been accepted.

It does more good than bad. It speeds up the screening process tremendously. If gross mistakes are made photos are usually deleted.

However:

Quoting Woody001 (Reply 8):
Firstly from an ex-screeners point of view, I can see the need for three screeners

When screening hundreds of shots a day as some screeners do, it can be too much to ask look at each images for minutes to ensure a direct add. The 3 screener system works well as Woody001 explains. Some screeners like to screen 10 images and instant add them all, taking 15 minutes, some like to do 30 in those 15 minutes and just HQ.

Quoting Woody001 (Reply 8):
but to have images rejected for stupid things like 0.02degs out of level is just driving photographers away.

This should not happen. If so, appeal. I know you might generalize here, but if shots get rejected for very minor things consider appealing. Having said that, if we spot and off angle image that is otherwise fine we reject because it's easy to fix. Therefore it might appear we reject for 'stupid' reasons, but we just want a better version.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 10):
Keep in mind that allthough this is Johans site, we, the photographers, have made it what it is and can reverse that as well. Thus we should have a saying in what goes on.

You do now don't you. Still, this is not a democracy. Also remember that many photogs are perfectly happy with A.net.

Quoting Viv (Reply 11):
We need more of this type of shot, not less.

Conflict between "aviation-value" and photo-quality value"?

Show me these rejections please.

Quoting Sulman (Reply 19):
The issue is the drive to technical quality over aesthetic quality.

It has been like that for a loooong time now. It's the basic motto of the site.

I appreciate you all thinking about a new screening process, but without inside knowledge of how the system works now you don't do the current system justice. We have the option to add comments, and second opinion and use this frequently. A rejection is thus not necessarily the product of one screeners but can be the product of 2 screeners who added comments, a second opinion with comments and a final reject.

Quoting Acontador (Reply 18):
4. Rules: Well, this site belongs to Johan, so he pretty much can set the rules he wants. However, in the particular case of motiv, the current ones are just not working for the community of photographers. A little more flexibility for the allowed motives and less subjective bad-motiv reasons would help a lot (a new thread could be started just for this one!).

I undertstand that the motive/centering issue needs work. We'll try to figure something out to make it clear what we want and don't want.

Quoting Bubbles (Reply 13):
Screener 1: 3 choices, BAD (obviously not up to standards), NO (according to him there is something wrong, but some other screeners need to look at it) and YES.
Screener 2: get's both YES and NO from screener 1, votes as well. 2x NO is rejected, 2x yes is accepted, 1x NO, 1xYES goes to screener 3
Screener 3: Ultimate decision

This would lengthen the screening process too much.

Decisions need to be made more quickly rather than more slowly. The key is to have a screening team that is on one line. This will take more work. We realize the problem but we want to solve it using a quality approach.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5911 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Keep this on topic. It's quite clear the photographers concerns are listened to and adressed. But we will never be forced to make change if 50 photographers on the forum say it must be so.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3052 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5911 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Psych (Thread starter):
My plea is that contributors keep the emotions out of the discussion, and there is some respect shown for opinions that might differ from our own.

Nik..... banghead 

Something just comes to my mind - I can see the appeal of the 'majority vote' screening system, because it feels fair, but I also understand Ian's point, above, that one screener may spot something that others have missed.

However, I think there is a distinction here that warrants further thought. I think there is a qualitative difference between screener number 3 spotting something 'concrete', like a bad border/dirt/level etc, that others may have missed, and that person making a subjective judgement that is at odds with the judgement of two colleagues.

To illustrate further:

Example 1 - My photo is HQ'd by two screeners, both of whom were screening a number of shots and thus did not spend ages on the one image. It looked pretty good to them. The third screener knows that the ultimate decision is theirs and so they are looking very closely, and they see a dust spot. The photographer can reupload a cleaned up version, which maintains the high standards of the site, so they reject. Yes, that was 2:1, but there is some clear reason.

Example 2 - My photo is HQ'd by two screeners, who like my motive (say, a close crop). Screener three sees it and has strong views about a particular motive, because their interpretation of the criterion is that the photo falls foul of it. They reject the photo.

Example 1 was rejected on the basis of an objective flaw; Example 2 a subjective one. Now of course there are many of the A.net criteria that are subjective - but when the rejection is for these reasons, then is the 'majority' decision not the more equitable? Personally I am thinking particularly about 'quality' and 'motive', but there will be others.

There seems something reasonable about this position. However, life is seldom like that. I would also accept that it is unreasonable to have a system that requires all photos to be rejected by at least two screeners. That would mean that the kind of examples people quote - like the mobile phone shots - would have to be passed on even though it is glaringly obvious to most that it is an instant reject. The problem is that the baby gets thrown out with the bath-water. Maybe only photos that are obviously no-no's should be instantly rejected - however that is defined! Everything else goes forward for a second look. Would this take up a lot more time? I will defer to those who have more inside knowledge of the system to answer that one.

When the rejection is for a subjective decision, should that be confirmed by at least two screeners? Happy to hear counter-arguments.

Cheers.

Paul


User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5905 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Tim,

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 20):
Decisions need to be made more quickly rather than more slowly.

Really? Why? Because that's what the boss said???  Wink
I'd rather wait a couple of days longer for my pictures to be screened than waisting so much time trying to find out what was wrong with them in the first place. There is such a fixation with speed (probably from the days of a 14K queue?) but much less on quality and service (to the photog).

You answered on 4. but left 1. to 3. out my friend...

In any case, as I understand this is not just "bitching on screeners for free" but rather discussing and bringing forward ideas for improving the site, isn't it?



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5899 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Motive can be subjective too.

I think you'd find it a rare case when photos have 2 hqs and are rejected instantly for motive by the third screener. A second opinion would be much more common.

Paul your idea would meet with the same problem. What is a clear no-no. For us screeners an unlevel image is a clear no as well.

Anyway, you might just think I'm talking out of my ass since you have no way of ever knowing. But trust me we don't think lightly of screening, but we do have to make quick decisions, otherwise there'd be threads about the queue being at 15k again.


Tim



Alderman Exit
25 Codeshare : How about somehow splitting the process into first: motiv-wise reasons (ie. suitable for the DB) and then quality-wise reasons, so that, like Psych st
26 Post contains images INNflight : Can't tell you how grateful I am to see this written here Tim. I'm a 100% sure in the end a more open policy to approach centered, (distance?) and mo
27 Post contains images Psych : Sorry Tim - I am not quite clear which bits your comments are relating to there. I agree motive can often be subjective, and I agree defining what cou
28 IL76 : Motive is subjective and mainly comes down to: "Does it look right?". If the light, the chosen angle, centering, the plane type (f.e. an F16 could wor
29 Post contains images Bubbles : Hi Tim, That is just what I quoted from Jurgen in Reply 10. _Hongyin_
30 Post contains images Avro85 : First of all I'd like to thank Paul for starting this very interesting and constructive topic. Secondly I didn't have the time to read all answer so d
31 Sulman : Tim, It's very interesting - to me - that you state that like it's a universal truth that is not questioned, because it is this very ethos that has t
32 Eadster : How are we going to have a nice communication disscussion when NIK clearly makes matters worse?? Always drags communications through the mud. Anyway..
33 Post contains images Psych : Even though I am 44, and have been a member here for 2 years, I still have this childlike, naive notion that the above should be possible .
34 Post contains images Javibi : Give the screeners five choices for every picture: -2,-1,0,1,2 If a picture sums up 2 points it gets added, if the sum reaches -2 is rejected. If the
35 TimdeGroot : Correct me if I'm wrong but it's basically the same thing we have now? Only the -1 we don't have but it can be a hq with comments just as well. Tim
36 Javibi : No, Tim. 2 HQ (1+1) will mean direct add; negative points (opinions) can be cancelled by positive points. Not the same at all, IMHO. j
37 TimdeGroot : True but we're already doing this a lot. But if the negative points need to be cancelled it would take longer? Tim
38 Post contains images Linco22 : Maybe the current system works fine??? Maybe their isn't a clearer way of doing things. I think concentration, for me, should be made clear as to what
39 Post contains images Javibi : Bordercases would take long, as I think they take now, so no changes here. But my system reduces the chances that a single screener rejects a picture
40 ThierryD : Nice idea there by Javier however I think the screening process should be kept easier. How about that (and sorry if I oversee something but I just tr
41 TimdeGroot : Believe me if we would get rid of instant adds and especially rejects the queue would skyrocket. Tim
42 ThierryD : Ok, than just for my (and maybe other people's) understanding, on what criteria do you base an instant accept (reject)? And what is the time a typica
43 TimdeGroot : Criteria are the same. Screening can take 20 second right up to several minutes. Thierry, your images might have been screened by different screeners
44 ThierryD : Well then if the proposed screening system was in place a single screener could spend even less time for an instant add/rej as he knows that anyway a
45 Post contains images Psych : My thanks to the moderator(s) who have cleaned this thread up and just left readers to look at the substance of the debate. I hope all will perceive t
46 TimdeGroot : In theory yes, but this is not how it works in practice. They would both spend 2 minutes, because at A.net we screen every image like it was screened
47 PUnmuth@VIE : I think the current screening system works pretty well as shown by the examples Tim brought up. But its just the system that works good if used proper
48 Dendrobatid : quote=JRadier,reply=10]I see it all this way: Screener 1: 3 choices, BAD (obviously not up to standards), NO (according to him there is something wron
49 Beechcraft : Hi all, I think the vast majority of screeners is doing just that. Often enough there are a lot more than three screeners involved in the whole proces
50 AndyEastMids : OK, here's some fundamentaly problems: 1. Accept requires three screeners to say YES, reject requires one screener to say NO. The process is clearly b
51 ThierryD : So if I conclude well there's only little inconsistency coming from the fact that single screeners may instantly add/reject a shot!? Kind of a change
52 Post contains images Linco22 : Hi Mick, Godd to see your input. Yes I have had personals. Not alot as a percentage of my rejections. I recently got annoyed at the appeal system, fo
53 TimdeGroot : Last reply before I head out Of course it is, just like we have a list of rejection reasons and not acceptance reasons. Instant add does more good the
54 Post contains images Psych : Just nipping in to the thread from work . Yesterday, when I posted this thread, I was a bit nervous, as it is all too easy for some to see attempts at
55 ThierryD : I don't think so since the pre-screeners would really only shed the garbage and photos that don't comply with A.net clear rules like: - Photos in wro
56 JRadier : sounds like a good plan
57 Acontador : It sound to me better than nothing, but still falls far short of what most people are asking in this thread (me included). Tim, first let me thank yo
58 McG1967 : Most of the threads on here recently have been about rejections or requests for pre-screening. Pre-screening would be helpful for those of us with onl
59 Post contains images Linco22 : I think the way the forum works is a good base to start from. It would just need to be a glorified version. I would also be of the opinion that waitin
60 Lindy Field : Hi All, I am going to add my two cents as one of the site's editors. I do not have much if any inside knowledge of screening process, but as an editor
61 JRadier : Edward, In my point of view some good ideas there.
62 Flybhx : Perhaps we could alleviate the Q a bit by concentrating on the before screening aspect. Any chance of getting an illustrated uploaders guide showing g
63 Psych : In discussions some time ago this, or something similar, was proposed. I would certainly support this as a good development, and hope it comes along.
64 Post contains images Walter2222 : I agree, but that's indeed the difficult part. I cannot imagine having a meeting at work with 23 people around the table wanting to agree on 1 simple
65 TimdeGroot : Something like this is on the to-do list. But remember that next to our regular screening we all have lives too and this is a big project. This and t
66 AndyEastMids : No it doesn't do more good. It does much damage, because it gives any screener a right to make a unilateral stand alone decision, and that decision c
67 TransIsland : I think the problem is mainly the inconsistency of the screening process (see my example in Michael Carter's good-bye thread), not the idea that it on
68 Post contains images Acontador : Don't want to sidetrack from main issue, but either you misunderstood me or my English is really messy. Since at the end of that sentence there was a
69 Post contains images Jhribar : I have just started reading through this topic (and it was a looong read ). Good improvement proposals are posted here! I have an additional suggestio
70 Javibi : IMHO those two things are related. There is probably more inconsistency if the final decision depends on only one (but everytime a different one) pai
71 PUnmuth@VIE : For missing categories this is not that easy. The screeners don't have (or at least didn't have until February) the possibility to select categories
72 JumboJim747 : What about Hiring some more customer support personnel to just fix info on the uploads . They wont be screening pics they just fix the info and catego
73 Avsfan : After reading through the entire thread, I have noticed that there are a lot of good comments both for and against the screening process. I would have
74 Psych : As the thread starter, I continue to appreciate the time and thought that all contributors are putting into this - if nothing else, it provides an opp
75 Timdegroot : Surely we can't cover every shot. But like Paul says many "standard" shots could be covered. Tim
76 Post contains images Timdegroot : I think that providing the correct info should first of all be the task of the photographer. If not it would quickly spiral out of control because no
77 Codeshare : Wouldn't that create additional traffic on the site ? How about addressing the problem in a simple way: From the screeners point of view: -what are t
78 Timdegroot : How would we do this? The photographers' job I think? Tim
79 Post contains images Codeshare : Kind of yes maybe I'll put in another way: what are the most common mistakes in the upload ? Of course it the photogs' job, but you know very well how
80 Timdegroot : As for mistakes I would say border, info/category, dirt, and angle. Tim
81 Post contains images Codeshare : Ahhhh, just the kind of answer I was hoping for The FAQ has guidelines, but like somebody posted already in the thread 'specimen' of correct photos co
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...
The Process Of Screening...what Happens? posted Mon Feb 24 2003 02:41:18 by USAFHummer
The Rewards Of Screening posted Sat Mar 22 2003 00:50:37 by Skymonster
Change Of Screening Process.. posted Sat May 14 2005 06:18:03 by StealthZ
The New Way Of Screening Photos - I Dont Get It! posted Wed Feb 13 2002 15:36:36 by LGW
A Tale Of Screening Consistency posted Sun Sep 24 2006 20:46:34 by Ptrjong
Is Confidence Getting The Best Of Me? posted Mon Sep 11 2006 00:32:38 by San747
Show Me The Advantage Of PhotoShop On This One! posted Tue Aug 22 2006 21:10:40 by Lufthansi
The Importance Of PC Screen Quality When Editing. posted Thu May 18 2006 20:57:57 by Thom@s
Gripen Fly-by At His Majesty The King Of Sweden's posted Sun Apr 30 2006 13:25:28 by 7E7Fan
The Importance Of Photography posted Mon Apr 24 2006 15:05:14 by 53Sqdn