N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4237 times:
Good morning screeners, while browsing Singapore Airlines 777-300/ER photos this morning, I thought I keep seeing double.....but seems my eyes is right....can anyone clearify what happened and is allowed now?
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5550 posts, RR: 47 Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4211 times:
When was there ever an issue with shots of the same A/C taken on different occasions?
If that was the case most of us here in Oz would have very few shots on the DB.
Whilst I think some consideration should be given to multiple inflight shots if motiv is radically different eg Mid flight and approach the comparison you raised is not valid.
My personal opinion is that I would likely not submit similar shots of the same A/C but that doesn't make it wrong.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4205 times:
Read the baddouble rejection text before dismiss my claim being not valid.
This rule has been around not very long...like 6 -12 month...since this rule started you can check many Oz photos are rejected under this. (SYD have significantly less pics than previous years)
You already have photos of this aircraft in the Airliners.net database that are the same as, or very similar to these photo(s).
In order to receive this rejection, the other (similar) photos in the database must also have been taken by you, at the same day and at the same airport. Please do not upload multiple sequential shots of an aircraft during landing, taxiing or take-off, taken only a few seconds apart. Even though these photos may appear to be from different angles, we consider them similar. Please select the best shot from the sequence and upload only that one. One shot taken during landing, and another during take-off will generally NOT be considered a DOUBLE error.
In certain cases you can also get this rejection if there are photos in the database that are nearly identical to the one(s) rejected here, but taken on another date by you.
Examples of this are photos of stored or preserved aircraft that have not moved since you took the other photos.
For window views we accept 2 shots per flight and side of aircraft when they show considerable different motives. So in other words the maximum number of accepted window views of the same registration on the same flight all taken by you would be 4.
We only accept multiple cockpit shots if:
They clearly show different parts of the cockpit.
When the outside view is showing a different airport.
When one is taken in daylight and one taken at night.
Note: This rejection might also occur if you have similar photos in the upload queue that are still awaiting final screening.
I myself have photos (same reg) look similar taken on different dates but rejected for baddouble so i am wonder how this screener get pass the double rule twice. ( 3 uploads)
AndyHunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1302 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4129 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Good morning Sam,
As it is my pictures being used as an example, I think that it would be best if I replied.
Yes I uploaded three different pictures of the same aircraft on different days and they were accepted. I am also aware of the baddouble rule and as stated above, tried to follow the spirit of that rule. Nothing evil intended. They went through the screening process, were not given any favourable treatment and uploaded accordingly. As you have stated, you have suffered from the baddouble rule hitting you the other way, even though you followed the spirit of the rule. Why?
As I have always said, and I make no claim otherwise, there is inconsistency within the team. This happens when you put together a bunch of human beings, who cannot operate as machines when asked to "judge" pictures. It is just a fact of life. I am sure that whilst there are examples of baddoubles ending up in rejections, there are also instances of multi pics, like mine, same plane, different day, being added. And I understand that there may be anger when it is a screener involved. And you can only rely on my word to say that nothing is going on in the background in terms of conspiracy theories, but I know that I have to live by my words, and I am comfortable to state this.
So what is being done about this consistency factor. There are two avenues that I know are being explored by the team:
1) If you don't agree, there is always the appeal function. This will give you a 2nd op which should help (but maybe not totally solve) the inconsistencies within the team. I had a big screening session over the weekend, and of those I rejected, there must have been 5 or so pics accepted which I rejected. Fair play I say. Some balance is restored.
2) I know that the team is always working and discussing ways to improve the screening, from calibration tests to actively discussing rejections to strive for better consistency.
Will we ever get there? Perhaps not. But we are aware of the issue, and we are working on trying to improve it.
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4079 times:
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your thoughts and thank you for your patience. I know the "inconsistencies" are always going to be there when you have a large amount of people in the team, with some new screeners and old screeners mixed as well.
As you have stated, you have suffered from the baddouble rule hitting you the other way, even though you followed the spirit of the rule. Why?
I upload them and think they are different enough NOT to qualify as a double. Obviously screeners think differently and hence I get a rejection even though I am aware of the rules very well and hence lead to this thread to question about......you got 3 similar photos all went in one after another......I have not seen this happening for a long time since the new rule was set.
My thought is that screeners' own photos must going thru extra screening to ensure fairness to all the photographers who uploads on this site (if this haven't started yet) I am not going against you but just using good 3 pics as samples and question about their validity, surely there are room to accept 3 or 30 more new SQ 777 pics but sometimes seeing photo repeatedly bypass rules makes me question about such practice. I remember myself being a screener in the old days and having gone through such scrutiny from public.
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4029 times:
Quoting N178UA (Reply 2): In certain cases you can also get this rejection if there are photos in the database that are nearly identical to the one(s) rejected here, but taken on another date by you.
Personally I think this rule should be amended.
I fully understand that it will be pointless to upload the photos for a same plane nearly identical (i.e., from same angle, or from same spotting place) even if taken on the separate dates.
But I also think if the interval between those two shots is considerably long, e.g., 1 year or even longer, the latter photo (I mean the recent one) should be allowed and accepted. The reason is very simply - everyone likes to view the recent shot of a plane.
To me, it definitely makes lots of sense to upload an image for a plane taken yesterday from a same angle where I ever took a similar shot to this plane and uploaded it to A.net in the year of 2005.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1630 posts, RR: 63 Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3699 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting Xaapb (Reply 10): OMG!
and I was banned beacuse a stupid mistake on the date!
Amazing... simply amazing!
Oh, a simple mistake on the date, is that all?
Remember I have already discussed this you having been the one to ban you. Your memory is being selective yet I can remember what else there was too.
Quite amazing as I had always thought that memory faded with age yet I am roughly three times your age !
Yes, amazing, simply amazing, but why let the truth get in the way of a good story eh ?
XAAPB From Mexico, joined Jan 2005, 394 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3682 times:
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 12): Your memory is being selective yet I can remember what else there was too.
No, don't worry I remember too, a screener thinking I didn't re-edit de picture, I saw the screener advise about cutting the picture a little more so it would be center and I did it.
Not may fault he didn't see the difference.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9549 posts, RR: 70 Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3460 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Both Andy and Sam got caught
Did you bother to look at the photos and/or facts before typing this?
The two shots that Andy uploaded in December are clearly on different days, unless the sky changed from clear and blue to overcast and grey between shutter drops, and the third picture is from January, again, the sky is different and so is the lighitng.
Sam's shots are much older, thus the rules might have been different.
So, what exactly have Andy and/or Sam been 'caught' at?
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3134 times:
Juan, Bmibaby737 was right. Those uploads were done in 2004, there aren't straight set of rules and foolish me I was uploading like mad, uploading any photos I have..... That's how many big uploaders on this site build up their photos in total numbers. I am fully aware people may use mine photo to compare...so I thought long and hard before writing this thread...
I never try to upload 3 same seqence or even 3 landings these days knowing a bad double will come to my face.
Peter...agree with you. but why the plgging of my TG 777? One taxiing after landing and one on rotation takeoff..clearly allowed isn't ? In my original thread, I am only questioning 3 touch down (likewise) on different day is allowed or not with the current rules.
Jkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3047 times:
Quoting Codeshare (Reply 20): Let's just forget about it and get on with some aviation photos
Quoting N178UA (Reply 22): Juan, Bmibaby737 was right. Those uploads were done in 2004, there aren't straight set of rules and foolish me I was uploading like mad, uploading any photos I have..... That's how many big uploaders on this site build up their photos in total numbers. I am fully aware people may use mine photo to compare...so I thought long and hard before writing this thread...
Either way I think that series of photos are still great. Look at the flex on those wings!!!!
25 Mx330: Indeed they are! My bad, sorry. I know you won't, as I said. Its never been a secret to me. Juan APM
26 BaldurSveins: Sorry I came to this discussion so late. I have thought about this rule a lot, and in the early days of AN, I would have run afoul of it a number ot t
27 Clickhappy: Using the above examples 1 and 2 would not be a double rejection 2 and 3 would be a double rejection, pick the one you like and upload The 757 shot is
28 BaldurSveins: Royal I really don´t know if I appealed it, I seem to remember doing so. But anyways, this is where the similarity rule should in my view not work th
29 Clickhappy: Like all rules, this one is not set in stone, and allowances are made for 'unusual' sequences, one that comes to mind is the IL-86 Sam Chui captured a
30 AKE0404AR: " target=_blank>http://www.verslo.is/home/baldur/an/...4.jpg Holy sh$$ this one one hell of a shot. A stunner....... Just curious how far away were yo
31 StealthZ: Whilst slightly off topic, I do not believe it has been mentioned that Sam was runner up at the Australian Aviation Journalist of the Year awards wit
32 BaldurSveins: Vasco Which one were you talking about? The URL was incomplete Baldur
33 AKE0404AR: Baldur, this one......just blew my mind! http://www.verslo.is/home/baldur/an/TF-FIO_9965_1024.jpg Vasco
34 Walter2222: Isn't the rule also not different for airshows (I seem to remember this, but I cannot recall in which thread)? To Baldur: I like your A2A shots! I ho