Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Screeners, This Is Allowed Now?  
User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1680 posts, RR: 65
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4707 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages



I am still struggling to get a different cockpit shot in DB (one in mid air, one approach as airport ovewview) but seems at the same time a screener can get 3 same reg touch down photos in db?

Sam

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5693 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4681 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sam,
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.

Cheers

Chris



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1680 posts, RR: 65
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4675 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Chris

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)


DOUBLE
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)

[Edited 2007-02-05 00:36:44]

User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2045 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4615 times:

Quoting N178UA (Reply 2):
Read the baddouble rejection text before dismiss my claim being not valid.



Quoting N178UA (Reply 2):
Examples of this are photos of stored or preserved aircraft that have not moved since you took the other photos.



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineAndyHunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1306 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4599 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.

I hope that this answers some of the concerns.

Regards

Andrew



Full frame always beats post processing
User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1680 posts, RR: 65
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Andrew

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.

Have a nice day.

Sam

[Edited 2007-02-05 04:17:13]

User currently offlineBubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1195 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4499 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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.

Don't know what other people would think about.

_Hongyin_


User currently offlineAndyHunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1306 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4470 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Sam,

I wasn't challenging you with the "why" statement. I was putting out the question and then trying to give the answer regarding inconsistency. Big grin

Regards

Andrew



Full frame always beats post processing
User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5855 posts, RR: 40
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4417 times:

Quoting AndyHunt (Reply 7):
Sam,

I wasn't challenging you with the "why" statement. I was putting out the question and then trying to give the answer regarding inconsistency.

i'm still jetlagged and seeing badtriple!

 Silly

think i have malaria....  Wow!



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineMx330 From Mexico, joined Oct 2002, 827 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4232 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sam I do love your shots, but I believe you should think about this before complaining:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui




Same Day, Same Sequence, Same Registration

Other photographers even get banned for a double attempt.
Now here we are not speaking of doubles, but triples.

There is no secret, crew always gets the the breaks their way...
Personally I don't like to complain, at least not until I seat the hours they seat looking at all of our stuff.

Juan



All Canon! EOS 5D mk III, 8mm, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineXaapb From Mexico, joined Jan 2005, 436 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4186 times:

OMG!
and I was banned beacuse a stupid mistake on the date!
Amazing... simply amazing!



Jorge Meneses
User currently offlineBmiBaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1806 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4171 times:

Quoting Mx330 (Reply 9):
Same Day, Same Sequence, Same Registration

This comes up time and time again. Look at the dates!

Photo added: May 7, 2004

Three years ago, standards were alot lower!


User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1667 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4169 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!

Jorge
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 ?

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineXAAPB From Mexico, joined Jan 2005, 436 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4152 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.



Jorge Meneses
User currently offlineMx330 From Mexico, joined Oct 2002, 827 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4147 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BmiBaby737 (Reply 11):
This comes up time and time again. Look at the dates!

It's not anything personal at those shots, actually I love AA 777 shots, it just caught my attention.

Quoting BmiBaby737 (Reply 11):
Three years ago, standards were alot lower!

 checkmark 

Not Double, Double has been double since I can recall.

Anyways, my point to Sam would be just let it go.

Days ago I got this rejection:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...jections/big/20070131_roberto6.jpg
First I thought of appealing, then I saw it was bounced for dirty and motiv, I couldn't complain of dirty. Though motiv we know "some" get those shots accepted...

Don't make a whole problem out of it, its a simple shot

 twocents 

Juan APM



All Canon! EOS 5D mk III, 8mm, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3992 times:

Both Andy and Sam got caught  Wink many others probably too. The given examples although similar are different slightly.

One thing is to upload the same a/c, same airport, same day in a sequence. Another thing is to upload the same a/c, same airport, same/similar angle.

A maximum of two each should have gone in. Just have to watch out next time.

KS/codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3930 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?


User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3920 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 16):
So, what exactly have Andy and/or Sam been 'caught' at?

Getting pics accepted when others were rejected or in one word it's jealousy!

Georg


User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3843 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 16):
So, what exactly have Andy and/or Sam been 'caught' at?

Did you notice this in my post:  

My post has been misunderstood.

KS/codeshare

[Edited 2007-02-06 20:35:54]


How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3778 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

No, I did not see that text in your reply. Nor do I see it now. Maybe I am blind. It comes from too much, well you know the rest....

User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3774 times:

Let's just forget about it and get on with some aviation photos  Smile

KS/codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3770 times:

Quoting N178UA (Reply 2):
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)

Sam sometimes they get in sometimes they don't. It's just the way it is. No matter if you are s screener or not.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui


[Edited 2007-02-06 22:01:45]

[Edited 2007-02-06 22:02:19]


-
User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1680 posts, RR: 65
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3604 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.....  Smile 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.

Thanks everyone I think I will let go this topic.

Sam


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3556 times:

Q:

Quoting N178UA (Reply 22):
but why the plgging of my TG 777

A:

Quoting N178UA (Reply 22):
I am fully aware people may use mine photo to compare

Sam please accept my excuses for being so unsensible to use your pictures in a thread made by you, using someone elses pictures to ask why someones elses pictures are in the database.

And please note I dind't ask if it was allowed that both of yours are in the database as I wrote:

Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Reply 21):
Sam sometimes they get in sometimes they don't. It's just the way it is. No matter if you are s screener or not.



-
User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3517 times:

Quoting Codeshare (Reply 20):
Let's just forget about it and get on with some aviation photos

KS/codeshare

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

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!!!! Big grin

- Justin  Smile


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 Post contains links 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains links 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
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...
To Screeners: Why Is This Badmotiv? posted Wed Jun 29 2005 22:49:57 by Ltena
Now This Is A Shot To Aspire To! posted Mon Jan 17 2005 16:45:38 by Fergulmcc
Now This Is A Photography Area! posted Sat Sep 25 2004 03:52:17 by Bruce
Now This Is A Great Shot! posted Tue Mar 2 2004 21:22:06 by Maiznblu_757
Now This Is A Hot Pic! posted Wed Sep 10 2003 02:41:41 by AA 777
Now This Is Bad Double! posted Tue Aug 5 2003 19:58:08 by BigPhilNYC
Now This Is A Great Shot! posted Thu Apr 3 2003 02:18:44 by N754pr
Now This Is A Great Shot posted Tue Jan 14 2003 09:56:13 by Sukhoi
Now This Is Ny Kind Of Pic..! posted Fri Dec 27 2002 02:08:29 by Thomasphoto60
Now, This Is Spotting! posted Sat Dec 21 2002 04:37:06 by Speedbird244