JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Posted (5 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2993 times:
I have seen a couple of (very good) images recently where cockpit crew members have been leaning out of open windows cleaning and waving, etc., and these actions have been highlighted (and why not?) in the accompanying text. Now that's fine by me (just so the photog's whose images I'm referring to don't think I'm picking at them here) and I recently uploaded such an image (with a friendly co-pilot leaning heavily out waving), only to be pretty rudely slated by both a screener and several others in the forums claiming I was 'hit-seeking'. Another screener mentioned that including such captions is a big no-no, however another one THEN said that it was sometimes down to screener discretion. Now come on guys, it's either allowed or it's not, end of! None of this 'screener discretion' crap. I quite rightly feel a little miffed about this, as I've always seen a comment as just a comment and I, like the others whose pictures I've viewed, certainly wasn't intending to hit-seek. Now can someone please explain why I was publicly grilled in the forums please? And if any other photog's have been grilled about their images would they please let me know so I don't feel alone on this one?
Jetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2691 posts, RR: 35 Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2937 times:
I have no problem with pics of pilots waving or what not. It shows a side of the pilots that not everyone knows about, some people think they all are up-tight working stiffs mad all the time over bad layovers and low pay. But this shows the other side that they are happy at what they do. I don't see what the big deal is, I mean if it's a close up shot and the pilot could be recognized easily, I would probably pull the photo, but a shot zoomed out a little bit I think is fine.
I don't really like the excuse of "hit-seeking", the Remarks section is to make remarks about the photo. Could be anything from "Note the new, off-color gear doors" to "Waving pilot". Both still attract people's clicks, but I wouldn't decribe either as hit-seeking.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2926 times:
I agree entirely, although I'm sure there are people sad enough to use captions to increase hits. When I uploaded my image, my comment was something like, "Note the first officer waving out of the open cockpit window..." - an innocent comment and, at the time, I had no idea folks would turn the tables and start accusing me of hit-seeking. And to be quite honest, so what if people do it to hit-seek? It isn't exactly cheating people into opening the picture is it?
Another thing that annoyed me a bit is the photo was uploaded with no mention from the screener that the caption had been removed - giving me an explanation as to why such action was taken may have answered my question soonerer, and would have almost certainly prevented my forum grilling.
I say again; this type of comment IS EITHER ALLOWED OR NOT! If an issue this narrow is down to individual screener discretion then I give up. What next? Allow blurry images at screener discretion? I understand that screeners are different but something as gaping as this should be addressed in a common manner.
Spencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1631 posts, RR: 18 Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2675 times:
Karl, you said you aren't "hit-seeking". Fair enough, I'll take you at your word for that, and that's fine. But at the end of the day, if you or anyone else wants to try and get more hits, then what's the problem?! I really enjoy seeing my pictures doing well. If the caption/remark has helped in that fact then who cares?
However, obvious or down right idiotic comments shouldn't be allowed really, such as "I caught the strobe"! Man the does my head in that one! (Better check I've never used that one actually, haha!!)
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2597 times:
OK, thanks everyone.
I was not trying to hit-seek but my biggest gripe is the fact that there are clearly many, many pictures getting through with comments similar to mine, yet mine was axed and I was ticked off by the screeners and subsequently bashed in the forums - and I find it odd that the team is staying silent here.
What I'm outlining here is the double-standards exercised by the screening team, and am asking for this issue to be addressed.
Karl, if you take an issue to the forum and get bashed, then there are only two possibilities, regardless of the issue: either those who bash you are wrong, or you deserved it. You can blame someone for something, but you cannot make him responsible for your actions.
I'd say concentrate on the issue you have with the comments and also, don't take things so personal.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2560 times:
It makes no real odds to me but sometimes this site seems so hypocritical - how can one bloke get grilled so much for asking why his comment was removed then the next man not a peep?
My forum post was very polite and a few individuals immediately jumped in and accused me of hit-seeking, which was not the original intention. Some of the posts were very narrow-minded and plain rude.
OK, a comment dropped from an image, no problem, but when a screener goes out of his way to tell you you can't include such comments then turns a blind eye to something similar isn't exactly consistency is it?
What I'm basically saying is that, unless vulgar or completely inappropriate, all comments should be left alone (in my opinion). Even if I was hit-seeking what realistically would be wrong in that? I don't see the deal here. It's not as though you're deceiving someone into looking at your image - they will either look or not bother, simple as that.
EZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4943 posts, RR: 26 Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2467 times:
It's not like there is a false statement in the comment. What's the point of allowing comments if those comments (assuming they are not false or vulgar) will be allowed only at the screeners will?
By the way, so what if it was a hit seeking comment? what evil is done by having such a comment?
Sulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2032 posts, RR: 34 Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2423 times:
A while ago (I don't recall the date) there was a declaration regarding comments about 'waving pilots' that seemed slightly silly and irrational. One can never tell the origin of these decisions, but frequently somebody with some pull takes a dislike to certain behaviour (maybe just one photographer's penchant for attention-grabbing comments) and before you know it it's policy.
Caption writing is a skill and some do it very well (Michael Brazier springs to mind) and an interesting comment can attract a click on even basic images.
I wouldn't worry about it.
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 966 posts, RR: 33 Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2420 times:
Karl, for what it's worth I think it is mindless censorship BUT what you have to remember is that there is a team of screeners here. Some will interpret the rules about comments differently from others. Some will even struggle with English, It's just one of those things everyone has to live with.
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2374 times:
Not the most helpful of comments I'm afraid Andres. I understand this clause but surely this is A.net's get-out clause if they come across a rude or totally inappropriate comment? After all, I dare say even these would be a struggle to remove without such a clause in place.
The police have a clause saying, "We can search, arrest and detain you if we wish" but if it happened to you would you not demand a reason?
Sorry to say but the input so far from the team (no disrespect) has been unsatisfactory - pointing out something I already know is pointless and evades the real issue.
Still, I don't believe my ultimate question is going to be answered anytime soon and I may therefore make things easier and not bother with captions in future in case they are deemed 'too obvious'. After all, I wouldn't want to be accused of hit-seeking now would I.....?
Mod's, unless anyone else wants to add to this feel free to lock the thread.