Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3011 posts, RR: 59 Posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2676 times:
I thought it best to start a new thread on this matter, though it relates very much to Tim’s current thread about creative images on the site (apologies to some – you are going to have to read a bit here!).
Tim was encouraging photographers to upload more creative images, as these prove very popular on the site and he is keen to see more. However, in response to this - and as we often see described in some other threads - some photographers appear reluctant to push the boundaries of motive, at least in part due to some form of ‘anxiety’ about this. I feel we need to understand this issue better, and the way it links with the upload process.
Why are so many people wary of uploading photos that they think might be rejected (often for reasons of motive - that most subjective of criteria)? For me the answers are pretty clear – some people are more sensitive to the feeling that they have ‘failed’ in some way; or are being judged as ‘not good enough’. Many resent the negative impact that rejections can have on them directly – the key practical one being a reduction in available upload slots, due to the rules about acceptance ratios.
I think two elements of the site are now in slight conflict – the desire to control the uploading process so the queue is not flooded, and the desire to promote more creative photographs being uploaded. The acceptance ratio was instituted at a time when the queue was enormous (near two weeks, if my memory is correct) and was an attempt to control uploading behaviour. i.e. more opportunities to upload for those with a proven track record of acceptances. The in-built assumption being more acceptances = better understanding of the rules = less likelihood of uploading poor quality shots that will waste screening time. So - a photographer is directly rewarded for getting photos accepted, and directly punished for having photos rejected. You don’t need to be a psychologist to know that reward and punishment are prime ways to influence behaviour.
This system inhibits the likelihood that some will take risks – because a risk that ‘fails’ (i.e. a photo is rejected) will have punitive consequences (i.e. loss of upload slots or, if not that, just feeling bad about it). Also we can’t ignore that A.net is a male dominated culture, and thus there often a competitive element around, where statistics play a key role - acceptance ratios, respect ratings, tables of top uploaders, tables of people with the most views, most photos on the site etc etc.
So if you have bothered to read down to here, my question: is there a better way to achieve the goals the acceptance ratio was set up to control, without stifling the confidence of some photographers to be creative and stretch the boundaries of the site? Is this the best system? Once you have proved your competence (e.g. had more than ‘x’ photos accepted) should the acceptance ratio be dropped and everyone just has a flat number of upload slots?
Creative photos have a high degree of subjectivity with them – unfortunately statistics are objective (though open to some interpretation). I think the two don't sit together very comfortably.
Looking forward to reading members’ views and suggestions on this issue.
Aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1710 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2662 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Interesting points you have stated in your post,I know alot care more about acceptance rate and fear the creative shots knocking their acceptance rate down but a suggestion for creative shots encouragement is to allow a option in uploading page to tick a box saying its a creative shot and screeners can see this when they screen it.
Now screeners can review the images and judge whether its creative enough and if people abuse ticking the option than get it rejected and counts as a rejection,now if screeners reject what they think is a creative image it which doesnt effect uploaders rejection rate.
It may increase the que as uploaders go through years of images looking for creative images.
TimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 66 Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2662 times:
Quoting Psych (Thread starter): So if you have bothered to read down to here, my question: is there a better way to achieve the goals the acceptance ratio was set up to control, without stifling the confidence of some photographers to be creative and stretch the boundaries of the site? Is this the best system? Once you have proved your competence (e.g. had more than ‘x’ photos accepted) should the acceptance ratio be dropped and everyone just has a flat number of upload slots?
I knew there was a question in there somewhere.
If the acceptance ratio really is the problem here, i.e. with regard to uploading creative images, then I'm sure something can be worked out. I do want to establish that that is the problem though, because as you point out the acceptance ratio and related upload slots do serve a purpose. Unfortunately not everyone -even those with many images in the db- produces constant high quality images.
Personally I dont give a rats ass about my acceptance ratio, and no that is not because I dont get any rejections because I do It's just that I never have more than 4-5 in the queue max at one time. Especially with the low queue acceptance ratio is just not an issue.
I do agree that the two do not sit comfortably together, if only in principle. Urging people to upload risky stuff and then having them see their acceptance ratio drop is ahrdly an incentive to upload more
PRM From Ghana, joined Apr 2002, 348 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2635 times:
Well, on the upload page a ''creative box'' selection could be added and ticked much as you do currently for ''dusk'' or ''night'' shots. For shots with the creative box ticked, a script could then be written such that rejections do not count in your acceptance statistics and therefore do not affect your upload slots quota, thereby encouraging more creative uploads from those worried about acceptance ratios.
This may lead to some abuse of what is deemed creative however, and you may get a glut of low quality ''creative'' uploads So, perhaps the screener should also have the ability to un-select the ''creative box'' during the screening process if it is not deemed to be an appropriate selection (subjective but probably manageable to assess within healthy tolerance limits), and then the rejection would count in the statistics and disuade such uploads in the future.
Acceptance ratios don't really worry me either, but I'm sure it does to many! Alternatively, photographs of aircraft seats are very popular and less challenging to accomplish, so there's an alternative solution if popular images are ANET's main objective
Damien846 From UK - England, joined Dec 2006, 659 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2607 times:
I don't this the question of what is creative and what is not will ever be answered?
I think it's just a case of "have a go", making sure the quality is there!
Maybe it's a question of is rejection a bad thing? Some may not like rejection, and are worried about there acceptance ratios, but like Tim, who loads as many shots as there limits? As much as i don't like getting shots rejected, it does mean I learn a little bit more about my own screening! And therefore hopefully raise my own standards, and makes me want to try better next time.
I have just had a night shot from Heathrow rejected, (for level) looking at the re-edit its much better! its also a little bit creative, but i did not feel that it needed pointing out in any way, either a tick box or a comment.
So to try and get to my point, if you thinks its creative, give it a try. The only person who is going to know if its gets rejected is you?
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2598 times:
I was closely following the 'other' thread (well, most of it!) and your take on it is interesting. I'm wary of uploading creatives but am not particularly worried about my ratio dropping. In fact due to the terrible weather I am at present sifting through my older images (which as we all know are often harder to get accepted), a few of which have already been rejected. In most cases the workflow for your older images is different, and a correction simply involves more USM or a curve alteration. Last week my ratio dropped significantly (luckily it's respectable again now!), however the way I look at it is that I could be doing one of two things while I'm not currently taking any new pictures...
a) Not uploading, leaving my ratio as respectable and twiddling my thumbs until such time as a sunny day comes along and I can get back out.
b) Get stuck in to some old files while waiting for the sun and risk my ratio going down a bit.
Now I prefer to do the latter, which I consider more productive. Quite where my reluctance to upload creatives comes from I don't really know. I guess I'm just not happy with the current situation, and that nobody is able to clarify what constitutes 'creative'. I know it's difficult but I have a hard time grasping the concept of rejection simply because someone somewhere doesn't like it. The technical perfection of the image doesn't appear to play a part in the consideration process either.
At present I have ONE creative image in the database, which just happens to be the first of that kind I uploaded. I took the gamble and it paid off, however I continued to upload a string of creatives, with discouraging results.
On a final note, I to be honest like the acceptance ratio/queue rules as they are - just reward for those taking the time to fully pre-screen their own images. Of course you'll probably need to ask me this question again if my ratio ever drops to a shameful level!!!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3011 posts, RR: 59 Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2536 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6): ....you'll probably need to ask me this question again if my ratio ever drops to a shameful level!!!
In many respects you have (wittingly or otherwise) illustrated one of my points in this comment . The implicit assumption in your choice of words is that a low acceptance ratio indicates someone who is a poor photographer, or has a deficit in skills. i.e. they should be 'ashamed'. In fact, they may be a great photographer who simply has the guts to upload a lot of wacky motives that the screeners find too difficult to accept. But they keep on trying.
Throughout my A.net career I have been able to maintain a pretty high acceptance ratio. In many respects this is something that provides me with some solace on those lonely nights in front of the computer screen , but on other occasions I feel differently. Another way of viewing it is that it might be evidence of a reluctance to try out different things for fear of wrecking that nice healthy acceptance ratio. Such a conservative (with a small 'c') attitude is not necessarily something of which we should be proud. I would be much happier not giving a damn!
I am convinced there are many people who think like this. I think A.net has promoted the notion that a high acceptance ratio is something to be worked towards and is a completely good thing. Of course, in many respects this is true, but I don't believe it gives the whole story.
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3281 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2480 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6):
b) Get stuck in to some old files while waiting for the sun and risk my ratio going down a bit.
I opted for this an did quite well. Had 16 of 19 shots accepted!
Paul, I agree with your suggestion of having a flat number of upload slots after a certain number of acceptances. I know that I, myself, care quite a bit about acceptance ratio but not for pride reasons. When I go spotting, which is like once every few months at best, I come back with like 30 images I wish to upload. If I could only do 5 at a time it would take forever, so I like having more slots available.
However, if the acceptance ratio rule was dropped for a flat rate, I think I can confidently say I would not start lowering my own standards for submissions. I would still upload the same shots quality-wise. And I think the same can be said of most people here. Therefore, maybe using a rather high limit, like 250 shots, would be sufficient.
For example, keep the same acceptance ratio rules as are currently enforced in the hopes that people "learn" which shots to upload, and once they show competence by having 250 shots accepted, give them a fixed upload slot number of 20 images or so. The argument here will be that SOME people will abuse this. Would it then be possible to have a "provisional acceptance ratio"? We could make a condition that, if you are at that flat rate and your acceptance ratio drops below 50% for your last 20 uploads, you are limited to 5 uploads until it gets back over 50%, at which point your flat rate is re-instituted.
I don't know how easy it would be to implement, but it could work quite well, I think.
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2475 times:
My ratio took a quite a fall towards the end of last year, because not only did I try new motives but I also uploaded a series of much older shots, many taken when my knowledge of the (other) camera was more limited than it is now. A low ratio I don't think is ever good as such but I agree 110% that a low ratio doesn't mean an inferior photog. I wouldn't class myself as anywhere near excellent but on the other hand I'd have to say I'm not useless either - and in line with what you say my ratio at times has been very poor. I wasn't ashamned as such (that was my light-hearted end to my rant!) but then again I wasn't over the moon either.
When I'm bored and the weather's bad I'll still be uploading those old, awkward shots, and at the same time I'll still be risking my ratio by doing so. To be honest it really doesn't bother me getting them rejected from time to time, I just don't fancy getting rejections for technically sound shots which may just be 'outside A.net's acceptable borders'.
When the rules become more concise (which will come with the experiences of others) I'll probably be more willing to explore new motives. Until then it's sunny side-ons for me, which incidently are my personal favourites anyway.
I suppose photog's here will be divided - there are those whose primary aim is to get the best sunny side-on shot possible (and who will only be creative when an opportunity within a normal window arises), and there are those who will carefully dedicate a lot of time to being in the right place - at the right time - for that perfect, one-off creative sunset shot.
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1291 posts, RR: 30 Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2387 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6): b) Get stuck in to some old files while waiting for the sun and risk my ratio going down a bit.
Now I prefer to do the latter,
Although the acceptance criteria are somewhat lower for very old scans, it is still hard to get them accepted! But, when they are accepted it is most rewarding! I recently made top of last 24 hrs with an old slide scan, but - if I remember correctly - it was my 5th or even 6th upload attempt of that shot . For most scans, however, it remains a fight against the grain and unsharpness... This has - of course - an effect on the acceptance ration (mine is fluctuating between about 80 and 30 %). Although I am not really bothered about the ratio, it does have an effect when the available upload slots decrease (although I almost never use my complete set of slots).
Another aspect, which to me might have an impact on upload behaviour, is the "double rule". This is a limiting factor which has an impact on upload behaviour. Im my own case, I sometimes still try to upload a shot (even when knowing it is a double according to A.net standard rules) when I think it is a different enough motiv (which I then try to explain to the screeners). I have been successful once (via appeal), but in most cases, the results are a "NOA Double". If one would apply this to the possibility to upload a creative shot, it would either mean that the creative would be classed as a double if the photographer has already a shot of the same aircraft, taken on the same day and - because of the light conditions - mostly from the same side. On the other hand, if the creative shot would have been uploaded first and on condition of acceptance, this would prevent same photographer uploading another "normal" shot of the same aircraft. Given that most photgraphers don't like rejections, it is most likely that the normal shot is always uploaded first. Afterwards, knowing the double rule, it prevents uploading another shot.
So, if the double rule could be relaxed (i.e. creative shots - and in my case rare & oldies - not being added up), it could bring more interesting shots into the database.
Strikeeagle From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 12 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2341 times:
I do think myself that the acceptance ratio system can result in reluctance to upload
perhaps it should not worry us to that extent , however in reality i think it does as a
lower ratio can make one feel more negative and therefore perhaps less likely to take
a chance etc , But even if one has a respectable score built up a few set backs can
make quite a difference so again caution springs to mind it can be a mental barrier
and hold one back , but i guess confidence also plays a big part too here and i have
many times uploaded images feeling ok about them only to find that hours later that
confidence has gone and i end up deleting them and certainly i think the ratio score
does influence my actions in this .
Spencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1631 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2314 times:
Paul and all.
I raised a point (in the other thread), is a creative rejection appeal-able? (Or moreover, is it worth it?).
Tim mentioned it kind of works on how well the screeners like a creative image. If the majority don't, then how will an appeal ever help? (An appeal can not change their minds from how they originally perceived it?)
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
As with any other rejection, you have the right to appeal, and the headscreeners will review it. We all know the system is not perfect, thus mistakes can and will happen, and appeals are there to correct them.
I honestly cannot say if you are going to have bigger/equal/smaller chances of having an appeal accepted if it's a regular or a creative image, but if you feel strongly about your picture and think it should be added nevertheless, a correctly worded appeal won't hurt!
At least I can say I have had a creative picture rejected and then accepted on appeal, so it works.
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3011 posts, RR: 59 Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2070 times:
Thanks to everyone for their input.
Although Jeff characteristically used fewer words than me, this point is crucial. For some, losing slots is experienced as punishment. Tim, in his related thread, wants the site to encourage experimentation and expansion of the boundaries. A process that 'punishes' won't help to achieve that goal.
Whilst I agree that the majority of experienced uploaders probably don't need all the available slots they have (especially if the queue is moving well), the number of slots you have (i.e. another A.net statistic) is a measure by which the site 'values' you.
There is no escaping the fact that these two 'motives' (if you will excuse the pun) are conflicting here.
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3281 posts, RR: 14 Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2021 times:
I don't know if my post got lost and skipped over since it was posted in quick succession, but I'm curious what you all think of my suggestion. As Paul said, the two ideas between keeping acceptance ratio and fixing slot number are differed, and I think my solution offers a good compromise for those who like to be rewarded with acceptance ratio and those who wish to see it eliminated.
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 23 Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1997 times:
Just thought I would add a new guy perspective, someone that has not been doing this for long.
I already find myself deleting or filing away shots that I think the screeners just would not like. Case in point, I sometimes connect my camera to a large flat screen TV at work and show off some unedited shots to my coworkers. At times they get excited about shots that I've basically written off already. I ask myself why don't I like that shot and they do? The simple answer is because I've already trained my eye to only like what I think the screeners would like or want to see. Basically, to the untrained eyes of my fellow coworkers, some shots that they think are great, I don't even bother editing and uploading because I believe (correctly or incorrectly) that the screeners wouldn't like that angle that the sun is hitting the fusealage, or a cast shadow in places, the particular background that the aircraft was shot against, or many of the same type A/C already in the DB, etc etc.
Leads me to believe that I may bias some of my decent shots because I'm simply trying to please the screeners, when really I should concentrate on taking a quality shot that simply pleases a regular person.
Having screeners judge creativity is not the best solution, IMO they should simply judge quality. Maybe the check box for a Creative submittal would indeed be best. The screener doesn't judge if it is creative enough or too much, simply if it is quality. All that being said, they do a fine job especially considering the difficulty of it. Thanks!
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4665 posts, RR: 27 Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1946 times:
I'm confused how people around here complain that "creative" cannot be judged or whatever, yet the suggestion to have a box for checking "creative" keeps popping up. How can it be categorized?
I think people are putting too much of a label on this creativity thing. Bottom line with this "creative" stuff is, think outside of the airliners.net box and experiment with some more interesting and unique shots. Really, in my opinion the only airliners.net rule being challenged by this creative stuff is motive. The screeners have opened the door for new opportunities and the screeners want to see us take advantage of it.
Now yes, the fact that we do get penalized for rejections does deter people (even myself) sometimes. Perhaps it could be set up that if a shot enters this process of having a large group of screeners determine if it's right for this site or whatever process was described in the other thread then the penalty on the acceptance ratio could be dropped. And that would be up to the screeners...
I don't know. I don't really see a solution unless radical changes are made to the system.
[Edited 2009-03-14 00:27:12]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.