JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 9 Posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3618 times:
Hi all,
Have dropped from a limit of 25 to 20 in the last half-hour or so. I guess the new queue limits have been applied?
Good for our newer members I suppose but seems a bit harsh on those of us who had a decent ratio but not so many shots in the database. Still, if it helps matters I'm all for it, although some advance warning would've been nice.
Dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 1952 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3617 times:
Looks like it Karl. If you click on the 'why' on the upload page for number of uploads permitted, it's all there. I can have 40 now without maintaining 90% acceptace ratio!! (not that I did very often).
Darren
Equipment: Canon EOS 50D & 350D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3605 times:
Quote: Good for our newer members I suppose but seems a bit harsh on those of us who had a decent ratio but not so many shots in the database. Still, if it helps matters I'm all for it, although some advance warning would've been nice
It's a shame that the people that upload high quality shots have to suffer at the behest of people that continue to rant about how they can't get photos accepted here. I don't feel my uploads should suffer now by 5 slots since I take the time to learn PS and get good captures. I usually support this site but I have to say I think they got this one wrong. I think by not using the acceptance ratio as criteria and just using # of pics will only result in more mundane shots being uploaded and less risk taking.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1710 posts, RR: 15 Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3595 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Ah, but for that brief period of time when I had 30 slots a month ago... I've been mostly around 20 slots so I went from 20 to 15. It'll be a long time until I get 500.
That being said I am totally OK with losing some slots in order to make the system a bit more fair/what have you. Let's see how it works!
edit: Nick, if anything, having permanent slots means I won't be afraid to upload stuff I thought was interesting but on the margin before. It certainly lifts a bit of the dampers off.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9266 posts, RR: 77 Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3594 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
And there you have it. No matter what is done someone will complain.
Chuck9941 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 159 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3594 times:
Didn't realize it would be changing either. My limit was dropped by 2 but I've never maxed out my limit so not much lost. At least this way I might be tempted to try some more creative shots.
Guess we will see soon enough how it affects the queue volume
Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big Tylenol.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3589 times:
It has plus and minus points Darren. At the moment it's a minus for me but probably a plus for you. At least I can upload what I consider creatives without worrying about my ratio plunging. Was however always a challenge to try and get your ratio as high as possible - built a sense of achievement and I was well on the way to smashing my all-time high! After 1000 shots there's not a great deal to work towards now in my opinion.
I think some advance warning (a few days say?) would've been appropriate so those like me with a decent ratio but under 1000 in the database could've prepared and filled our allocations.
I'm a little disappointed that, of the two most popular options, this one was chosen. I much preferred the idea of having slots 'on the side' (based on 'regular' accpetances) which could be used to try the more 'daring' images without affecting ratios.
Still, we asked for change and we got it. Let's see how this pans out. Initially disappointing for a few I dare say but it could end up being beneficial. I personally think it's a bit generous to those with under 99 shots online.
Moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1792 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3575 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 2): I think by not using the acceptance ratio as criteria and just using # of pics will only result in more mundane shots being uploaded and less risk taking.
But how many times have you heard people say they don't want to upload a "creative" shot because if it's rejected, it will hurt their acceptance ratio?
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3896 posts, RR: 31 Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3556 times:
No complaints here. I never have more than 3 or 4 in the queue at one time anyway. Always afraid of an entire batch getting rejected... Â Doing just a couple at a time made me a little more careful.
I was a little shocked though...I need 296 more accepted before I get those 5 slots back. Ouch... Oh well, they were wasted slots anyway. I could lose another 5 slots and it wouldn't affect my uploading habits. But I imagine this will affect many, and they probably wont be happy with the change.
About the old way. I never worried about my ratio having an effect on my slots. I just use it as something to measure my performance. My ratio has improved greatly over the past year and I will still monitor it in the same way I always have.
[Edited 2009-11-05 13:08:02]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1710 posts, RR: 15 Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3555 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I think, overall, it's a good change. The hit that some take (going from 20 to 15 slots, for instance) is minor overall when most people probably stand to gain slots. I might have kerjiggered the transitions a bit more (going from 100 to 500 to 1,000 could have been broken up with two more steps) but overall it's pretty fair I think.
While Nick is right that less risks will be taken, it's because a lot of the "risk" has been removed from the equation. It's much less risky to upload now. So shots that may have been "risky" in the past are no longer risky - you stand to lose nothing by uploading them now, other than some time spent in the queue and a reject email.
That doesn't make what Nick thinks as risky shots any less INTERESTING, though, and without the risk, interesting stuff, even if rejected, will probably increase in the queue. Because in the end, only you control what you upload. Go nuts and submit interesting stuff.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3550 times:
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 7): But how many times have you heard people say they don't want to upload a "creative" shot because if it's rejected, it will hurt their acceptance ratio?
So? There is just as many that won't try other type of shots like night and cabin shots because of this but it's a cop out. If you look at most with low acceptance ratios it's not because they upload creative shots that have a higher risk of rejection it's because they don't pre-screen, don't try to improve their skills and use the autopsy approach by just uploading everything without limiting their uploads to their better captures with good edits. Which is fine but why should others be effected?
Whisperjet From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 521 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3529 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6): I think some advance warning (a few days say?) would've been appropriate so those like me with a decent ratio but under 1000 in the database could've prepared and filled our allocations.
Sorry, but that's the worst thing that could have been done. Just imagine everybody tried to fill up his slots within a few days...
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3505 times:
Quoting Dvincent (Reply 3): if anything, having permanent slots means I won't be afraid to upload stuff I thought was interesting but on the margin before. It certainly lifts a bit of the dampers off
I agree. At least I can boundary-push now!
Quoting Whisperjet (Reply 12): Sorry, but that's the worst thing that could have been done. Just imagine everybody tried to fill up his slots within a few days...
I don't know. Those with proven records could've filled their slots if they stood to lose, while newbies would have perhaps held off until the changes. A case of cancelling out. Relative newcomers are certainly going to fill their boots now anyway so a swollen queue is inevitable I think. As a result (for better or worse, I don't know) I doubt there'll be as many images from the older hands in the stack. Again, I think this new system is too generous to newcomers.
I don't think ultimately this will be an unfair system, although it's going to initially hit those with good ratios but with under 1000 images. It's a Robin Hood-type affair - robbing the rich to give to the poor, which I don't entirely agree with but hey...
It gives newbies a chance but to the detriment of the seasoned folks (and I'm not saying I'm a seasoned guy) - my hard-earned slots have been taken away and awarded to someone else.
Whether we'll see a huge queue increase I don't know, and it remains to be seen whether the quality of shots in the queue (not quality of accepted) will take a dive. I'm willing to give this a shot but I really hope it doesn't lead to a dip in quality or a totally out-of-control queue.
Look at it one way - this system works at 'another place' so perhaps best not to be too hasty!
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9266 posts, RR: 77 Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3500 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Karl - I get the sense you would not agree with us either way.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3896 posts, RR: 31 Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3489 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 13): Again, I think this new system is too generous to newcomers.
Wait, wait, WAIT a minute here. Wasn't the argument that pushed for this change that the old system was too harsh on the newcomers?!
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3483 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 14): You are a very vocal, and very minority, opinion.
Keep that in mind
It has ups and downs - I never said I wouldn't get used to it. In fact I've said several times above that it'd be interesting to see if it pans out okay.
When I lobbied for change I was a voice for quite a few people and stated at the time that, of the two systems discussed, I preferred the other. I also stated that I would go with the flow - which isn't to say that I agreed with it. Most seemed to prefer the revised method activated today, which meant I had to put my own opinions aside.
As for being vocal, I don't see any issue with it unless it's abusive or threatening. I'd like to feel as though I've played a part - however small - in this community.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4977 posts, RR: 52 Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3479 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 13): At least I can boundary-push now!
That is the part that scares me, or at least makes me think it might scare the screeners.
I hope they don't get inundated with thousands of badly lit, poorly composed images under the guise of creativity.
The forum is already full of threads from people that can't or won't take responsibility for their own image making, now that burden will likely shift to the screeners... I hope not.
Remember folks, self screen and be your own harshest critic.. only upload your best.
Having said all that I applaud the move, the team responded to the community, now the community must act responsibly
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6): Was however always a challenge to try and get your ratio as high as possible - built a sense of achievement and I was well on the way to smashing my all-time high!
You can continue to see that as a challenge.. and should.
Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Conoramoia From Italy, joined Oct 2007, 482 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3467 times:
Are you guys blind?
It means hat there will be no more moans and groans about borderline images,acceptence ratios AND there will be more variety because we've all seen it were one or two pages have been taken up by a photographer that has decided to upload 25 photos at once of all 737's at an airport in one day!
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3458 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 15): Wasn't the argument that pushed for this change that the old system was too harsh on the newcomers?!
I personally never considered it harsh on newcomers. I know a lot of newcomers (new'camers' actually ) who've progressed here and whose slots are/were up into double figures. Not that long ago I was new here and if I can manage it without moaning that it's too hard anyone can, as I'm still completely useless with Photoshop.
Making it slightly easier for newbies was an issue brought up a lot and it was a majority thought so when I was a sort of 'spokesman' the other week I had to lobby for it. I didn't however think that to accommodate this we'd have to get tougher on the more experienced folks.
I will say again, I'm a little surprised how quickly it's sprung up, but I'm willing to put my initial impressions aside and see how things develop. I may be quite surprised and I hope I am.
The team seem surprised by some initial moans but surely they knew they weren't going to please everyone in one fell swoop? I urge the community to indeed express first thoughts but to wait to pass final judgement until we see the new system up, running and influencing.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3458 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 17): I hope they don't get inundated with thousands of badly lit, poorly composed images under the guise of creativity.
Of course they will, you just threw the acceptance ratio out the window. What do you think is going to happen? Bigger queue with less pre-screened shots.
Quoting Conoramoia (Reply 18): because we've all seen it were one or two pages have been taken up by a photographer that has decided to upload 25 photos at once of all 737's at an airport in one day!
So what is wrong with that? You forget how this hobby started? If a guy lives near LAS and can't travel what does he do? Not upload?
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 751 posts, RR: 30 Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3452 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6): After 1000 shots there's not a great deal to work towards now in my opinion.
Karl - leaves you less worry about ratio and more time to work on killer shots, right?
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 13): I agree. At least I can boundary-push now!
But, good job by the powers at be that are obviously trying to make changes for the better. Kudos for them for listening to people's issues and doing something.
I would hope that IF the queue time goes from 1 week +/- a day or two to 2-3 weeks, that we would simply re-visit this change to continue to improve the process. I have faith that this would happen.
As of now, for me, I would not worry as much about uploading creative or risky shots and how it impacts my slot allocation. However, I will continue to use pre-screen threads and get other members input / self screen prior to uploading.
And like others have said, just because I have the slots, doesn't mean I'm going to use them.
Thanks guys,
Ron
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3447 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 17): I hope they don't get inundated with thousands of badly lit, poorly composed images under the guise of creativity
I fear this may happen but we don't yet know. Similar systems work effectively elsewhere. I personally don't mind (too much) a longer queue so long as the quality of acceptances is maintained. Someone can indeed throw loads of poorly-lit images in the queue and clain creative but after so many rejections surely an individual will give up? Or at least reconsider? Let's face it, you still need acceptances to build your slot allocation. Longer queue no doubt but the same quality and perhaps more genuine boundary-pushing shots from new photog's.
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 20): So what is wrong with that? You forget how this hobby started? If a guy lives near LAS and can't travel what does he do? Not upload?
Not really thought about this a lot but good point, as a friend pointed out last week.
Not so much wrong but it can be very boring to see 20 odd pictures of (example) a ryanair taxing in overcast conditions.
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 20): You forget how this hobby started?
Certainly not for a.net and to upload 20 odd pics.
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 20): Of course they will, you just threw the acceptance ratio out the window. What do you think is going to happen? Bigger queue with less pre-screened shots.
Yes, but it just to seconds to reject an images if its that bad.If its borderline I can imagine that screeners would spend an extra minute at it or ask for a second opinion..right?
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3434 times:
Quoting RonS (Reply 21): However, I will continue to use pre-screen threads and get other members input / self screen prior to uploading
More attention paid to the pre- and post-screening threads could effectively prevent the queue from getting insanely long. New folks with newly-awarded slots could be actively encouraged to make full use of the various aspects of the photog forum.
I know this sounds harsh but if an individual with, say, 2 -11 shots accepted starts to abuse the system constantly with bad or misleading images, and this persists, perhaps some sort of polite generic warning can be issued. Too many such warnings and your queue limit is frozen for a certain period of time.
Edit: In fact, slot abolition if someone starts flooding the queue with bad images should cover everyone, irrespective of how many previous acceptances they have.
Karl
[Edited 2009-11-05 14:21:54]
25 Dvincent: Don't forget that, at least to us in the public, we don't know the total allocation of slots and whether or not they shifted up or down. Given that s
26 NIKV69: That shot would probably not get accepted so non issue. That is not what you said. You said many shots of a 737. You do realize that it was the 50mm
27 StealthZ: I am going to go out on a limb here.. whist wearing a flame suit!! More attention learning the craft, more attention to the process both before and af
28 Silver1SWA: Karl, there is nothing wrong with being vocal. Speaking out is key to making things happen. However we have to be smart about it and stay consistent.
29 Jetmatt777: Some simple arithmetic. Let's say it takes 30 seconds (conservative number) to reject an obviously bad picture. Let's also say by the end of this wee
30 Conoramoia: I understand how it started, but what I said was that it wasn't started purely for uploading some 20 pics of the same type of plane,airline,location(
31 JakTrax: Yes, good point. I hope however that we won't see a dramatic increase in bad shots clogging up the queue. If 70% of the queue can be instantly disreg
32 Cpd: I'm not really bothered by the new limits. I've gained a few slots - but I rarely upload any more than 3 or 4 images at a time. So I won't make use of
33 Chuck9941: Now I'm going to go out on a limb here... at least with my thinking if I have a bunch or new upload slots and am working to increase my photos in the
34 Cpd: I don't know about that scenario. I've uploaded 4 at a time and usually 3 of them get through provided I've done a reasonable job of the photo and pro
35 RonS: Ahh, Ryan...the voice of reason. Just chill out and relax. Give the change some time and see how it goes. Ron
36 LOCsta: i just filled all my slots with blurry, backlit side-on's with the noses cut off Can't wait for them to be rejected so I can do it again! Seriously th
37 GPHOTO: Karl, The team have ways of dealing with persistant abusers and are capable of telling the difference between those who abuse the system and those wi
38 Bruce: I dont really have any complaint with it but how does it differ now than before? What were the old limits? Bruce
39 NZ107: I must say this new uploading system is different.. But the limit might just be to stop people from racking up plenty of rejections. That's my feeling
40 Fly-K: For me personally, no complaints, I always have a limit of 40 now, whereas it would drop to 35 or even 30 when my acceptance ratio went down. Now I ca
41 Raedervision: The nice thing about change is you can change back if it doesn't work. I don't know what my acceptance ratio is and I don't even care. I push on the i
42 Zbot69: Hey Conor... was that some underhanded comment about my photos? Ha ha ha.... Wow... talk about hacking through a Gordian Knot... nice going guys. I'm
43 NIKV69: How original but the fact remains that photogs that worked hard to upload quality pics just got screwed for the sake of those who don't. I still am s
44 Eadster: It shows if anything that the site actually does listen to concerns of the people that make the site what it is. I can't see what difference it'll ma
45 Psych: Nik - I am starting to resent the use of language here - 'whining' really does have pejorative connotations. I will hold my hand up and say that I wa
47 Dendrobatid: Nice response from Paul too ! One facility that we have, one that we seldom use, is to warn or even ban someone who consistently submits images that
48 Viv: Please', let us give the new system a chance before rushing to judgement. Personally, I think it will be an improvement.
50 ThierryD: Guys, the system has been changed following a request by many to get more interesting shots into the db and to be fairer to newcomers. I don't think i
51 JakTrax: Indeed. If it fails we can go to plan B (the other system heavily-discussed when the changes were proposed), and should that fail plan C (revert back
52 AC888YOW: All I have to say is, wow. If one's ability to upload images being diminished by five per week (avg. screening turnaround) causes them so much grief,
53 Ivandalavia: REALLY GOOD IDEA Thanx all Airliners crew people
54 NIKV69: There are plenty that do. I used to upload in batches of 20 and I know some that did 30 and 40 etc.
55 Legoguy: I've been flickering between 5 and 10 picture limit for a while now, however I'm grateful to see I now have 10 positions, regardless up rejection rate
56 Granite: Thierry Ahem, you haven't seen the queue sometimes Regards Gary Watt - Granite Airliners.net Head Screener www.airliners.net http://twitter.com/airlin
57 Dvincent: I do, but not all the time. And then, I could upload 10 one day, and 10 the next day. That said, losing 5 slots does not bother me.
58 TACA300C: I welcome the new changes...thank you Anet team...keep it up.
59 Chukcha: Good move, screeners. I hope it'll give a break to the new photographers. I've been advocating the change from 2 slots to 5 fir the first 50 shots in
60 ThierryD: Ok, but in that case they'll be at 15 upload slots pretty fast anyway if the quality of their photos is adequate (if it isn't they don't deserve that
61 Chukcha: Something was brought up on another A.net related forum. Some photographers think that with the acceptance ratio gone, some of the thrill of the uploa
62 NZ107: Very hard. But IMO they didn't really need to increase the upload limit for those who have less than 10 photos on here.. 5 seems too much when you on
63 StealthZ: The acceptance ratio hasn't gone anywhere. The only thing that has changed is the direct link between acceptance ratio and upload slots. Getting your
64 Chukcha: No, but when not linked to anything, it becomes meaningless.
65 Silver1SWA: Not for everyone. Boosting my ratio is still something I will strive for as always. Like I said above, I never worried about upload slots. I pay atte
66 StealthZ: Does it really? Is that where we are in the 21st century, everything has to have a prize or reward. When I upload I like it when the acceptances impr
67 Chukcha: Maybe not. What you are saying does make sense. When once I reached 100% (which I wanted to do just once for the accomplishment sake), I thought that
68 Cpd: The acceptance ratio is still there, so you can, if needed - use it as your personal reward. To me, it's not that important. I'm driven to get my name
69 Chukcha: Thrilling was the gamble to put, say, a photo that might bring a 'motive' rejection, in the queue, risking losing the slots.
70 Cpd: Replace losing slots with the image going into the rejected list - surely that's good enough? I'm so far happy with changes that are occurring now. T
71 GPHOTO: I know what you mean, I think I was exactly the same, though I only ever made it to 98% acceptance (so far). For me, achieving some level or standard
72 Psych: Jim. I think you may have just written one of the best posts I have read around here for ages! Many congratulations. Paul
73 ThierryD: I second that; very well said! Thierry
74 Aussie18: Good to see some well thoughtful posts in this thread amongst the negativity being posted... Lets give the new system ago atleast before criticizing i
75 Codeshare: With or without the acceptance ratio makes no difference for me. However, for those who tried to get a better ratio it can be a setback. At least tryi
77 JakTrax: I've been pretty silent in this thread of late; just keeping watch from the corner of my eye, waiting to see what happens..... The queue doesn't seem
78 Ivandalavia: =============================================== Dear Karl Seems to me on this site you pursue Two Tasks - to load as much as possible photos and the
79 JakTrax: Ivan, I dare say I'm not alone in having one of my 'tasks' as uploading as many images as possible. Isn't that the idea? ??? I don't understand. Cheer
80 Codeshare: I believe Ivan meant 'writing dust' as 'making a lot of fuss about something'. Ks/codeshare
81 RonS: Oh karl writes a lot of dust! I'm going to use that one on my Fiance!
82 Chukcha: Karl, isn't it a bit early to jump to any conclusions?
83 Silver1SWA: Do you think every photographer is even aware of the change? I haven't seen much of an announcement other than this thread and the one sentence about
84 JakTrax: I suppose it lessens the impact and keep things subtle. Although at first I asked why it hadn't been widely broadcast I think in hindsight it was per
85 Jalap: That's the goal I'm working on myself lately and I have a very nice streak running, currently at 94 but 100 remains very achievable. This new limit s
86 Silver1SWA: Actually, now that I look...anyone notice the number of uploads over the past couple of days? Compare with the days preceding.. Yikes!
87 Dlowwa: Easy explanation: weekend. More time for uploading I guess. Check it out, it's a regular pattern. I guarantee you there won't be 1300+ uploads for to
88 NZ107: Since around when this thread was posted, it seems like the queue has just maintained 6000 pics.. Not doing a bad job of clearing the queue by the lo
89 Aussie18: Que has gone up about 800-1000 images in the last week,was around 5200 last week but now 62-6300,Guess in the coming days we'll see what the quality
90 Jalap: It has been steady around 5800 since the long summer queue was cleaned up.
91 JakTrax: Mark, Obviously no naming and shaming (don't want my name in this post unnecessarily!) but would you mind keeping us up-to-date on this, i.e. letting
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Doing just a couple at a time made me a little more careful.
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 521 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4977 posts, 
From Italy, joined Oct 2007, 482 posts, 
) who've progressed here and whose slots are/were up into double figures. Not that long ago I was new here and if I can manage it without moaning that it's too hard anyone can, as I'm still completely useless with Photoshop.
Printer friendly format 
