JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 9 Posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 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 6 days 20 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 6 days 20 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 6 days 20 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 6 days 20 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 6 days 20 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 6 days 20 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 6 days 19 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 6 days 19 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 6 days 19 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 6 days 19 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 6 days 19 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 6 days 19 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 6 days 19 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 6 days 19 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 6 days 19 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 6 days 19 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 6 days 18 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 6 days 18 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 6 days 18 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 6 days 18 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 6 days 18 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 6 days 18 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.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1710 posts, RR: 15 Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3426 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 22): 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.
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 some people had them taken away and others given some, it may wind up being a wash in the end.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3483 times:
Quoting Conoramoia (Reply 23): Not so much wrong but it can be very boring to see 20 odd pictures of (example) a ryanair taxing in overcast conditions
That shot would probably not get accepted so non issue.
Quoting Conoramoia (Reply 23): Certainly not for a.net and to upload 20 odd pics
That is not what you said. You said many shots of a 737. You do realize that it was the 50mm side on of different regis of much of the same type that started this hobby? So I don't know what you mean by odd?
Quoting Conoramoia (Reply 23): 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?
Either way you have set back all the progress made with screening times. In a bad way.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4977 posts, RR: 52 Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3469 times:
I am going to go out on a limb here.. whist wearing a flame suit!!
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24): More attention paid to the pre- and post-screening threads
More attention learning the craft, more attention to the process both before and after you press the shutter(or hold it down on Hi-Speed sequence!) is the real key.
I fear we are fostering a culture of reliance on the screening threads.
Just .02 worth.. if that!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3896 posts, RR: 31 Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3464 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 16): 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.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 19): 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.
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. We cannot be wishy-washy. Otherwise we will lose the attention of screeners and crew and they will just write us off as bitchers and moaners. Royal's comment shows they already feel that way to a degree. We should be happy they not only listened, but acted. That has been the most important thing for most of us...to be heard!
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 17): 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.
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 20): Bigger queue with less pre-screened shots.
I think the change is really just a re-allocation of slots. While beginners are gaining slots, which allows for the potential spamming of the queue with "junk", a large number of people particularly in the middle range (in terms of # of photos in the DB) have lost slots. So maybe it will balance out and the queue length will remain where it is.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Jetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2495 posts, RR: 42 Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3447 times:
Quoting Conoramoia (Reply 23): 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?
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 week the queue will grow by 1,000 obviously bad pictures. Based on it taking a minute to reject two bad pictures (30x2 = 60 sec), we can divide 1,000 by two and conclude it will take an extra 500 minutes of time to reject all of those bad pictures - an extra 8.34 hours. Now, those numbers are very generous, I am sure it takes longer than 30 seconds per each bad photo, and as well there will probably more than 1,000 more obviously bad pictures in the queue. The added time will be longer than 8 hours, and that is also assuming 24/7 365 at full speed ahead - Which we all know does not exist. Simple math even shows this will add some time to the queue.
For me, I went up from 2 queue slots to 10. I was at 28% (with 8 of my last 10 accepted on first try), and I was about to step into the 5 slots category (30%+). It does not really feel right for me to have these extra slots as I have not earned them yet. This new system is very socialist and it redistributes the fruits of the hard work of others to those who have not put forth the full effort and will power to improve their images and acceptance ratio. Even though this has affected me positively, I am still against it.
I believe we could have amended the previous system to working from Acceptance Ratio first priority and database numbers second to DB numbers first and acceptance ratio second priority.
We'll see what happens.
If you're going to act like a turd, go lay in the yard.
Conoramoia From Italy, joined Oct 2007, 482 posts, RR: 2 Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3448 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 26): That is not what you said. You said many shots of a 737. You do realize that it was the 50mm side on of different regis of much of the same type that started this hobby? So I don't know what you mean by odd?
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(etc.)
My point is that I'd prefer to see more variety.
Please don't take what I'm saying personally, But either way A.net's upload queue would still be long so therefore theres isn't that much to complain about!
I mean whats wrong with losing a couple of upload slots?.....I understand that maybe people are slightly annoyed because some slots were gone in an instant..but still....
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3435 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 28): So maybe it will balance out and the queue length will remain where it is
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 disregarded surely the team will find themselves spending too much time picking out admissible images? Too much wasted time if only a small percentage of images are admissible.
To be honest I hope I don't fall into the trap of uploading just anything, although hopefully I have enough experience here to know when a shot simply has no chance of working! Or at least I hope I have that sense.....
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4765 posts, RR: 49 Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3411 times:
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 the extra slots I get.
I just hope there won't be a flood of images that slows down the screening process.
Chuck9941 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 159 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3385 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 31): To be honest I hope I don't fall into the trap of uploading just anything, although hopefully I have enough experience here to know when a shot simply has no chance of working!
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 database and improve as a photographer do I really want to upload a bunch of shots just because I can? But lets think about it, if all those shots are grouped together in the queue and the same screener takes a look at them and lets say that 6 out of 10 are instant junk but 3 out of the 4 left might be going on borderline. What are the chances that those possible borderline pics might make it to the second round of screening if everything before has been junk? Everything is subjective and I'm pretty sure a borderline shot will look a lot worse when grouped with a bunch of bad shots that if it were grouped with 6 shots that are auto adds. Its just the way the mind perceives things, human nature, and in no way playing favorites as some would might argue the example to be.
And if a pattern of a ton of bad uploads is found to consistently come from someone where do you think benefit of the doubt will fall on that borderline shot?
Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big Tylenol.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4765 posts, RR: 49 Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3385 times:
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 processing. Now I'm not entirely like a machine, I do make errors occasionally.
If the image is okay, it'll get through in my experience. They don't tend to say, oh, the other image was bad, so we'll reject the other good ones - just for good measure.
Sometimes, I'll have images accepted that I didn't expect to get through. You can be surprised sometimes.
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 2): I don't feel my uploads should suffer now by 5 slots since I take the time to learn PS and get good captures.
Just live with it, like everyone else does. It's the rules. If you don't like the site, you can go elsewhere - nobody is forcing you to upload your images here. You are mentioning a lot of "I" things there. This isn't a democracy.
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 751 posts, RR: 30 Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3350 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 28): 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. We cannot be wishy-washy. Otherwise we will lose the attention of screeners and crew and they will just write us off as bitchers and moaners. Royal's comment shows they already feel that way to a degree. We should be happy they not only listened, but acted. That has been the most important thing for most of us...to be heard!
Ahh, Ryan...the voice of reason.
Just chill out and relax. Give the change some time and see how it goes.
Ron
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
LOCsta From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 298 posts, RR: 11 Reply 36, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3284 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
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 though, if the worst thing that happens is people can't card dump as much and the queue slows down a bit, whats wrong with that? At least maybe photos that do make it will start getting viewed again.
Besides, It's not like we're the ones who have to wade through all these crappy images that will supposedly flood the queue.
I definitely think this will help give people the peace of mind to upload more"risky" shots. If the downside is the screeners have to look at a bunch more below average photos I am willing to live with that.
GPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 784 posts, RR: 32 Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3239 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24): 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.
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 without malice, but whose ambition outstrips their current abilities. I hope that helps put your mind to rest on that one!
I think most of the Screeners time goes on those shots where they are not obviously poor nor obviously fantastic but somewhere in the middle. The ok shots, the 'should-we-shouldn't-we-accept shots'. Combine that level of 'acceptable' quality images with uploaders who are regular contributors and that is where a big chunk of time might be going. As an ordinary and regular contributor, that means it is people like myself who are, collectively, probably responsible for a lot of Screener time being used. But I don't think they are too concerned about that - it's the job!
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4989 posts, RR: 21 Reply 38, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3234 times:
I dont really have any complaint with it but how does it differ now than before? What were the old limits?
Bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Birmingham, AL (BHM/KBHM) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 51 Reply 39, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3204 times:
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 anyway.. Mine just got increased.. And if I get another one up, it'll increase again.
Fly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3068 posts, RR: 56 Reply 40, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3176 times:
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 can even become more creative without that risk
Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
Raedervision From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 62 posts, RR: 15 Reply 41, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3171 times:
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 inside of the box and figure if I don't get a rejection now and then I'm not trying hard enough to get some interesting photographs on here. The people who want to upload interesting and creative shots need to make sure they follow good photographic and technical standards so the screeners don't start pulling their hair out. Photographs that are borderline should be submitted sparingly so a photographer can develope a feel for what will fly and what won't. I have uploaded a couple I thought had no chance in a million but here they are. I am better for it and hope you are too. Jim
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 reading some of these complaints... they don't seem particularly well thought out. Neither were the alternatives that were suggested. Neither were the suggestions that A.net "do nothing."
If you carefully consider all the variables, and there are many, you must conclude this is the best option. I've always looked at this issue from the point of view of Incentives. This solution actually resolves a multitude of problems at once, without any additional bureaucracy. No better yet... A.net has actually simplified the upload process. And that's supposed to be a bad thing? This completely escapes me....
There may be room to tweak the upload limits depending on any major shifts in upload behavior, but that's minor tweaking compared to what you guys just did. Good going!
And once again... thanks to all the guys who offered their time and input in the prescreening thread!
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 43, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3095 times:
Quoting Cpd (Reply 34): Just live with it, like everyone else does. It's the rules. If you don't like the site, you can go elsewhere - nobody is forcing you to upload your images here. You are mentioning a lot of "I" things there. This isn't a democracy
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 shocked the site caved into the whining. Really shocked.
Quoting LOCsta (Reply 36):
I definitely think this will help give people the peace of mind to upload more"risky" shots.
In essence those "risky shots" need just as much thought to quality and editing as a side on does. So really all it has done is given people free reign not too.
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2204 posts, RR: 19 Reply 44, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3083 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 43): I still am shocked the site caved into the whining. Really shocked.
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 make. Less slots or not, people have different ideas on what they think are acceptable and what aren't. Limits will do stuff all for that.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2897 posts, RR: 64 Reply 45, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3063 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 43): I still am shocked the site caved into the whining.
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 was one who argued the case against the acceptance ratio as a 'motivator' for pushing boundaries. Not so much for myself (though I cannot deny I prided myself on a high acceptance ratio and hated - and always will - getting rejections) but because I know of a significant number of people who clearly have their behaviour negatively impacted as a result of the ratio. By this I mean they end up being motivated only to upload 'safe' images to 'protect' the ratio - and so not lose upload slots. Not an ideal position for the site in a growing 'marketplace'.
I fully understand the arguments in favour of the ratio and its impact on upload slots. For me I believe we found ourselves in a situation where the 'cons' of the system were starting to outweigh the 'pros' as far as where the site wants to develop. Surely this change of emphasis suggests to all clear thinkers that enough of the 'powers that be' also agreed with this argument to look at a change. They didn't simply 'cave in' to pressure. My years as a member here have not indicated to me that the site are quick to acquiesce to the least little provocation!
This does not mean that the new system is now cast in stone for ever. If this change results in the queue ballooning out of control with even more masses of poor quality images I am sure the site hierarchy will not be afraid to look at the process again. But I - for one - am very reassured to see the site taking account of its membership (not all admittedly - but a sizable number) and looking to make changes.
No decision that was going to be made would please everyone. If this change supports good quality photographers feeling more confident to upload different shots then it gets my full support.
Granite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5514 posts, RR: 72 Reply 46, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3059 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Chris
Excellent post.
Regards
Gary
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 17): 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.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1509 posts, RR: 67 Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3044 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting Psych (Reply 45): Nik - I am starting to resent the use of language here - 'whining' really does have pejorative connotations.
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 are considerably below our standards. Before anyone jumps down my throat, this is NEVER used for someone who is trying but even continually missing the mark even by quite a long way. It is however used when we get repeated submissions of images that are considerably below standards and where it is evident that the uploader has not even taken the trouble to check our standards out, the mobile phone shots of distant specks etc. I have often wished that we could share some of these images but it would be grossly unfair to do so, though they often have to be seen to be believed.
I hope that the removal of the acceptance rates does lead to more varied submissions, but that does not mean that we are going to accept them all, but it does leave us with more options.
If my memory serves me correctly, we have simply returned to about the upload limits that were in force before the acceptance rates came into play.
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 751 posts, RR: 30 Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3026 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 48): Please', let us give the new system a chance before rushing to judgement.
Another voice of reason. Ditto!
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 1986 posts, RR: 54 Reply 50, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3023 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
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 it hurts experienced uploaders, cause honestly, who uploads more than 10 shots in a batch regularly anyway!?
So why not give the new (old) system a chance before jumping to any conclusions.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 51, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3004 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 45): This does not mean that the new system is now cast in stone for ever
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 to how it was).
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 47): One facility that we have, one that we seldom use, is to warn or even ban someone who consistently submits images that are considerably below our standards
I didn't know this. Hopefully with the changes it won't need to be used more often.
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 47): but that does not mean that we are going to accept them all
This is hopefully what will keep the quality consistent. A larger queue is of course a pain but I was more concerned about a slip in the quality of accepted images. Thinking about it I don't think this was ever going to happen.
After my initial thoughts I think this new system is pretty good, although I still maintain that the allocation of slots to newbies is a little generous. It wouldn't have been so bad had it not been to the detriment of those with well-preserved ratios but looking at it another way every acceptance I get still allows for my allocation to grow. I'm not convinced that my enthusiasm will contunue after reaching the 'peak' of 1000 images and a straight 40 allowance - where does one go after that? It's all very well having an inpressive ratio to boast about but it was more of an incentive (for me) when I could use it to actually earn something. Basically one now gets the trophy and a pat on the back at 1000 shots and not a lot after that.
In summary, aside from a few minor flaws, I think this system is well-placed to spurn more creativity, which ultimately should benefit all.
AC888YOW From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 506 posts, RR: 1 Reply 52, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2982 times:
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, I think they might need to take a step back and reflect upon what's most important in life.
In the words of Allen Iverson: C'mon, we're talking about PICTURES here ...
Twenty uploads per week should be more than enough for anyone. I've had twenty-five or thirty slots or something for a couple of years now, and even after holidays, spottings trips to places like LAX, SXM, etc., I don't think I've ever exceeded ten in the queue at a time.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 54, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2907 times:
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 50): I don't think it hurts experienced uploaders, cause honestly, who uploads more than 10 shots in a batch regularly anyway!?
There are plenty that do. I used to upload in batches of 20 and I know some that did 30 and 40 etc.
Legoguy From Ireland, joined Jun 2006, 3284 posts, RR: 50 Reply 55, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2861 times:
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. It's encouraging to say the least, especially for the less experienced uploader.
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1710 posts, RR: 15 Reply 57, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2797 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 50): I don't think it hurts experienced uploaders, cause honestly, who uploads more than 10 shots in a batch regularly anyway!?
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.
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1907 posts, RR: 9 Reply 59, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2781 times:
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 the DB for a long time; at least this has been taken care of now.
Seems a bit unfair to some who lost their 5 slots; don't know if it was necessary but maybe this way screeners hope to balance out the increased workload.
Admittedly, the change doesn't affect me personally except that I've seem to have lost the stimulus to work towards 3,000 shots in the DB, but that may be a good thing .
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 many slots anyway ) and after a short while they may get 20.
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1907 posts, RR: 9 Reply 61, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2683 times:
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 uploading process will be gone, too, that it will now be too boring.
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 51 Reply 62, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2672 times:
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 61): Well, I guess you can never make everyone happy.
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 only have 3 photos on the db - the acceptance ratio could be used here to "give" bonus slots ie 4 for having 2-10 photos up and 1 more if the acceptance ratio is between 75-100% or something like that.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4977 posts, RR: 52 Reply 63, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2622 times:
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 61): Some photographers think that with the acceptance ratio gone, some of the thrill of the uploading process will be gone, too, that it will now be too boring.
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 ratio from xx% to yy% is still the same challenge it always was.
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 61): Something was brought up on another A.net related forum.
The usual naysayers that do not have the fortitude to bring up their issues here no doubt.
Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3896 posts, RR: 31 Reply 65, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2596 times:
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 64): No, but when not linked to anything, it becomes meaningless.
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 attention to my ratio for a sense of accomplishment. I will remain just as careful with regard to what I upload. Maybe I'm alone in that, maybe I'm not. I think everyone cares about the ratio and slots in different ways.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4977 posts, RR: 52 Reply 66, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2593 times:
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 64): No, but when not linked to anything, it becomes meaningless.
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 improve my ratio, a personal thing perhaps but the number of upload slots never entered into it, I had more than I would ever use at once anyway. So by your measure any gain in ratio was meaningless... not to me.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
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 after that my acceptance ratio wouldn't mean much to me, as I always have many more slots than I care to fill. Surprisingly, when it fell below a certain point, it felt as if I had failed myself  .
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4765 posts, RR: 49 Reply 68, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2592 times:
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 on the list of photographers. I'm not far from that at the moment (6 images away) - so once I get my computer back, I should achieve that pretty quickly - but I won't dump 10 or more images in the queue at once.
I haven't really got anything more to add to this discussion that would be of value.
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 61): 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 uploading process will be gone, too, that it will now be too boring.
I don't know how the acceptance ratio could be thrilling.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4765 posts, RR: 49 Reply 70, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2582 times:
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 69): Thrilling was the gamble to put, say, a photo that might bring a 'motive' rejection, in the queue, risking losing the slots.
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. The change to queue limits may well be a positive, and we can see now that it is possible upload otherwise lovely photos with a lot of grain/noise in the image and get them accepted, where previously they might have been rejected immediately because they had about 0.1% visible noise.
GPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 784 posts, RR: 32 Reply 71, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2584 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 67): When once I reached 100% (which I wanted to do just once for the accomplishment sake), I thought that after that my acceptance ratio wouldn't mean much to me, as I always have many more slots than I care to fill. Surprisingly, when it fell below a certain point, it felt felt as if I had failed myself
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 or number is a part of the fun here - but nothing more serious than that. A trivial pursuit if you like, just like any hobby. People can choose to stand anywhere they like on how seriously they take a hobby, how much commitment they want to put in or how they feel about any results they obtain. Myself, I don't take such things too personally but have no problem with those who like to be a little more, shall we say, enthusiastic or who set themselves very high standards of achievement. Just because I don't take things too seriously does not mean I do not wish to achieve goals. I'd like my photographs to get better, I'd like them to be accepted, I'd like them to be viewed (or sold!), I'd like the Editors queue to be as short as possible and for every airframe in the database to have a construction number.
No matter how seriously (or not) anyone may take things though, some things are universal. An acceptance is nicer than a rejection. More hits is nicer than less hits. Top of the day is nicer than being 2nd or 10th or 245th. And so on and so on. There are many such measures of 'achievement' that an individual can judge themselves by. It is important to remember that not everyone shares the same targets however - the pusher of photographic boundaries and creative shots is likely to have a lower acceptance ratio than the average and will probably be quite happy with that. If it was too high they might feel they are playing too safe.
The real pleasure comes (or should come) from being in a community of individuals bound together by an interest in aviation. There are many shades of aviation enthusiast here, from airline pilots to reg collectors, from professional photographers to keen beginners, from anoraks to suits. They each have their own motivations and opinions - soemtimes at polar opposites to each other! But we all have one thing in common - we are all here, for whatever reason.
Aussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1473 posts, RR: 11 Reply 74, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2541 times:
Good to see some well thoughtful posts in this thread amongst the negativity being posted...
Lets give the new system ago atleast before criticizing it.
Codeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 2 Reply 75, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2539 times:
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 trying to upload creatives will not result in the drop of %.
I think at this moment the queue isn't that much larger or smaller.
KS/codeshare
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2204 posts, RR: 19 Reply 76, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2507 times:
Quoting Aussie18 (Reply 74): Good to see some well thoughtful posts in this thread amongst the negativity being posted...
Lets give the new system ago atleast before criticizing it.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 77, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2368 times:
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 to have changed at all so my first fear has been eradicated. It doesn't look like a huge influx of below-parr shots will clog things up. Perhaps there is a good balance - old hands (who I'm guessing submit the most images per head) can't submit as many and newbies are still reluctant to go all gung-ho and fill their allocation.
So far, so good.....
I have to agree with some here however that I'm still not overly keen on the insignificance of the ratio. For me it no longer serves any useful purpose except perhaps being a silent personal trophy. I liked one week having 15 slots, then the next having 20 or 25 - it was always up and down irrespective of how many shots you had in the database.
On a more positive note, I think overall it's been a pretty subtle change and I don't think it'll have the impact first anticipated. It does bolster creativity so this can only be a good thing.
Ivandalavia From Russia, joined May 2007, 69 posts, RR: 0 Reply 78, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2358 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 77): JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 2244 posts, RR: 6
===============================================
Dear Karl
Seems to me on this site you pursue Two Tasks - to load as much as possible photos and the second task - as much as possible to write any "dust" at a forum
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 751 posts, RR: 30 Reply 81, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2327 times:
Oh karl writes a lot of dust!
I'm going to use that one on my Fiance!
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, 3896 posts, RR: 31 Reply 83, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2288 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 77): The queue doesn't seem to have changed at all so my first fear has been eradicated. It doesn't look like a huge influx of below-parr shots will clog things up. Perhaps there is a good balance - old hands (who I'm guessing submit the most images per head) can't submit as many and newbies are still reluctant to go all gung-ho and fill their allocation.
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 it in the bug fix thread. What percentage of the photographers have seen them? I bet most uploaders, especially newer ones, aren't aware that there is no longer a link between ratio and slots.
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 84, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2280 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 83): 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 it in the bug fix thread. What percentage of the photographers have seen them? I bet most uploaders, especially newer ones, aren't aware that there is no longer a link between ratio and slots
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 perhaps a better move not to.
Jalap From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 279 posts, RR: 1 Reply 85, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2197 times:
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 67): When once I reached 100% (which I wanted to do just once for the accomplishment sake)
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 system won't affect my little quest, I still want to achieve 100 for a moment.
As for my thoughts on this new system, I don't think I care, at least not when the queue is as short as it is right now.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3896 posts, RR: 31 Reply 86, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2178 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 77): The queue doesn't seem to have changed at all so my first fear has been eradicated. It doesn't look like a huge influx of below-parr shots will clog things up.
Actually, now that I look...anyone notice the number of uploads over the past couple of days? Compare with the days preceding.. Yikes!
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 4253 posts, RR: 36 Reply 87, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2174 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 86):
Actually, now that I look...anyone notice the number of uploads over the past couple of days
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 today (Monday).
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 51 Reply 88, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2176 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 86): Actually, now that I look...anyone notice the number of uploads over the past couple of days? Compare with the days preceding.. Yikes!
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 look of things.. I didn't see what the queue was like before though - was it way lower?
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 of images is like...
Jalap From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 279 posts, RR: 1 Reply 90, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2167 times:
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 88): 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 look of things.. I didn't see what the queue was like before though - was it way lower?
It has been steady around 5800 since the long summer queue was cleaned up.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 91, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2118 times:
Quoting Aussie18 (Reply 89): 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 of images is like...
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 us now over the next week or so whether the quality in the queue has beem maintained? I personally would find it interesting to know.
Of course I've no doubt quality of acceptances will be maintained but I wouldn't want to see an extra and needless burden on the screeners.
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.
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 4735 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined May 2009, 133 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5514 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3051 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 1986 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 506 posts, 
From Russia, joined May 2007, 69 posts, 
From Costa Rica, joined Oct 2001, 54 posts, 
) and after a short while they may get 20.
.
From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 279 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
