Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4144 times:
I just made a post in the Photography Feedback sub forum about the potential to err on the side of the photographer when looking at 'borderline' screening decisions. Although I have talked about this before, maybe it is a good time to discuss this issue more generally to clarify what others feel.
I have argued that it would be a positive move for the site to be seen to be giving the photographer the benefit of the doubt when examining photographs that might be considered to be pushing up against the rejection criteria in particular instances. As a lifelong cricket fan (and a long time fast bowler who ended up frustrated by the rule I am now supporting here!) we know that this sport supports the view that when the umpire cannot be confident the batsman is out, he (or she) will give the benefit of that doubt to the batsman in all cases. That is just the way it goes - primarily because of the big impact of giving him out. It is very final. I believe it has its origins in the desire for fairness and sportsmanship.
Some will argue we have similar processes in place here to get a fair result by ensuring that multiple screeners can view an image before it is rejected, and the appeals process. In my early days at the site I recall discussions about changing the screening system so that screeners judge photos 'blind', so they are not potentially influenced by the views of previous screeners (though that has its flaws - e.g. where a screener is asking another for their opinion on an element of the image - a legitimate part of the screening process). Others promoted the idea of a 'voting' system within screening, where the majority position defines the outcome (currently one screener has the power to reject even if two others have 'passed' it).
You can argue these cases around and around and they have their pros and cons. But in the very competitive internet environment in which sites like this exist, I wonder whether the site (and its culture) would be improved if there was more of a sense that when a photos 'failings' are subjective - i.e. some screeners would accept it, others would not - then that uncertainty should go in favour of the photographer. I for one do not believe such a culture would erode the high standards this site holds dear.
I raise this issue for debate and so long as that debate is constructive I think it could be very informative.
I thought i was the only one who liked cricket on here, nice to see someone from the motherland with similar affinity
Getting back to the topic, and i dont remember who had advocated this but, when the photographer forgets to tickmark certain categories the screener can just tick the appropriate category & add a reminder in the acceptance mail that, "i did it for u this time but next time f***-u"
Thats just one example i can come-up with for now but i'm sure there are several other instances where leniency will be greatly appreciated.
One major purpose it serves is by reducing the queue length wherein the photographer wont have to wait a week for a simple stupid error.
Leadingedge From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 60 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4082 times:
Paul,
you mean that the Screeners should look for reasons to accept photos rather than for reasons to reject them..... Now that sounds like an excellent idea to me.
PiloteAlpha From Mauritius, joined Mar 2007, 133 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4068 times:
Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 1): Getting back to the topic, and i dont remember who had advocated this but, when the photographer forgets to tickmark certain categories the screener can just tick the appropriate category & add a reminder in the acceptance mail that, "i did it for u this time but next time f***-u"
I also belive that there are some shots that might not have that "High Standards" required by airliners.net and thus will be rejected but which many of us would like to see here in the db. I think apart from the screeners decision there should be some kind of vote from users. The feedback forum is a first step towards improving the site. I think another thing would be needed, i don't know if we'll call this a sub forum, voting system or whatever. Here's how it will work:
Your photos goes through the feedback forum. If you have a positive response from photographers telling you that it has a chance of getting accepted since the quality is good, you add it to the queue.
But if you get kind of feedback that its an amazing shot but does not meet A.net standard, you move your photos towards what i'll call "Users Choice" section. This is where users will vote for your shot. Airliners.net can then put a limit e.g. if the pic gets ~ 200 votes it is automatically added to the db.
Because frankly, i've seen many shots in the forum here that are really amazing but will never reach the db due to some quality issues.
Regards
Krishley.G.D.Purmanun
The way I see it, you can either work for a living or you can fly airplanes. Me, I'd rather fly.
Vishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4067 times:
Forgot to add, ABSOLUTELY NO LENIENCY - ZERO should be shown shown towards (i wont use the words at the tip of my tongue hence a mild substitute) featureless landing shots with nothing but the sky & the plane, unless there's something really special about it - Steve Morris excluded
There isn't. A.net isn't the only site that is very stringent about 'regular' shots. I think all the well-known aviation photography sites are similarly particular about what they'll accept when the shot is repeatable and the subject common. The digital side of the hobby, like it or not, reached saturation about three years ago, and the sites (not just here) can be as stuffy as they like about what they'll take.
This has had a number of effects: Firstly the mass market photo sharing sites appear to have become more popular, although they lack the specific database support we have here. If sharing, rather than exposure is your aim, you'll use these more frequently.
Secondly, the inevitable march toward 'higher quality' (a subjective criteria dressed as technical criteria if ever there was one) means more rejections. It's not enough to have an image correctly exposed, in focus, and well composed (although it's an excellent starting point) you need a little smidgen of luck that the light and sharpness are 'right' by the screener's standard. Hands up who has had contrast and sharpness rejections that - by the histogram and the naked eye - appear okay? Everyone, I'll wager; screeners included. On another day with another screener, it will be accepted. If you upload here and elsewhere you will experience it; it's the game.
All of the above goes out of the window if the subject or situation are rare; that still seems to stand.
A.net for me reminds me of a tough, but superficially rewarding sales job. Success is rewarded with ever steeper targets. It's a buzz to do well at it (everybody likes to get stuff on here, they are lying if they say they don't care) but eventually you realise that it is no big deal and there are other challenges. Nobody at airliners.net has ever misled anyone about what's required.*
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4732 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4036 times:
Well Paul I can see your point here but I have to say I mainly dsiagree on this one. If a shot of mine gets rejected for something I find a bit nit-picky I just do what's asked of me and shove it back in the queue. It's a pain sometimes but I never make a fuss as usually second time around the image is met with approval.
One area however where I think the coin should favour the photog is levelling at awkward airports. You and I know only too well how MAN works and I dare say we've both seen shots here that appear level but (knowing the geography of the locations) in fact are not. If I submit a MAN shot taken from one of these many notorious spots I usually include a quick comment explaining the situation and why I've levelled as I have. Nine-out-of-ten times I think the screeners appreciate it and give the benefit of doubt; perhaps sensing that a local photog with a bit of practice under his belt should be capable of exact levelling.
To be honest, with regard to creatives I think that benefit of doubt is already being given far more than it was just a few months ago. Obviously dawn/dusk/night shots by their nature will suffer grain and it's ridiculous to penalise an image for something so inevitable. I think that's been realised lately.
Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 4): Forgot to add, ABSOLUTELY NO LENIENCY - ZERO should be shown shown towards (i wont use the words at the tip of my tongue hence a mild substitute) featureless landing shots with nothing but the sky & the plane, unless there's something really special about it - Steve Morris excluded
I'm a bit of a side-on-in-sun fan but I agree 100% with you here. If any benefit of doubt is going to be given it should be extended to shots truly worthy of being here; those that the site really shouldn't be without. Nice sunrise shot, pretty unique - can the grain be excused in this instance.....?
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4021 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 7): To be honest, with regard to creatives I think that benefit of doubt is already being given far more than it was just a few months ago.
Imho it is not. Motive rejections are plenty (for me at least ) and sometimes just not "what the particular screener likes".
If I even get PMs from ex-screeners telling me the shot would be a good addition to the DB, I feel a bit thrown around as you may be able to imagine, but then again it's just a game really. I just move on (after complaining ).
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4732 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4009 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 8): "what the particular screener likes".
Perhaps this is the only issue which requires a bit more uniformity. But then again, how do you strike that balance without difficulty?
If it's a potentially big-hitting, breath-taking shot then the benefit should be given if it's 'fault' is something like grain. This benefit I agree isn't given with any uniformity but I still think it's extended more now than it has been.
For once ( ) I'm pretty satisfied with how the system's working at the moment. It's inevitably going to have faults but in my opinion they could be far worse right now.
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 35 Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4001 times:
Karl,
I think Florian's issue is composition. There's a definite line at this site; the slightest perception an image isn't 'about the aircraft' (there were a couple of recent examples from FloTro) then people don't like it. Not just screeners; the enthusiasts become uncertain too. There are plenty on the crew and the site that love great photography, but equally a large number that take comfort within the strict rules, despite the idiosyncracies.
For instance, you can't take a picture of an engine, unless it is attached to an aircraft. This one always makes me laugh. How many pictures on here (lovely as they are) are frontal shots of a fan and spinner assembly? What relevance is the attached aeroplane that you cannot even see? Just one of those things.
Remember the image of an aircraft's shadow, passing over a field? Good photography, nice lateral thinking. There was a bit of a shitstorm about it, because people didn't understand it.
EZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 28 Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3988 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 7): To be honest, with regard to creatives I think that benefit of doubt is already being given far more than it was just a few months ago
Possibly, but there is still a long way to go. The motive still depends exclusively on subjectivness, and there are many examples of very similar pics being rejected for motive that have a similar one being accepted. After many motive rejections myself, some of which really pi**ssed me off ( ) because there were similar ones accepted, I stopped even trying.
I remember one particular motive rejection, where I was told through the forum that certain details made the motive rejection click .. a week later I saw a picture accepted with those exact details included.
Having said that, I think the site has improved in terms of accepting borderline shots (for some cases, of course) in the last few months, although there is still room for improvement.
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3981 times:
Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 11): I was told through the forum that certain details made the motive rejection click .. a week later I saw a picture accepted with those exact details included.
I agree, that is a pain. I am not trying to stir things up a whole lot here, just voicing my opinions.
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3968 times:
Quoting Psych (Thread starter): But in the very competitive internet environment in which sites like this exist, I wonder whether the site (and its culture) would be improved if there was more of a sense that when a photos 'failings' are subjective - i.e. some screeners would accept it, others would not - then that uncertainty should go in favour of the photographer. I for one do not believe such a culture would erode the high standards this site holds dear.
This pretty well sums it up, well put. The internet environment is indeed very competitive. While not allowing inferior shots in, Anet should do it's best to get shots in that may be a little borderline in some areas, quality not one of them. I think to some extent the Head Screeners (and screeners) are doing this. For me, I had I think 3 recent photos get sent to the Johan Queue and 2 out of the 3 made it in. So I think they realize that some good photos that may not be status quo still need to get in here. The one I got rejected from the Johan Queue was hosted elsewhere. However, it could have made it on here, where I wanted this one and all my shots, without degrading the quality of Anet in any way, shape or form. I would rather not host photos anywhere else besides on Anet, but unfortunately when I get a Motive rejection (or slight grain in a Night Shot) I have to take that one photo elsewhere.
There is still plenty of room to bet borderline shots in of the Motive rection variety.
Quoting Sulman (Reply 5): This has had a number of effects: Firstly the mass market photo sharing sites appear to have become more popular, although they lack the specific database support we have here. If sharing, rather than exposure is your aim, you'll use these more frequently.
Exactly, internet viewing patterns are constantly changing, sites such as these need to stay ahead of the curve or risk a loss in views. I think with tweaks to Anet's product it will of course remain the #1 site for Aviation.
Some expansion of creative's has helped and will continue to help. Perhaps allowing more Motive's in will do so as well?
Quoting Sulman (Reply 10): For instance, you can't take a picture of an engine, unless it is attached to an aircraft. This one always makes me laugh. How many pictures on here (lovely as they are) are frontal shots of a fan and spinner assembly? What relevance is the attached aeroplane that you cannot even see? Just one of those things.
Haha, I recieved the exact same rejection on an awesome GE90 engine shot. Unfortunately I hosted it at my second choice to get it online. I would love to have hosted it here, but my hand was forced by a rejection of a quality shot due to Motive. I said it above, but I would rather all my (quality) shots on here, but when you have a good photo and silly rejection, after I spent all the time on taking it and editing it and in the queue, I'm going to do something with it. Turns out that photo was a top performer on another site, could have done even better here. I have quite a few that rejected here for Motive, 2 for slight grain in a night shot, 1 for editing that was the same as I always do, etc that have gone on to be top viewers elsewhere. I lose out and Anet loses out on views, and these types of things should be tweaked so they don't happen. I have no desire to upload my airline shots anywhere else excpet here, if able.
Just to recap, I am not talking about letting in low quality shots. But seems like expansion of the creatives is going well, and still moving foward. Motive expansion would be another area to allow new and exciting quality shots onto this site, and not losing them to any other sites.
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
Codeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3960 times:
OK, but those border shots are different to an experienced uploader, beginner, screener and ex-screener. If you can define those borders than the idea is an excellent one. Who will be the decider here?
KS/codeshare
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4732 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3951 times:
I think sometimes info rejections can be a bit harsh - one slight mistake (which anyone can make) and it's back to square one, when surely it wouldn't take long for someone 'in the know' to put it right? I've heard screeners do on occasion correct wrong info but I've had no experience of this yet.
One thing regarding this info issue actually really got my back up at 'another' site. Some of you may remember my sunset shot, which thanks to Paul Markman made it here. I uploaded 'elsewhere' and it was rejected for wrong info because I'd put the aircraft as 737-???. Common sense went completely out the window and I'm confident that such a farce wouldn't have happened here. I mean, it's an arse-end silhouette of a 737 of some description - how's anyone but Mr. Boeing himself supposed to know whether it's a -300 or a -500??!!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3931 times:
Thanks for contributing to this discussion.
I want to be clear that I am not advocating relaxing quality standards - it is too easy to 'read' this debate as arguing for that. This is about rules that maintain high standards but also favour the contributor when the decision could easily go either way. So I would discount things like info rejections where a small mistake has been made. That is a legitimate debate but it is - for me - about something a bit different. There a rule has clearly (if inadvertently) been transgressed. I would also remove the whole thorny one of 'motive' for this discussion - which is big enough to be debated until the cows come home.
I was prompted to post this after contributing to a couple of threads over in the Feedback forum. One involved a rejection for a prominent fence, where the same photographer had had a previous acceptance where the same fence looked very similar in the shot. Debatable, but similar. The other involved a rejection for 'double' for the third shot of a Frecci Tricolori display. For me that easily could have gone in favour of the photographer, as no criterion was clearly transgressed. It brought to mind a series of shots I remember seeing of the Red Arrows. As someone who enjoys viewing photos of the various formation aerobatic teams such things are of interest to me. There was a series of (I think) 9 photos, depicting each individual Red Arrow aircraft landing after a display, all taken at exactly the same spot, one after the other. No problem because they each had different serial numbers; great for a database which focuses on such things. But for me, interested in seeing photos of The Red Arrows, one would have done. The motive was exactly the same. (Can I make clear I am in no way criticising the photographer involved - he was uploading according to the rules). But the three photos of the Frecci in that thread were - for me - very different, and thus more 'viewable', yet the last was considered to have transgressed the double rule. An otherwise popular photo was denied to the viewers.
I don't think this is an example of rules and their application working in anyone's interests. The photographer loses out on an acceptance; DM lose out on a little bit of traffic the photo would have attracted; the screeners may even lose out in that it can generate criticism of decision making. I posted a rejection not so long ago - the thread for which was locked eventually. Not to go over that ground again, but that was a good example for me of the point I am trying to illustrate. I was not given the benefit of the doubt.
There is some fuzziness around whether the photography element of the site is a database or a photography 'gallery'. That will always be the case, but I think we should be looking to maximise acceptances within the context of the site's overall philosophy of maintaining the highest standards with respect to photographic quality.
Maybe I haven't made my point clearly at all - but at least I have got it off my chest and reinforced those who think of me as very 'wordy' with my posts!
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3908 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 16): but I think we should be looking to maximise acceptances within the context of the site's overall philosophy of maintaining the highest standards with respect to photographic quality.
Of course, agreed.
Quoting Psych (Reply 16): The photographer loses out on an acceptance; DM lose out on a little bit of traffic the photo would have attracted;
That's what I was trying to say above, you said it better, agreed.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15): Anyhow, my point is... it could be worse!
Wow, I agree with this Karl today also. It's pretty darn good here!
Quoting Psych (Reply 16): I would also remove the whole thorny one of 'motive' for this discussion
Fine, I can shut it about Motive. As far as borderline, yes like you said, as long as the quality is high (and I think we are all saying that) then on questionable photos that could go either way, they should go to the photog. Like your "grain in the deep shadows" photo, my Spirit night moving shot that I think you've seen, Ryan's 747SP and other's so called almost Double / not really a true double type of photos, etc. I don't want to re-hash old threads though, so I will refrain voicing my opinion again about those.
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3894 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15): I've heard screeners do on occasion correct wrong info but I've had no experience of this yet.
Karl
For a good image we have a policy of correcting minor bad information or category, not on occasion, but most of the time. If an uploader uploaded ten with the category incorrect, say a big Cessna twin as business, I would correct nine and reject one along with a personal. A careless slip is corrected, but when an uploader is repeatedly negligent, then we would not do so. If I encountered another ten from the same uploader a week or two later, I would not do so again but that rarely happens if dealt with friendly the first time.
If the registration/serial is wrong, they will always be rejected as so much else depends on that being correct, checks for doubles, the aircraft type etc.
I have said it before, but our philosophy is to add every image, unless, unless, unless.
We do not compromise on quality other than for the old and rare and those that have been about for some time must bear in mind that the scope of acceptable motive is now far wider than even a year ago, in the name of creativity.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 927 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3862 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 16):
Maybe I haven't made my point clearly at all - but at least I have got it off my chest and reinforced those who think of me as very 'wordy' with my posts!
There is nothing wrong with being wordy with posts, as long as you feel you get your point across clearly.
As for myself, I am eager to see all the views here, as an amateur with a very hazy acceptance ratio ( 1 out of a 13 accepted), but who has much more interest in artsy shots where possible than the typical side on shot. Additionally these are the pics I like to view here most, alongside the cool paintjob conventional shots.
NicolasRubio From Argentina, joined Sep 2005, 583 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3837 times:
Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 1): Getting back to the topic, and i dont remember who had advocated this but, when the photographer forgets to tickmark certain categories the screener can just tick the appropriate category & add a reminder in the acceptance mail that, "i did it for u this time but next time f***-u"
I couldn't agree more! I mean, it takes the same ammout of time to tick a category than it takes to tick a rejection!
Quoting INNflight (Reply 8): Imho it is not. Motive rejections are plenty (for me at least Wink) and sometimes just not "what the particular screener likes".
I think I am in the same bag as you are Florian... I get a lot of motive rejections because I got bored of mediocre/common/etc shots and I try to push the creative rules with my shots. Nevertheless, that wouldn't be the problem because as I said, I PUSH THE CREATIVE RULES... but IT IS a problem because then I see pictures accepted that push the boundaries WAY MORE than I did... and that is VERY FRUSTRATING!
Gripped 7D + Sigma 10-20mm + 17-40L + 50mm f/1.8 II + 70-200mm f/4L IS + EF 400mm f/5.6L + 580EX II
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3806 times:
I find it ironic that after the site threw the acceptance ratio out the window here as a way to encourage you guys to upload more and worry less about rejections I find a thread here asking for screeners to give the photog the benefit of the doubt. I think if you looked at things from a nuetral point of view you would see the screeners do that already and you should give them a little more credit.
Quoting Psych (Reply 16): I want to be clear that I am not advocating relaxing quality standards - it is too easy to 'read' this debate as arguing for that. This is about rules that maintain high standards but also favour the contributor when the decision could easily go either way
How do you know this doesn't happen already? How do you know that every shot that is borderline the screener just says reject? Your trying to make a point while getting inside of the many heads of people who screen here. Scary.
As far as category goes I would tend to agree to a point where I think they only change is that a pic rejected simply for category and does not have quality issues should get priority screening and not have to wait the full queue. You guys got a gift with the acceptance ratio thing I would expect at least a few months to go by before seeing more lobbying for relaxed standards which this clearly is.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3799 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 22): How do you know this doesn't happen already? How do you know that every shot that is borderline the screener just says reject? Your trying to make a point while getting inside of the many heads of people who screen here. Scary.
Boy oh boy Nik - we don't seem to be able to agree on anything do we. There seems to be an unpleasant edge to your use of the term 'you guys' in your post. I am genuinely making suggestions that I see are in the interests of the whole site - not just a few 'whiners'.
Where have I said that I don't recognise that many screeners may be trying hard to get borderline photos accepted?
I feel you are completely missing the point of my post. I think a lot has happened to improve things here. I applaud that. There may well be many screeners trying to do exactly what we are discussing here. This is not a criticism of the whole screening process. I don't want recent changes to stop there though. I would like to see it as 'policy' - a cultural shift as much as a behavioural one.
I fear nothing I say will enable you to understand my perspective. All I can say is I know for a fact that I speak for a number of contributors.
EZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 28 Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3765 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 22): I find it ironic that after the site threw the acceptance ratio out the window here as a way to encourage you guys to upload more and worry less about rejections I find a thread here asking for screeners to give the photog the benefit of the doubt. I think if you looked at things from a nuetral point of view you would see the screeners do that already and you should give them a little more credit.
If you would care to read the replies in this thread, you will find that many have said that in terms of screening, things have improved a lot in the past few months. That does not mean that any member can keep on making suggestions. In fact, it's because of the suggestions of many that everything has improved to where we are now.
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
25 NIKV69: So you speak for the entire body of photogs here? I seriously doubt that. What does this mean? Sure sounds to me you are assuming that every time a s
26 EZEIZA: I said "many", not "everyone". You seem to always be speaking for the site, and yet despite your 110% defence of anything and everything, some things
27 Cpd: Do you have any mode other than aggressive and antagonistic? Rubbish. You are implying that the majority of people do not pre-screen carefully, and t
28 JakTrax: Fair enough. Glad you have patience in view of minor errors, however I think it depends on the screener. I rarely make info mistakes as I usually che
29 Dendrobatid: Pleased to hear that as it broadly corresponds to the time that we decided not to reject otherwise good images for minor information or category mist
30 Psych: Nik. I try hard to consistently post in a constructive and open way and you consistently post in an aggressive and patronising way - why? If you don't
31 Viv: I do not wish to respond to every post here. Suffice it to say that I believe that the change suggested by Paul would be beneficial in both tangible a
32 Raedervision: I certainly have been on both sides of the screeners creative dilemma along with many others. This upload process isn't a democracy. The screeners are
33 Leadingedge: Paul please do not be so easily discouraged. You make good points and a few reactionary Brickbats from Wannabe Screener types should not put you off.
34 Lexy: I'll be honest with you here, I've found sites like "Flickr" and "PBase" to ping off the Google search bots better than Airliners.Net or the "other s
35 Jeffm: Here in the U.S. if you want to challenge a call by a referee, you have to be willing to lose something if the call stands...... What do you want to
36 Psych: Ah Jeff - good stuff! I don't feel any thread of mine is complete without your input . So, despite what I said above, I have to take the bait. Ag
37 Aussie18: Hi Paul, All this talk about cricket,I felt I better contribute,currently at the moment Im watching the 3rd ODI between South Africa V England,South
38 EZEIZA: yes, in that sense there is befeit of the doubt, but what Paul is saying, or at least that is what I get from his posts (correct me if I'm wrong Paul
39 Psych: I don't think that it is possible to have a sensible debate on the 'toilet bucket' thread about the implications of all that we have seen there. I do
40 JeffM: well....things have been going down the crapper for awhile now....it just may be a sign of the times...'ya think?
41 JakTrax: Paul, Jeff... be careful! Have you seen what's happened to the 'bucket' thread? I had two posts deleted for being 'inappropriate' and inflaming the si
42 Plainplane: This statement reminds me of an incident involving one of the best contributors to the site. Remember when Wilco737 asked a question about why one hi
43 Psych: Just to keep this thread on track, if it has not already completely run its course, the suggestion to remove Phil's already accepted images was a mis
44 Plainplane: Thanks for the clarification Paul. I can absolutely, unequivocally, agree.
45 JeffM: The person that locked it is right....this place isn't going anywhere anytime soon. If you can't speak your mind, what good is this forum?
46 Viv: This is true, unfortunately. While I understand the fear, NOT speaking our minds will never bring change. If photographers can overcome their fears a
47 Linco22: I go away for over a year, and you're all still argueing? I've learnt to accept anet as it is. Gone are the sleepness nights - an exageration of cours
48 Psych: Great to see you back Colin. I fervently hope that if you departed again for some months and came back you would see a difference in this regard. Tha
49 UnattendedBag: Im going to make a quick statement here, as the 'other' thread has been locked. I love Florian's work, I think he is one of only a few with a truly "c
50 Linco22: yes, I see your point, but you can't give the photographer the benefit of the doubt soley based motive issues. Surely it should be applied across the
51 UnattendedBag: Show me a photo that you/anyone had rejected, that only needed a .009 degree rotation for acceptance. I am only using your exaggeration... If we star
52 EZEIZA: I see your point in regards to the level rejections (even though I do think that some are not even visible to the naked eye of 99% of the people watc
53 UnattendedBag: Take these two photos for example, taken in Atlanta by myself and a friend. They were taken the same day by different types of cameras, edited using
54 Linco22: Unattended bag, see the photo below. I'm not trying to bring what I'm saying to the top of this thread, I agree as much as the next guy that we must a
55 EZEIZA: absolutely, and your example proves it, but what I was trying to say that if instead of having them both accepted, they were both rejected for, say c
56 UnattendedBag: Panned shots are difficult to judge level as the background is blurry and out of focus. But I think, if 2 screeners out of 3 feel it is not level, it
57 UnattendedBag: Sure! Im not saying that contrast and color are not correctable. Im saying that one photo may have 10 "units" of contrast and another photo may have
58 UnattendedBag: I see now where I misspoke. That should read "correctable objective rejections". oops!
59 Zbot69: Can't help but wonder if some of these considerations haven't actually been incorporated into screening "philosophy" of late. Screeners have been cut
60 EGTESkyGod: I think there are more cricket fans than you realise! I myself am out here in Sydney with the sole purpose of playing cricket, I did so 3 years ago a
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, 
From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, 
From Mauritius, joined Mar 2007, 133 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
) I'm pretty satisfied with how the system's working at the moment. It's inevitably going to have faults but in my opinion they could be far worse right now.
From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4929 posts, 
) because there were similar ones accepted, I stopped even trying. 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 761 posts, 
From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
