AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 49 Posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1743 times:
I have been a steady contributor to this website for almost 2 years.
Met a lot of great people in that time and I always enjoy a good discussion on this forum, even though sometimes I may got out of hand a little, but afterall we were all friendly to one and another.
The last couple of months kept me thinking and the last post by LGW " time for a change" perfectly summed it up.
It's Johann's site and he does a damn good job, but I am certain that the time has come to think about some kind of change / improvement.
Lot's of people have complained about the massive queue and even with the implementation of the screeners it still seems to be kind of sluggish.
Johan certainly has to think about a long term solution, but what about a short term solution.
LIMIT YOURSELF TO 10 PICS PER UPLOAD
have them processed and then upload more, this ensure that
1.) the queue is not exploding
2.) you are not getting pissed off when Johan rejects 50 out of 50 pics
3.) save yourself some time and headache
4.) is fair to everyone
5.) not that big of a waiting time
6.) would maybe stop all the bitching and questions about the long upload time
Could think of some more, but these are the main reasons.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 15 Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1554 times:
I'm a strong defender of your idea Vasco, I just would say a number of 20 photos for the limit.
I can't stand the competition between some photographers who want to be the number one with most photos here and in the middle of the rush to upload more and more photos, many duplicate photos are added. These guys only care about quantity
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1546 times:
Well, I always have limited myself to usually between 5 -8 uploads at a time - very seldom have I exceeded that - this is the way I work - I only process a few images at a time (low boredom threshold ). However, while I used to wait for those to be uploaded before adding more, I'm not prepared to wait weeks before uploading more. This does not suit my working practices - I'm contributing enough of my time and effort to this site as it is (too much according to my wife!) - so I prefer to upload in a fashion which is most effecient for me.
I've been selective, and streamed my input in small chunks - which I think is reasonable. What happens to those uploads after that is not my concern.
N509JB From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1529 times:
I ditto Colin.
I only upload about 10-15 at a time, about once a month. But when it can take sometimes 3 months to have yer photos looked at, not to mention that I had 30 photos lost last time...hmmmm, do you see where the problem is?
I screen my shots. Im all about quality, not quantity. But the bottom line is, like Colin, I'll do what works best for me.
Tappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 44 Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1519 times:
If one has a photo of the same plane during the same "shoot", then take the best one. The other shots can stay with you,,
What lens is that new one...Nikon, Tamron, tokina
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1510 times:
Good idea, I don't think 10 would be too much since the good stuff is added by the screeners within days anyway.
The queue is dropping bigtime now, and I hope some kind of upload limit would keep it that way
Fly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3133 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1493 times:
Some people just happen to shoot more stuff, go on more trips or have larger collections, and they might want to upload more.
I'd say let them go ahead if they have interesting stuff to show. If it's good quality, it shouldn't clog up the queue as it will be added without delay.
Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
Aps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1485 times:
It is a good idea but what you maybe forgetting is the number of members uploading pictures ..
Lets say for instance in one day you may get 300 people upload 10 shots each .. that alone in one day is 3000 pictures to be screened even b4 the next lot of people start uploading ...
Im not 100 % sure how many people are members of AN and upload on a regular basis but i think a long term fix needs to be started however its done , this thread is a very good start !! lets get our heads together and sort summat out b4 Johan and the screeners get grey hair ( Assuming Johan isnt grey already )
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1475 times:
Well I like the idea in principal, but I'm not convinced it will solve the problem.
The queue isn't sluggish at all for high quality pics anyway - screeners screen and uploads happen and the screeners have stated recently that the screening queue is almost down to zero. The bottleneck is with the marginal shots, not the good stuff.
So what will happen is that those who can achieve "High Quality" (whatever the screeners decree that to be on a given day ) will get 10 pictures processed every one or two days, and will upload accordingly. Those whos pics are marginal will still end up having to wait quite a long time to get their 10 pics reviewed by him who must be obeyed, which isn't really going to appease them or do a huge amount for the size of the queue.
AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 49 Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1468 times:
"Some people just happen to shoot more stuff, go on more trips or have larger collections, and they might want to upload more.
I'd say let them go ahead if they have interesting stuff to show. If it's good quality, it shouldn't clog up the queue as it will be added without delay."
Well K, there is nothing wrong with people that go on trips more often and shot more stuff than others, even they can limit themselves to 10 pics per upload, once processed they can upload 10 again and so forth.......
Fly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3133 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1451 times:
Well, as Andy says, if you get 10 HQ pics accepted every day, then even the "productive" members get to upload a lot. This might convince me.
Just a pity for those who have to wait 4 weeks... which doesn't convince me then.
(still undecided if this is a good idea)
Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
Sukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 371 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1446 times:
As Andy has already pointed out this would work well for people who submit "HQ" shots, but for those that dont which must be all of us some of the time then these shots are still going to have to wait for J
Fine if you only have 1 or 2 shots waiting but if all your shots get in to the J queue then were right back where we started. Those that have reached their limit will have to wait a "few" weeks until they are cleared down by J
I dont think the Screeners are too far away from achieving their quality threshold that Johan set for them. Soon as this is hit then were have a much quicker turnaround from upload to rejection, sorry acceptance
I like the idea that S4 suggested in the other thread of those photogs that are brave enough to become "HQ" photogs and get a simple yes or no from the screeners and not have their marginal shots passed on to J
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
if you get 10 HQ pics accepted every day - that's exactly how it used to work, and the non-HQ (aka Travel List) people complained.
There is a very real case that its those whose pics are on the margins that need feedback fastest.
As I understand it, the HQ is itself a type of bottleneck since it needs 2 screeners to agree. Marginals are a Johan bottleneck. Probably the fastest through are the obvious rubbish which can be rejected immediately.
Given that the marginals are I guess the biggest problem, and waiting on Johan, limiting uploads to 10 at a time (I'm OK with that) AND waiting for accept/reject is going to be very off-putting to new members.
Judging from past practice, it appears that quantity is not a real problem for Johan - when he gives the queue his attention, huge numbers are quickly processed.
Mudozvon From Russia, joined Nov 1999, 88 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1431 times:
I used to contribute to one of the photography sites around (the same structure as here though not aviation-related) so they had a rule: you can upload one picture in three days. Agree, this is a bit tough for airliners.net as our hobby is more or less about serial shooting but it may vary (in our case) to some more files per upload.
It's all about the decision only the owners can make.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1435 times:
Oh goody... The only picture of mine that's been sat in the queue for a while (presumably awaiting the attention of J) has just been accepted. Does that mean I can upload 10 more now?
PS: The picture I have had accepted today has been in the queue for two weeks. The other 15 pics I uploaded at the same time as this one appeared on the database within a day, so I can only assume that the screeners must have accidentally missed hitting the HQ check box on this one pic But my point is this - how is it that some folks are claiming they've had pics in the queue for months when a pic of mine that I assume has gone the none-HQ route has made it after two weeks?
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1422 times:
I upload 8-10 images per week in one session. This is what presently works best for me. I guess it's a coincidence that this figure is being suggested, but I agree that 10 shots/upload is a good number.
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 55 Reply 20, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1423 times:
I'm against upload limits. What I find would help is people should screen their uploads before uploading them to airliners.net. If you think it might be rejected, then don't upload it. Don't just upload something that might be questionable in quality (photo/scan) and say.."hey, it's not the best but lets just see if it gets accepted" Some people upload only once a month, why restrict them to 10 or 20?
Planedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1397 times:
For me it depends on what you upload for. When I started it was all about getting a pic on the site. I think that thanks to digital my technique has gotten better, and I have been getting better equipment. I have only 17 pics in the database so far, but since then I have hundreds of plane pictures that I think are better than any of those 17, but I haven't uploaded any of them yet. Why not? Because I don't care if I have 10 photos or 1000 on the site. My original prospect was to be good enough for A.net. Now I think I know what it takes to get accepted, but I shoot mainly for me. And as I improve my skills, I only want pics that I am really proud of on the site. For those that I have already uploaded, those are fine for the experience and equipment I had then, but now I am not satisfied with that.
I think if we want to keep the queue to a minimum and quality to the maximum, we should restrain our uploads ourselves, like others have said.
This doesn't mean that you have to shoot like the top photogs. here to upload anything. It just means that I think we should reserve our personal best for the site- Not necessarily our personal best of every plane we have shot. That I think is a short term solution. A long term solution will have to be found at some point.
EDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1368 times:
Look carefully at this thread.
It's the same old faces that are chattering.
How is this (good) suggestion going to be circulated to everybody that uploads into airliners.net?
How are you going to get this message over to all the others?
Add the suggestion to the addphotos upload page?
25 9A-CRO: the only soulution is to eliminate "borderline" cases and let screeners do all he job the JOHAN queue is rarely processed, but then very quickly as sa
26 Skymonster: I said: But my point is this - how is it that some folks are claiming they've had pics in the queue for months when a pic of mine that I assume has go
27 Da fwog: I'm against upload limits I'm afraid. I process my photos as and when I have the time to do so, and as I work shifts, I may well have the time to uplo
28 CcrlR: I know how too because I only do about 10 when I have time to do it but I think 15 is enough
29 Mirage: It's clear that we can't arrange a "Gentleman Agreement". It's not possible to satisfy everybody so I give up. Whatever Johan decides is ok for me. Lu
30 Planeboy: Hello to all... I have to agree with Vasco's suggestion fore it makes alot of sense. Vasco submits on a regular and not greedy basis as others here. Y
31 Ckw: I like Chris's suggestion - as far as I'm concerned, if the screeners are unsure if my shot is fit for A.net, I'd rather get it rejected straight away
32 Aps: This thread has spread out to different subjects ( as i thought it would ) in my last post i said lets get our heads together for a solution, some hav