Screener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 726 times:
The initial screening queue is empty right now. There may be some in the HQ queue, but I've already voted on all those that are there so I can't see haw many there are (I don't think more than 50-100 are waiting for other screeners' votes).
Screener3 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 688 times:
If S2 is bored enough, he can come over and clean my cameras There were some photos that entered at 0850Z that were added just a few minutes ago...even I'm amazed...
JetTrader From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 586 posts, RR: 15 Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 659 times:
Screener2 writes...
"The initial screening queue is empty right now. There may be some in the HQ queue, but I've already voted on all those..."
My understanding was that screeners no longer needed to vote for HQ shots and that all shots were processed in one of three ways by screeners...
Accepted as good enough.
Rejected if obviously not to required standard.
Passed to Johan in borderline cases.
Is this the case...or are there still a number of queues in operation. I ask because I uploaded two shots a few days ago and have heard nothing, yet I now read that the queue is empty. I assume this means (based on my current understanding of the system) that they were passed to Johan for consideration as they were considered borderline (well they are both in-flight window views ).
Screener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 657 times:
Dean,
The HQ queue is still in place. Basically, this is your option 1, where 3 screeners must agree. Your option 3 is all but gone, as Johan has asked us to make the final decision - either reject, or pass onto Option 1. He still has a backlog that he has to look at (around a thousand pics), but once he has taken care of that, Option 3 will be practically obsolete.
Screener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 619 times:
That's right. We can still pass things on to Johan, but it doesn't seem like a very good idea, with all the other stuff he has to deal with, so we now avoid doing that.
CcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2178 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 590 times:
Yeah their screening is fast. Once I was uploading some pictures and a couple of hours later they were rejected. This was the only time they did it fast cause other times I had to wait a week to see what happens.
Congratulations screeners and Johan!!
yeah me too!
"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2730 posts, RR: 24 Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 518 times:
My fastest: 3 hours.
UNbelivable!!!
Hmm, I better start doing some uploads to get u screeners back on task!
But homework is first.. I will try and squeeze in a few shots in 4-5 hours. Hopefully the queue remains low as it is at this time..
Bo
Expanding my global domination one spotter at a time..
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 25 Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 514 times:
Fastest screening ever: rejected in 5 minutes, including the time needed for the message to arrive from the server (which is polled every 5 minutes...).
Cathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 21 Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 501 times:
I've got 2 in the queue that have been there since Friday with no e-mails at all, can't see how the screeners can gloat about being so efficient - either that or there is no notification that your shots are deemed as borderline shite and have been referred to Johan for rejection.
Better go check that queue again I think! I haven't had anything uploaded lately without waiting 2-3 weeks for it to happen, very poor indeed.
I use to be the biggest fan of this website and enjoyed every visit here. Now the only reason I come here is to reflect. To reflect on what was once the best site on the net for aviation photos. Definately 2nd best now, and falling further behind every day.
Couldn't even get a photo of the last Ansett Australia flight accepted because of "quality" issues. I challenge you to do better from the terminal before dawn in the rain with 100 speed film. It was pushed out to 400asa and thats what took the quality down - ahhhh but thats right your mention of rare or special shots being subject to less strict quality requirements is a big load of baloney!
If only someone would make a site like this in Australia! Would be more of a social club than a "jobs for the boys" club.
Ok, off to add photos to a site that adds shots within 12hrs.
Call me a "sook", "whinger" or whatever you like. But I've been using this site since 98 and have seen it change so much. Lately, this change doesn't seem to have been for the better. Screeners who can't weed out duplicates, have no consistency and who judge photos on their own shooting styles.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 480 times:
Craig, why would the last shot of Ansett be a special shot? There were no titles on the thing saying "Last Flight", were there? Someone could take any picture thay want, from years back, and try to pass it off as a "first" or "last" something or other. Nothing unique about such a picture, unless you saw the captain crying. Those shots should be competitive in their own right.
About this other site - how many pics do they recieve per day? I think A.net recieved about 500 today, possibly as many as 700.
Glenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 465 times:
yeah but how many made it online
Anyway, I have to agree, if I have a photo of a BAE-146 with Pelita Air which has been knocked back twice. Nothing wrong with the quality just Johan doesn't like it. Somethiong about aesthetic appeal ????? Last time I looked there were none on this aircraft in pelita Air and not many of this airline full stop. So where does the phrase rare shots much easier to get accepted come into it.
Maybe the quality of the OTHER site is less (not by much, they are still critical) but they accept shots that are what people want to see. I can accept Johan and the screeners may not like them but if we all put our personal dislikes on what we banned, I would vote for 50mm side on shots. However, I am aware that others appreciate these shots so they should stay. Dictatorships rule...but only till they're overthrown.
Blackhawk From Afghanistan, joined Oct 2001, 30 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 455 times:
Its sounding like an Aussie coup !
25 Serge: Yes, very great job to the screeners! Mine were passed to Johan though within 12 hours of upload a few days ago and have been in his pile since. What
26 Dazed767: Props to the screeners, I notced that as well. Keep up the good work. Justin Imagine how much quicker it would be with 4-5 more screeners?
27 Planeboy: That "Other Site" has grown significantly as of late. I like that site. However, I believe it needs to add a more sophisticated search engine to rival
28 Cathay111: Charles (why do I get the feeling you are a screener?), Get a grip buddy, how many times do you see an Ansett A320 going under a guard of honour from
29 BO__einG: Mr Murray, That is a awesome shot. Boo Hoo to grain but with the reflections, I belive you could of done something to get rid of that using Photoshop
30 Paulc: Just a question for the screeners - uploaded 3 shots recently - 2 were rejected (as usual) but the third one was not - i have had no email notificatio
31 Cfalk: Ok, Craig, I was thinking of another picture. The one I had seen was of the same A320 on approach, not the one you linked to. Sorry for jumping to con
32 Glenn: That means that it has probably gone to Johan to reject. However, you will be penalised if you upload anything else as this willpush it to the back of
33 Paulc: Glenn - were your comments directed at me?? If so them perhaps you missed my point - if a picture has been passed to Johan for final screening then su
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined May 2000, 3479 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
There were some photos that entered at 0850Z that were added just a few minutes ago...even I'm amazed...
From Belgium, joined Jul 2001, 520 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 586 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2178 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2730 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Oct 2001, 30 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
