Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Screening Not At Constant?  
User currently offlineBapilot2b From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 927 posts, RR: 21
Posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7153 times:

Hi Guys,

I dont like complaining anymore but I just couldnt help post this post because there is something bugging me....

Earlier this last week (5th June) I uploaded quite a few shots, I checked where I was in the que and was happy, here is where I was in the que that day...

1193 photos and 268 photographers are currently before you in the queue (the number of photos may increase, not the number of photographers).

Now, I left it a few days and some rejections happened and some pictures were added to the HQ. At this point I checked where I was in the que again....

1182 photos and 267 photographers are currently before you in the queue (the number of photos may increase, not the number of photographers).

I was happy at this point thinking that within a few days the que would go down and my pictures would go through the final screening process......how wrong I was.......here is what it is like today...still, even though there has been a small glut of photo's added to the database today....

1182 photos and 267 photographers are currently before you in the queue (the number of photos may increase, not the number of photographers).

Now you would think the number of photographers would have gone down if there was a glut of pictures added to the database??? The problem is also highlighted in other places, its a good job there is a chat room! There was a visit from a photographer with pictures on the database, who had been to an airshow and was uploading his shots from the day, and amazingly enough, a day later i suspect most of his pictures had got through all the screening process, i dont know if he had any pictures already in the que so this isnt a good example to use.

The best example to use would be my friend to America who i chat to alot on the chat room and who has started uploading pictures here. I had uploaded all my shots 3 days before his, and he didnt have any pictures in the que, yet when some of his pictures passed the first screening process it took a matter of hours for them to pass the final screening process! And it happened a day or two later when he had no more pictures in the que he uploaded some pictures from an airshow, and amazingly enough the same thing happened.

Now isnt the que that is there a que for the screeners to go through from start to finish, not to start from the back and finish at the front?

I just thought I would like to make a small point and I am VERY sure there are other photographers in the que thinking the exact same as me. Any answers would be ideal. This has happened to me before and I thought this time I would see how things went by copying and pasting into a notepad document whatever data was shown.

Yours Sincerely,
Jason Nicholls


Jason Nicholls - v1images
101 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineScreener3 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7009 times:

Jason,

What are you asking?? I've read, and re-read your post a few times, and I still am unsure. Are you saying we are being partial to other people? (Which has been pointed out many times before is not possible) Are you saying we hate your pictures? If you're asking why person X's pictures get added before yours, then the answer is probably because your pictures were screened by a newbie, and he left them for us to figgure out what to do.


User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6994 times:

I somewhat skimmed threw his post and I think his photos are in Johan's que. What some people don't realize is there are basically 3 ques I believe. The HQ shots (3 screeners must approve of single shot to be accepted), Johan's que (borderline shots), and the appeal que (Johan is the only one who takes a look at these I believe).

Your friend's photos must have been in the HQ que, which is extremely fast....

Yes, the Johan que is usually quite frozen, but it moves along every once and a while. It'll get there Big grin

regards,
Serge


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6988 times:

I believe the photos are LOT's, but one thing I think happens now is either your photos are in the borderline que, or (as far as I remember) the HQ que is just where you need 3 votes by screeners before it is uploaded??? So LOT's might have got voted quicker...

Mine have been in the que for a while, I don't really care because its not anything important to me anymore, I think most of my photos start off in HQ and go down to borderline... lol. A.net is not such a big deal remember, its just a place to upload pictures too.

REgards

Dan


User currently offlineLOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6969 times:

Jason,

this is only due to the fact that i have a couple pix in the appeal queue so my photos go before yours because i was ahead of you even before.......

When is Johan going to take those appeal shots...ive got a couple sitting there for over a month lol


User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 31
Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6959 times:

LOT763,
take it with a grain of humour. Imagine, your pics are like a good wine. They sure get better with the time  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineBapilot2b From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 927 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6920 times:

The pictures in question are in the HQ list, Screener 3, im not saying you are partial to other people nor am I saying you hate my pictures, although if you did hate them thats your choice.

Why vote for pictures that havnt been voted on at the back of the que instead of the front? Surely the ones at the front have been there the longest and it would be more of a priority to get the older pictures in the que screened through the full process first, instead of opting for the newer additions?

I know all my pictures will almost definately get rejected neway even though they are in the HQ, always happenes and im used to it, but there is the slight chance something may get uploaded. Im not the best photographer but still would like to have an equil chance of having my pictures screened (anything in the HQ) in the same time as everyone else, and I think the other 264 photographers in front of me would think the same.

Why isnt the que worked through from start to finish for anyone with pictures in the HQ? That is the question I am asking here. People think it would be but in the end it isnt.

There are also more pictures in the que now then there was when the uploading page messed up and you told us all to stop uploading, so wouldnt it be a good idea to screen all of the oldest uploads first?

This may sound like im fighting for my own selfish self, you couldnt be any more incorrect if you did. I am just the one who is seeing this and who thinks it should be highlighted and something resolved. This post will most probably be deleted within the next day so as soon as that happens I know I am 100% correct about what I am bringing up and that ill never get any answers on why.

Yours Sincerely,
Jason Nicholls



Jason Nicholls - v1images
User currently offline747cargo From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6888 times:

Hi all,

Two days ago I had four pictures in the border line que (waiting for Johan's decision) This morning I have had one rejected and one has been sent back to the high quality queue (where 2 screener's need to approve the picture). The other two are still in Johan's queue.

Can anyone tell me why one has been sent back to the high quality queue, again?

Thanks

747 Cargo


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 765 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6861 times:

Jason - one problem of the "start to finish" model is that 3 DIFFERENT screeners need to view the pic before acceptance. Because screeners are not full time employees of A.net there will be times when a 3rd necessary screener will not be around. In your model the other 2 screeners would have to sit around waiting - instead they can get on with screening other stuff.

Also, working through new submissions is probably the greatest impact a screener can make on the size of the queue, as unacceptable queries can quickly be rejected. I think this is fairer on the photographer than having to wait many days and then receive a rejection. Once you are in the HQ, you may still be rejected, but you chances of acceptance are now of a fairly high order.

The A.net system probably isn't perfect, but it does allow maximum utilisation of available screener time, so overall, stuff gets processed as quickly as possible. From time to time, though, because of the fairly random availability of screeners, you will be either unlucky or lucky in how quickly your image passes through the system. It should average out over time.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineFlpuck6 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2123 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6870 times:

I also just found that 2 of my photos that were in Johan's queue were also placed back in the HQ line, just as 747 Cargo. Never saw that before. Perhaps Johan is trying to get the screeners to see they should have rejected the shots in the first place!?  Wink/being sarcastic


Bonjour Chef!
User currently offlineLOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6820 times:

Actually i had the queue change happen a couple times.......

my photos are like whine...bah!


User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6829 times:

Same thing happened to me this morning. 6 moved to HQ from Johan's.. only 2 remain in Johan's and 1 remains in appeal.

regards,
Serge  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

BTW... in a few hours my film (3 rolls of Super HQ from Fargo Airshow) will be ready! Wooo hoooo... can't wait...


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3515 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6806 times:

And I am dissapointed too. Week ago a had 10 in HQ and 212 photographers before me. Two day ago still 209 and today still 204. In the meantime hundreds were uploaded.
Is this mean that if I have few shots in Johan queue (border-cases) then other from HQ also wait longer???


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3515 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6775 times:

It is hapening again. I see new photos uploaded but no change in the queue before me. Note that I have photos in every queue (HQ, border, appeal, unscreened).
Maybe there is some technical problem?


User currently offlineAirhead711 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 249 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6758 times:

I have also had a photo in the HQ for a few days now with very little change in the amount of photos/photographers ahead of me.My photo went from the unscreened to the HQ in only a day or so,but since then it's been pretty much stuck.

Scott


User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6752 times:

Yay! All 6 HQ rejected.. I don't think we should have rushed them  Big grin There will definately be a few reuploads from me...

...Serge


User currently offlineFUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6732 times:

I think the problem with the new system is its transparency, especially with the number of photographers and photos in front of you.
  • It is not clear which photos are included (not screened yet, in the HQ queue, in the appeal queue???, waiting for Johan???)
  • If only some photos of a photographer are accepted through the HQ process, the number of photographer in front of you doesn't decrease, but shots are added (that explains some questions in this thread)


I also have some more questions about the screening process:
  • What happens if only one or two screeners mark a picture as HQ? How long will it wait in the HQ queue?
  • Can only shots screened by "new" screeners be sent back to the HQ queue by Johan?
  • When will the "new" screeners given the same rights as the more experienced ones?


Any explanations and thoughts are welcome.


Frank



Frank Unterspann - Hamburg, Germany
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6720 times:

HQ Process that makes me wonder too:

I guess this was discuss before.....let's say a batch of 6 photos are accepted and put into the HQ queue by one screener.

Then we need 2 others do agree that these are HQ shots and then they will be added.

The point I don't get is the following:

All screener should be on the same page => if one screener checks them off as HQ, they should be HQ and not after the fact rejected by another screener.
That is pure inconsistency within your own ranks!

You know what I am talking about?

Vasco G.


User currently offlineScreener3 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6730 times:

Vasco, are you serious? You mean to say that when I accept something as HQ the first time, it should not be rejected? 90% of the time when I reject out of the HQ line, I reject for stuff such as category, border, error (jpg.jpg) (or no picture at all), info. Minor stuff that gets overlooked sometimes. That's why we have three votes.

That is, in no way inconsistent. Come on dude, give us a break.


User currently offlineScreener3 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6726 times:

Frank,

Here are some answers:

>What happens if only one or two screeners mark a picture as HQ? How long will it wait in the HQ queue?<

Depends...I've seen pictures go through in less than three hours. Right now there will be a large dump, as a ton are marked with two votes, some have been in for a week or so.

>Can only shots screened by "new" screeners be sent back to the HQ queue by Johan?<

Johan has final authority, and I've only seen him send stuff to the HQ line when he was testing stuff out. Normally, he adds/rejects only, no HQ bs.

>When will the "new" screeners given the same rights as the more experienced ones?<

They're able to do it all right now. If you noticed, the "new screener" message is gone from the email. We're a bit short right now, I have been incredibly busy these last three weeks, so I've been "on vacation" and about four or five other guys are busy as well doing various things (Golfing) I'm trying to shorten the line up, but my eyes can only take so much...



User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6722 times:

What happens if only one or two screeners mark a picture as HQ? How long will it wait in the HQ queue?

The process has changed somewhat overnight, but in essence until now a pic put into the HQ queue would be presented to two more screeners - the next two screeners to come along, as it were. These next two screeners would either agree that the pic was HQ, would reject it, or pass it onto Johan - there wasn't a "defer" option that meant that the pic just sat in the queue waiting for another screener. It was never a case of presenting the picture to each and every screener in turn, and waiting for three screeners (out of however many) to "vote" on a picture as being HQ. So in terms of your question, the picture would have been routed accordingly once three screeners had seen it, and it simply wouldn't sit in the HQ queue after that.

As of now, the process seems to have changed a bit and there's a "defer decision to another screener" option, as well as directly a "defer decision to Johan" option.

Can only shots screened by "new" screeners be sent back to the HQ queue by Johan?

No idea, but see below. I'd guess Johan can move pics between queues as he sees fit though.

When will the "new" screeners given the same rights as the more experienced ones?

I think that they have... I gather that the "this picture has been screened by a new screener" message has gone from the rejection messages and the new screeners are also screening the HQ queue now.

All screener should be on the same page => if one screener checks them off as HQ, they should be HQ and not after the fact rejected by another screener. That is pure inconsistency within your own ranks!

Surprisingly few pictures make the first hurdle of the HQ queue, and then get rejected, so there's very little inconsistancy. For example, of a hundred or so HQ pictures I went through two days ago, I rejected one and deferred on two or three more. The rest I agreed with. It was a process Johan wanted to ensure that HQ meant HQ, and was part of the process of him relinquishing the need for him to look at every photograph. We have to live with it whether we like it or not, but I think it adds a check and balance to the system.


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 21, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6697 times:

Skymonster
Uppps, did someone identify himself as a screnner right now....?????

Screener 3, thanks for the comment and if you like I can give you a break, but please check the answer of skymonster below......

I don't say that it is wrong to reject a HQ picture, but why did it go into the HQ afterall....?

Anyway, these are the rules and regulations and we have to live with them, one way or the other.

Even though I kind of disagree with some of your decisions, I have to say "good job guys"

Vasco G.





User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6687 times:

well if your coming out Skymonster, so am I  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Glenn


User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 31
Reply 23, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6695 times:

I have a better one for you guys. I was looking at my stat page and got the following:

Of your 5 photos currently in the upload queue:
0 is in the high quality queue (needing the approval of three screeners to be added).
2 are deemed boder-cases and have been left to Johan for final decision.
2 are in the Appeal queue.
0 have not been screened yet.


So I have 5 pics in the queue, 2 of them border cases, and 2 more in the appeal queue. But where's the 5th??? Gone fishing?

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Gerardo




dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineEBOS From Belgium, joined Jul 2001, 520 posts, RR: 49
Reply 24, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6685 times:

Same here

Of your 5 photos currently in the upload queue:
1 is in the high quality queue (needing the approval of three screeners to be added).
1 is deemed a border-case and has been left to Johan for final decision.
0 is in the Appeal queue.
1 have not been screened yet.

2 stealth pics? Big grin

Sven



An-225 stalker: 1 x LUX, 1 x EIN, 1 x DXB, 2 x SHJ, 3 x CGN
25 Ckw : OK, I might as well reveal my alternate identity as well ... Johan is, I think, going to publish screener identities soon anyhow, and it will make ans
26 Skymonster : Skymonster Uppps, did someone identify himself as a screnner right now....????? Vasco, not really - it doesn't hurt as Johan has said he's happy that
27 B737-700 : How long does it usually take until a picture is added/rejected, when it's in the appeal queue ? I've some in there for about three weeks now.
28 Flpuck6 : I've always wondered exactly who our screeners were. I'm happy to know you guys don't mind introducing yourselves. Hopefully it won't lead to some per
29 Mcringring : While some screeners say they rarely reject HQ shots, I have a hard time believing this as I just got an email from screeners saying all three HQ shot
30 Bapilot2b : EBOS and Gerardo have the same question as me too! Of your 22 photos currently in the upload queue: 0 is in the high quality queue (needing the approv
31 Post contains images Glenn : Mcringring It happens to almost all of us. I know it happens to me. As far as being HQ and then deleted, this is a good example of why there are 3 scr
32 Mcringring : Well it would appear that the system is not working properly if so many shots that "aren't HQ" somehow make it into HQ. So it's either some screeners
33 Post contains images B737-700 : BTW same problem here : 7 in the upload queue but only 6 are actually shown in the queue. One is missing. Maybe on vacation
34 AKE0404AR : Thanks for info, Andy, Glenn and Colin..... It was pretty much obvious who the screeners are, ....I could reveil some other identies here, but won't d
35 Ckw : Mcringing - unfortunately we're dealing with human beings here, not machines, so yes there will be inconsistencies. Taking multiple views of the pic i
36 Post contains images Skymonster : While some screeners say they rarely reject HQ shots, I have a hard time believing this as I just got an email from screeners saying all three HQ shot
37 Post contains images Mcringring : Alright guys, I appreciate the comments. I would think that a first screening is more "valuable" than subsequent ones, however. I understand the point
38 Post contains images Glenn : I am not partial to 50mm side on shots, you'd get no points from me Now if it was a warbird or a miltary jet, your in
39 Post contains images Ckw : Like Glenn I would be happy if I never saw another 50mm side shot Sadly too many use "creative" as an excuse for lower quality - I'd encourage anyone
40 Cathay111 : Good to see some of the screeners out in public, probably a good idea to get rid of the secrecy! I must say I don't understand how a shot can go HQ th
41 Bapilot2b : The question of where have these pictures gone out of the que??? Of your 22 photos currently in the upload queue: 0 is in the high quality queue (need
42 Access-Air : Hello Screeners.... Actually the way some peoples pictures are passed up and some are accepted there is blatant favoriism going on...dont deny it....j
43 Glenn : If there is blatant favoriism as you put it, you have Johans email address, why don't you send him an email with the names and the facts instead of st
44 Access-Air : Actually, Ijust got two Britt Airways Beech 99s rejected......As if there are 150 pictrues of each one of those tail numebrs appearing on A.net....In
45 Post contains links and images Serge : That was one of the quickest screenings ever (a few hours): View Large View MediumPhoto © Serge Walczak Unfortunately, the copyright bar is inco
46 LOT767-300ER : Maybe your second name is Axel????? lol
47 Mirage : WOW! Faro is getting some attention, never expected this day. Luis
48 Post contains images Serge : Hehe... could be Or is it Ken? (other name on large photo) Hmmm... ...Serge
49 Screener3 : I would think that a fellow member of the AN team would have a bit more class than that Access-Air....
50 B737-700 : I just tried to upload a picture and it also doesn't show up in the queue at all. Also nothing when re-uploading it again. There must be problems wit
51 Post contains images Sukhoi : I'm not coming out until somebody makes me Paul
52 Glenn : Throws a bit of meat at Paul to entice him
53 Post contains images Skymonster : Actually the way some peoples pictures are passed up and some are accepted there is blatant favoriism going on...dont deny it....just admit it.... Im
54 Post contains images Administrator : Regarding the stats page, due to recent changes to the screening scripts the stats aren't showing up correctly. I will fix that ASAP (after the Englan
55 Andyhunt : 3-0 to England Johan....................................YES! Andrew
56 Post contains images Gerardo : ENG-DEN is finished. Up to you, Johan! But I won't check it until the ESP-IRL match tomorrow Regards Gerardo
57 Post contains images Administrator : Well, I was sorry to see the Danish loose but on the other hand the English team are lead by a Swedish coach so by considering English football a Swed
58 Post contains links and images Ljungdahl : I believe that I'm quite expirienced as an aviation photographer, but I'm definitely a "newbie" in this scanning things! I have only had photos online
59 737heavy : If you look at the upload photo stats page it has changed a bit, there is now border line for screeners and border line for Johan. Might make things a
60 Post contains images Bapilot2b : 11 pictures from HQ rejected, seems to be happening alot now. At this point im not feeling good enough to make it onto the DB anymore, so as from now
61 737heavy : Anyone seen this before? I check earlier and the 9 not screener were not there. Are they the 9 in the appeal queue? Of your 10 photos currently in the
62 Post contains links and images Danny : Hmmmm today was really bloody night of screeners. I also got very high rate of rejections from HQ, borders and new uploads. I did not see so many reje
63 737heavy : I get bad scan rejections with digital images. Maybe they should expand the reject reasons list. Regards
64 Post contains images Danny : What is strange is that I had exactly the same reason - bad scan in all rejections!!! Usually there were different reasons for different photos. One m
65 LOT767-300ER : White Eagle Aviation! Kurde fajne!!!!!!! You have a pic of SP-KEK?
66 B737-700 : Now that there's one more border line, does that mean that it will get harder to have pictures accepted. I would think so but as I don't have any mor
67 Post contains images PUnmuth@VIE : @737heavy: May be you should read the message included with the rejections? It says ..... If you are using a digital camera, check camera settings, pl
68 Post contains links Danny : SP-KEK yeeah. Bad Scan - If You want see at http://www.airlinerphotos.prv.pl There are two new 737 in WEA SP-KEN - blue one, and third - don't remembe
69 Hkgspotter1 : It can make you very mad. The one that gets me very angry is the not level thing. I just sent in a ramp shot of a Kuwait A343 landing in Manila. Its a
70 Aussie : This not being level issue is driving even me nuts ..... I wonder who this screener is ... Looks like this is someone's pet-hate ... Wasn't that somet
71 Bapilot2b : It takes longer to appeal a picture so you might as wel re-upload it. I could put my money in my mouth and say that you have more chance to have a sho
72 Glenn : What makes you think it is just one screener
73 Skymonster : Guys, Hey, everyone loves their own pictures - after all, we've all laboured over getting a picture to a point where we think its just right, so its o
74 Ckw : Andy said after all, we've all laboured over getting a picture to a point where we think its just right, so its only natural that we get peeved when i
75 Post contains images Olympus69 : This is my first post to any of the aviation forums and this topic is so large I haven't been able to do more than skim the messages. However I don't
76 Aussie : Colin, not sure if it was you or not ... please be assured that the pictures that I was talking about were looking pretty straight to me .... After th
77 Post contains links and images Danny : "White Eagle Aviation! Kurde fajne!!!!!!! You have a pic of SP-KEK? " LOT767-300ER - here it is for You - SP-KEK View Large View MediumPhoto © Da
78 Setjet : Maybe this was discussed to death already, but some of the photos I upload always get lost (usually about 80%), last weekend I uploaded about ten pict
79 LOT767-300ER : Thanx. It just became my wallpaper lol. Did you see it by accident in Athens?????? Funny if you did lol.
80 Setjet : Are you refering to ME??? Or is this an insider topic? Just tell me...
81 Bapilot2b : Setjet : same happening to me too, ive asked already but no answers, good job I have stopped uploading anyway!
82 Administrator : Setjet, Sorry to hear that, I have reports of this happening before so it might be a bug in the code of the screening scripts. It's not normal that ph
83 LOT767-300ER : Johan is right. I got emails without "accepted" or "rejected" headers and explanations There is that bug in the stats page still though
84 Post contains images Staffan : "Setjet : same happening to me too, ive asked already but no answers, good job I have stopped uploading anyway!" Is that the third or fourth time you
85 Post contains images EGFF : I havn't had any problems with the screening process recently, although most of my pics are rejected and only a small proportion are accepted that unf
86 Setjet : Johan, thanks for your reply. You don't have to dig too much into my issue (last weekend, about ten pictures). I am fine if you tell me that this is a
87 Paulc : having just looked through the recent uploads I was surprised to see a particular picture made it through. I will not cause offense by showing the pic
88 Post contains images Kingwide : Can you give us a clue? J
89 LGW : I too have seen in my view a poor shot i too wont diclose the shot im talking about but lets just say, i you searched for I-BIXZ and saw the most rece
90 Post contains images Olympus69 : To Setjet and anyone else who thinks they may have lost pictures - check the Appeal page. I have it set up as a "Favourite" page so that I don't even
91 Post contains images Setjet : Could you post that link? I can't find it (I am too dumb! )
92 Post contains images Paulc : Kingwide, yes I could give you a clue but would not want to offend the photographer who has lots of great pictures on this site. (email me if you want
93 Olympus69 : Setjet. The link is listed at the end of all rejection notices. It's too long for me to list easily, but if you can't find it I will. John.
94 LOT767-300ER : Johan, Im still getting incorrect info in the stats page....has that been fixed yet or am i just an impatient idiot..
95 Danny : You're not. My stats still shows 10 unscreened pics that I had never uploaded.
96 737heavy : Has anyone else had pictures stuck in the appeal queue for more than 3 weeks? The numbers before me go down towards Friday and then go up again on Mon
97 Skymonster : Photographers appear to maintain their position in the queue even if all that they have waiting is an appeal. Thus, of the 37 photographers ahead of y
98 B737-700 : 737heavy, yes I also have some in the appeal queue for several weeks already.
99 737heavy : I know about keeping the place in the queue but maybe it's time for a different queue for appeals. Keep it separate from the main upload queue. It has
100 Post contains images Skymonster : It has its advantages as I have had quite a few photos accepted within a day of uploading them because I am still near the front of the queue Indeed,
101 LOT767-300ER : Ive had photos in the appeal queue for a month now. I have "14" photos unprocessed, however that is an error because i didnt upload 14 photos.......bi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
First Attempt At Screening.... posted Mon Jan 28 2008 21:28:55 by A380fo
Im Not Good At Editing But Please Look posted Sun May 27 2007 23:12:52 by Flipdewaf
Mounds At MAN Temporarily Not Accessible posted Sun Mar 11 2007 19:51:35 by JakTrax
Plane At Gate In SFO: Good Enough Or Not? posted Wed Feb 7 2007 18:15:14 by Whappeh
Screening Advice...to Leave In Queue Or Not? posted Fri Dec 29 2006 21:26:16 by ANITIX87
Pre-Screening Advice - Salvagable Or Not? posted Wed Jul 26 2006 14:28:00 by Holl3411
Not-Straight-Forward Priority Screening Question posted Sat Mar 11 2006 03:03:16 by TransIsland
Currently In Screening Then Not Screened... posted Fri Mar 3 2006 03:50:36 by Ghost77
Good Site To Host Images At (pre-screening, Etc.) posted Tue Jul 5 2005 04:21:08 by FlyingZacko
Wunala At Manchester - Some Screened Some Not posted Tue Aug 6 2002 17:11:16 by Sdjminton