Paulc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
I recently had a picture rejected for bad info (the "-" was missing from a registration - a bit picky in itself imho) there were no other rejection reasons given.
I re-loaded the image with the "-" in place and it then got rejected for bad contrast and bad camera angle. As it was the same file loaded both times why were the bad contrast / camera angle reasons not mentioned the first time.
As I know multiple reasons can be given on a rejection notice and the image only had 1 - was it reasonable to assume that if the "bad info" was corrected the image would be accepted?
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5089 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2130 times:
I'd have to guess that your photo wasn't screened the second time by the same screener who did the first rejection. So, the second screener is basically looking at your photo as a brand new one for the first time, not knowing that it was ever in the queue before or rejected before.
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Glenn From United Kingdom, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2120 times:
Sometimes I could go to town on a reject. (sometimes I have) but other times I may only check the one box instead of 3 4 or 5. It takes time to chase all those boxes down (and I am sure it changes location everytime I learn where it is)
Other times I may be lenient on a possible bad angle while another screener isn't,
And at Times, I may let copyright logos go through while all the rest wont
So if you want 100% acceptance (minus the 0.01 percent error discussed elsewhere) make your scans perfect. And yes, I make mistakes at times but I gotta live with it. As much as everyone tells me I am perfect, there are others that reminds me I am not. Right Colin
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4164 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2116 times:
It must have been the ways Bruce wrote. 1st screener rejected it and another one saw it after you uploaded it with the correct information.
About the dashes in the regs.
There are many people adding regs without the dashes to their pictures. I mailed with the database corrections manager about this as a.net is not only for pictures it has also the target to be a valuable database stuffed with information. And the information can only be found when the criteria are correct. So the reply to me was that people should include the dashes at the regs. May sound picky but if you get your first rejection because of that you have learned and wont do it again .
And its much easier to provide the correct information (assuming you have it ion hand for example ist clearly visible on the picture and you just dont fill the field) at upload time than putting additional workload on the database correction guys
Fly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3186 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2086 times:
Peter, I admit to having some problems with the alphanumerical registrations. Until recently, I wasn't aware that Russian regs have a dash in between, like RA-96000, while other countries don't: JA8000, HL7000...
So when in doubt, you should only search for the number, not the country prefix, or search using two words, i.e. RA 96000, then you would probably get the results with either spelling.
Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 812 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2086 times:
The correct reg also helps the screening process - the reg is used as an active link which allows us screeners to check what is already in the database. If you provide an incorrect reg, we have to check the database through other methods - ok, no biggy for one pic, but multiply by handreds and the time wasted soon adds up.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2062 times:
Want to know the answer Paul...?
Occasionally, we get a pic that is a bit marginal... Its obvious its not quite there, but pinning down exactly what's not quite right about it can be difficult. If there's something bl**ding obviously wrong with it, like the "info", its easier to reject badinfo than try to justify another rejection reason. So, bottom line, badinfo was probably an easy way out.
The screener who got it the second time had a much harder job!!!
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2047 times:
I don't think so, Paul. According to my JP, (and all such planes I've seen so far), aircraft registered in Oman are A4O-** (and that's an "O" after the "4", not a zero - another frequent mistake). God only knows why, as A4-*** is not taken by any other country.
Just to back up what Andy said, sometimes it is not easy deciding what the problems are. They can be difficult to define, and not part of the 20 or so "standard" reasons.For example, a pic that is soft, but not so much as to be blury, poorly lit, and photographed with a digital camera with it's color balance, black point and white point all poorly set. We actually get stuff like this quite often (I guess a lot of folks buy an expensive digital camera and don't bother to read about all the little adjustments you can make). Imagine the result. How do you define it? Your first reaction might be "Yuk!" (the subject of another thread). But it might be dificult for you to break down the problem, as you don't know what the photographer did. Maybe, his black/white point etc. is fine, but he has a shitty monitor and he screwed it up in post-production. So the cop-out might be a "badscan" rejection.