USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 58 Posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 22647 times:
Hello,
I have a question about the screening process...when a photo reaches the top of the first queue, a screener takes a look at it obviously...from there...if that screener likes it does it automatically go into the "high-quality queue" or can the screener accept the photo and put it directly onto the database?
Thanks,
Greg
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9266 posts, RR: 77 Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 22304 times:
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 25 Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 22112 times:
Royal's right.
Slightly bigger choice for us -
HQ - Into HQ queue
Reject - email time
Direct Add - straight in
Pass to Johan - Over to the boss for those difficult shots
Second opinion. - stays in the Q it was in for the attention of my colleagues who may [in my case] be more partial to warbird / window / cabin view shots
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 22069 times:
Similarly to first screening, each screener who encounters a photo in the HQ can do one of five things with the picture - (a) reject it, (b) mark it as HQ, (c) leave it for a "second" opinion, (d) pass it to Johan for decision or (e) immediately add it.
A photo needs to be marked HQ by three screeners before it is automatically added to the database. Until it gets three HQs (or it is rejected, passed to Johan, or priority added by a single screener) a photo will sit in the HQ queue being shown to each successive screener in turn as they screen the HQ queue.
Flpuck6 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2110 posts, RR: 39 Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 22123 times:
Is it possible that 2 screeners mark a photo HQ but one screener does not therefore the photo gets rejected?
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 22284 times:
If two screeners have already marked a picture as HQ, it is still an option for the third screener that sees it to (a) reject it, (b) mark it as HQ again in which case the picture would be added, (c) defer a decision to Johan, (d) ask for a second opinion or even (e) priority add it although this last option serves no practical purpose as a further HQ would also result in the photo being added.
And before anyone gets all excitable and starts asking how a picture can be rejected by one screener when two have already said its OK, please remember that the rule is "one strike and its out" - the first screener to screen a picture may reject a picture, which three other screeners might have accepted had they seen it before that first screener. There really is no difference. The acceptance process is based largely around independant detecting of problems (whoever and whenever) rather than mutual agreement.
Within the guidelines laid down by Johan, which by their nature are impossible to quantify absolutely (for example how soft does a picture have to be to be soft?), I believe we all have our own sensitivities which account for minor variations between opinions. That's life, and that in part accounts for why a picture can be HQ'd by two screeners but rejected by a third, albeit that a rejection at third screening is a fairly rare occurance (and no, don't ask, there are no stats on this).
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 22179 times:
He's right, it does happen. I rejected a load of 2HQ shots at the weekend.
Remember that HQ is a bit of a misnomer for the queue these days. It really just means that a screener hasn't seen any reason to reject. It may not be marvellous [in fact many are not] and it may be marked with a message highlighting a defect which screener X thinks might be a problem. Screener Y then looks at the shot, takes screener X's opinion into consideration and makes a decision. He may also HQ but with a comment on the same aspect of the image or something new - maybe even a reason why it should be included despite the obvious defect highlighted by screener X. Screener Z [which seems to be me a lot lately ] then needs to take all this into account and make a decision. So the shot could be borderline, with obvious defects but be of a rare/new subject so it can be difficult to make a decision sometimes.
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 58 Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 22042 times:
Thank you very much for the replies, that answers my questions perfectly...I appreciate it a lot...
Greg
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4989 posts, RR: 21 Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 21886 times:
If you search the archives I posted a similar thread last year and one of the screeners posted a excellent screenshot of what it looks like when they look at a picture in the queue.
bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Birmingham, AL (BHM/KBHM) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6658 posts, 
[NOT])
] then needs to take all this into account and make a decision. So the shot could be borderline, with obvious defects but be of a rare/new subject so it can be difficult to make a decision sometimes. 
Printer friendly format 
