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 shots I had were rejected. Of my last 20 or so uploads that have been marked as HQ, about 10 have been rejected after sitting in the HQ queue. So sorry, but I don't buy it.
Buy it or not, what I said was true of my experience. The irony of the situation is that there have been some pics I've had to screen where I've agreed HQ simply because two longer serving screeners than myself have already said its HQ - if I had been the first to see the pic, I'd have rejected it. So it works both ways.
Whatever happens, there will never be a 100% consensus on an evaluation process that is subjective - that's just human nature. How much grain is too much? How many degrees does a pic have to be off before badangle? What really is blurry - do you have to always be able to read the registration for example? Subjective judgement always comes into this, and where ever there is subjective judgement there is the opportunity for disagreement. The system as it stands gives a good opportunity to reach a fair consensus judgement.
So it's either some screeners are having a hard time distinguishing what is and what isn't HQ or someone just doesn't like me.
Mcringring, maybe we like you, maybe we don't
But seeing as you don't give your real name in your forum id, its impossible for us to tell who you are or which photographs are yours, so we can't discriminate just because its "you". But see above reference subjective judgement.
If one screener marks a shot as HQ and another rejects it, what makes the second screener's opinion more valuable than the first?
Nothing at all. A similar question applies to the first screening, if your picture gets rejected at that first screening. Who's to say that if your pic was screened by a different screener, your pic might have been accepted rather than rejected on first screening, and then it might have gone on and got two more screeners to agree, and your pic might have gotten onto the database.
The point is that no individual screener's opinion is valuable - what is valuable is a consensus amongst THREE screeners drawn at random. You have to get all three - one strike and you're out, and that could be any of the three screenings every picture gets.
Its the same for all of us - I myself have a couple of pictures in the appeal queue at the moment and being in that situation clearly means I disagree with at least one of the screeners. But, for all of us, we either accept the system, or we don't. The only observation I can make is that I honestly think it works as well as it could, given the need for a pic to be screened by more than one person.