bapilot2b
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 7:42 am

Screening Not At Constant?

Thu Jun 13, 2002 7:57 am

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
 
Guest

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Thu Jun 13, 2002 9:46 am

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.
 
serge
Posts: 1903
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 2:01 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Thu Jun 13, 2002 10:04 am

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
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Thu Jun 13, 2002 10:27 am

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
 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Thu Jun 13, 2002 12:09 pm

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
 
gerardo
Posts: 3372
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 6:22 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Thu Jun 13, 2002 3:03 pm

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
 
bapilot2b
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 7:42 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Thu Jun 13, 2002 7:46 pm

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
 
747Cargo
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 12:35 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Thu Jun 13, 2002 9:17 pm

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
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Thu Jun 13, 2002 10:41 pm

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
 
flpuck6
Posts: 2047
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 1999 12:32 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Thu Jun 13, 2002 10:48 pm

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!
 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:09 am

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

my photos are like whine...bah!
 
serge
Posts: 1903
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 2:01 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:11 am

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...
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 4:17 am

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???
 
Danny
Posts: 3714
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 9:08 am

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?
 
airhead711
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 7:38 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 9:58 am

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
 
serge
Posts: 1903
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 2:01 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 10:34 am

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
 
fuairliner
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 7:23 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:33 pm

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
 
ake0404ar
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 10:55 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 4:44 pm

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.
 
Guest

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 5:09 pm

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.
 
Guest

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 5:15 pm

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...

 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 5:16 pm

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.
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
ake0404ar
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 10:55 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 6:59 pm

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.



 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:34 pm

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

Glenn
 
gerardo
Posts: 3372
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 6:22 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:47 pm

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
 
ebos
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2001 7:48 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:52 pm

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
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 7:57 pm

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 answering these sort of queries much easier!

I'm sure some of the current apparent inconsistencies are down to changes Johan has had to make to the screening scripts to train us new screeners, and also to some enhancements to the process in the light of feedback from us newbies.

Some further changes went in last night which should further streamline and clarify the screening process.

One thing I'd like to stress is that as a screener, I have little control over what shots I get to screen - I can choose to look at new submissions, or material on the HQ list, and I can state how many I want to look at per session. After that, the scripts determine which pics I see. These are fairly complex as they need to track which pics I have already screened as well as filtering out any pics I may have submitted myself.

Cheers,

Colin

Colin K. Work, Pixstel
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 9:35 pm

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 screeners reveal who they are. I think that if you view recent messages on this forum, its been quite obvious for a while that a few people have been saying things that clearly anyone outside the screening process would have difficultly in knowing, and that goes for me too. Read a few of Colin's recent posts in other threads, and maybe those from one or two other people, and you'll soon be able to make 2 and 2 equal 4 point something that is very close to exactly 4.

In this case (HQ being checked by other screeners), I felt it necessary to put things in a way that clearly no casual observer would have been able to do.

A
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Guest

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 10:31 pm


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.
 
flpuck6
Posts: 2047
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 1999 12:32 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 10:36 pm

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 personal angst. I haven't any on my side.

Thanks!
-Chris
Bonjour Chef!
 
McRingRing
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 2:59 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 11:06 pm

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.
B==============) ~~~~
 
bapilot2b
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 7:42 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 11:08 pm

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 approval of three screeners to be added).
8 are deemed boder-cases and have been left to Johan for final decision.
3 are in the Appeal queue.
0 have not been screened yet.

i did have 11 pictures in the HQ, now it shows i have none yet its still added in my total :S.

Yours Sincerely,
Jason Nicholls
Jason Nicholls - v1images
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 11:26 pm

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 screeners. If 1 screener has a preference for certain shots or makes a mistake, the back ups will remedy that. In your case this appears to be what happened. Therefore the way I see it, the system is working, shots not appropriate will/should not make it.

However, there is still another fail safe to help those that feel that have been harshly done by. It's called the appeal Queue. It has been discussed to death so I don't need to go into it.

How many chances would you think are appropriate then if you still don't think the system works. Maybe you don't buy it but you don't have to. The site is still free.

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
McRingRing
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 2:59 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 11:43 pm

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 are having a hard time distinguishing what is and what isn't HQ or someone just doesn't like me. One screener rejecting all 3 HQ shots at once - there seems to be a great deal of inconsistency there. I would think the screeners know who marked the shot they rejected as HQ, so maybe it would be a good idea to have a conversation with that particualr screener and let him know why the shots weren't HQ. Otherwise, this scenario is bound to repeat itself.

If one screener marks a shot as HQ and another rejects it, what makes the second screener's opinion more valuable than the first?

Yes, I could appeal, but with 877 shots in Johan's queue, I think there would be less of a chance of him accepting them than if there were, say 100 shots in his queue. I will just wait, ask some people for some advice and resubmit when I feel they are ready.
B==============) ~~~~
 
Guest

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 11:49 pm

BTW same problem here :

7 in the upload queue but only 6 are actually shown in the queue. One is missing. Maybe on vacation  Big thumbs up
 
ake0404ar
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 10:55 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Fri Jun 14, 2002 11:56 pm

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 do it.....

I am sure other would be curious to know who the screeners are as well.
Is Johan ready to publish the offical screener list?

Vasco G.



 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 12:49 am

Mcringing - unfortunately we're dealing with human beings here, not machines, so yes there will be inconsistencies. Taking multiple views of the pic is one way of ensuring the overall standard is consistent - I am partial to certain types of shots, and may add a favorite warbird to HQ that wasn't quite up to standard. Someone else may take a more objective view and reject it.

Screeners can also pass a shot to HQ with a comment -eg "I think this is a bit blurry, what do you think" from your view point, it looks like a picture has been marked as HQ, then rejected - in reality, the picture perhaps should have been rejected outright, but the screener is giving benefit of doubt.

Basically, the queue stats you see simply don't fully reflect the complexity of the interaction of the system and screeners. It is more subtle than it appears.

I would think the screeners know who marked the shot they rejected as HQ, so maybe it would be a good idea to have a conversation with that particualr screener and let him know why the shots weren't HQ.

Well, indeed this does happen - Johan is not slow to let us know when we've been too harsh or lenient. Moreover, we are shown the appeal processes so we can easily see which shots Johan subsequently decides to accept and why.

Cheers,

Colin
Colin K. Work, Pixstel
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 12:52 am

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 Big grin 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.
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
McRingRing
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 2:59 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 1:14 am

Alright guys, I appreciate the comments.

I would think that a first screening is more "valuable" than subsequent ones, however. I understand the point about the comments with a HQ pic, but the first screening is the one that brings it from "nowhereland" into "high quality." Without that first vote, the other screeners wouldn't even have a chance to look at the shot.

I agree that this is the best system. And in general it works well. But someone will be left disappointed, and I guess this time it's me.

Of course, my first mistake was not taking 50mm side shots. Uh oh, now I can't put my name in my profile. Big grin
B==============) ~~~~
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 7:28 am

I am not partial to 50mm side on shots, you'd get no points from me  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Now if it was a warbird or a miltary jet, your in  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 8:42 am

Like Glenn I would be happy if I never saw another 50mm side shot  Smile Sadly too many use "creative" as an excuse for lower quality - I'd encourage anyone to find new angles, but the pic has still got to be correctly exposed, well composed and sharp. We often see pics accompanied by disclaimers "light was bad, it was blowing a gale etc." Sorry - no bonus marks are awarded for difficulty - all that matters is the quality of the final image.

It should be said though, that some discretion is given on the basis of rarity.

Cheers,

Colin
Colin K. Work, Pixstel
 
Cathay111
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:21 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 9:16 am

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 then get rejected, it doesn't make sense. However it happens, so be it....

My question, I've had a couple of shots in the "borderline queue" that is allegedly left for Johan. However, they've since been rejected by screeners from that queue? This one I don't get!!!! Are they left for Johan, or can the screeners still get to them? (I'm not imagining this one, the e-mails definately said they were rejected by screeners!).

Any clarification would be appreciated!

Cheers,
CM

PS: I don't think some screeners open the full size image either, I had a shot rejected for being blurry this week. Sure the thumbnail is, but the full size image is crystal clear! Appealed the shot naturally, but I hope that your committment is to view the images full size just as it is ours (and indeed yours) to submit only the best quality shots.
 
bapilot2b
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 7:42 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 9:19 am

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 (needing the approval of three screeners to be added).
8 are deemed boder-cases and have been left to Johan for final decision.
3 are in the Appeal queue.
0 have not been screened yet.

I mean, mine and anyone elses picture cannot have flown off on their summer holidays already to Ibiza can they??? Either this or a rejection e-mail has not reached me and the a.net server got a D in maths!

Yours Sincerely,
Jason Nicholls
Jason Nicholls - v1images
 
access-air
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 5:30 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 9:25 am

Hello Screeners....

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....

Access-Air (Airliner.net Chatroom Operator)
Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
 
Glenn
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:33 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 9:39 am

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 stirring up blatant trouble based on inuendo.

Being a Chat operator, I would have thought you had a better grasp than most. Considering the (ahem) Blatent favortism you display in the forum

ROFL, sometimes you guys crack me up so much.

 
access-air
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 5:30 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 9:39 am

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 fact I think that those two pictures might have been the only two pics of the those planes on the site.....Inititally I thought to myself that I wouldnt bother with appealing the ruling on my pictures but I have reconsidered....Im tired of seeing dupes odof the same airframes by different photographers in non creative poses....this site has way toomuch duplication of tail numbers....and tomuch of that same crap all the time.....I breath a sigh of relief when i see something older or rare that gets uploaded......and i pass on by all the carbon copy crap that shows up on a daily basis....esp those gawd awful pics at FARO with that UGLY ornage sand......ewwww. Anwyay..thanks for letting me say my peice...

Access-Air (Airliners.net chatrom operator)
Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
 
serge
Posts: 1903
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 2:01 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 10:42 am

 Wow! That was one of the quickest screenings ever (a few hours):


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Serge Walczak



 Big thumbs up

Unfortunately, the copyright bar is incorrect, the medium and large photos both have other people's names, not mine.  Laugh out loud

I also got a rejection (incorrect information) for a Cirrus Design SR20 cockpit panel (would be first on a.net). But resubmitted.. hopefully it goes through this time because I didn't mess up the Aircraft Generic field this time...

regards,
...Serge
 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:05 am

Maybe your second name is Axel????? lol
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:28 am

WOW! Faro is getting some attention, never expected this day.

Luis
 
serge
Posts: 1903
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 2:01 pm

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:30 am

Hehe... could be  Big grin Or is it Ken? (other name on large photo) Hmmm...  Big grin
...Serge
 
Guest

RE: Screening Not At Constant?

Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:40 am

I would think that a fellow member of the AN team would have a bit more class than that Access-Air....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests