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).