One such shot was rejected today as a baddouble. I've got no problem with that, by a strict interpretation of the rule, it is indeed a baddouble, but it has caused me to think again about the rule's merits.
The shots in question:
Photo © Colin K. Work
submitted more than a year ago
Yes, the shots are similar, but on reflection, I now think the rejected image is not only more pleasing (though that is a matter of opinion) but also of higher quality (sharper, better tonal range).
Under the current rule the shot can't be accepted, but the implications here are that once you've taken a particular shot, you can't upload another even if your equipment, technique, judgement etc. have improved in the time between.
This means that a) photographers are not necessarily to display their best work and/or b) other sites will end up getting the benefit of such images.
Clearly the "baddouble rule" has its purpose, but I can't see how in this example (and I'm sure others have had the same experience) the rule is working to the benefit of the site or the photographer.
1 - Rethink application of the rule: clearly we don't want machine gun sequences of an approach uploaded at one time, but exactly what is the problem with 2 different (tho similar) shots uploaded at wide intervals? Who is suffering by allowing this? The rule could be ammended to state that near doubles will not be accepted within, say, a 6 month period. I should think that this would effectively preclude the sort of issue baddouble was created for, but still allow photographers to have the opportunity to re-consider their work and strive to show off their personal bests.
2 - Modify the re-upload terms to allow the replacement of an image with a similar image. I have many old subjects in the DB which I would love to replace with current versions taken 2 or 3 years later with the combined benefits of improved equipment and technique.