I really hate replying to this thread because, sadly, it's beating a dead horse. We've been through this countless times before to no avail. I really thought some issues were resolved in a bad double thread I started in January concerning a friends bad double reject. The original thread is located at ...
if you'd like to reference it. Johan responded to this thread by stating:
Baddouble can only be used when the photographer has similar photos of the same aircraft already in the database (or upload queue). "Similar" is not an exact word but photo screening is not an exact science. Let's all agree upon that before I go on.
Screeners can use Badcommon if you upload photos of aircraft that we already have a large number of similar shots of.
If you upload more than one shot of the same aircraft/date/location you run a high risk of getting just one of them accepted and the rest rejected with baddouble. I do encourage you to upload more than one shot if the additional photos are of very high additional "value" (another vague word). If you upload a full side view do not expect to get a close-up of the nose or tail accepted. If you upload one take-off shot, other similar take-off shots are likely to be rejected etc. Such are the rules we've decided to adopt after years of experience here at Airliners.net. Still, if the aircraft is very rare or the shots are amazing you can get a hundred photos accepted of the same aircraft. "Rare" and "amazing" are, as always, defined by the screeners. If you disagree with them (which all of you will do at one time or another), use the appeal function and I'll have a look at them (although I've understood the appeal is working rather poorly right now, I am about to fix that).
As for the baddouble rejection pointed out by Art, I am siding with the photographer on this one. It seems this can be a case of "high additional value" as the shot is clearly very good (although I haven't seen a high-res version). It is very different from the first shot and would in my view be a valuable addition to the database. I suggest the photo is appealed (or better, re-uploaded as the appeal script is working so-so at the moment).
I will discuss the issue with the screeners.
I walked away reading that statement and felt we had made some genuine progress along the lines of resolving the bad double issue. That is until July when I uploaded a shot that got rejected for bad double. Sorry to bore you by restating this as it was in another thread, but there were these two pictures in the database of the aircraft:
I uploaded two shots I took of this aircraft and they were accepted.
I later uploaded a third shot, granted taken the same day, but totally different from my two previous shots and from those existing in the database.
Andy (Skymonster), one of the screeners suggested I appeal the rejection in the thread I started about this reject, and let Johan make the final decision. I did just that. The two months it sat in the appeal queue I felt confident that it would make it onto the database. I mean there aren't many photos of that aircraft in the database and I would say it qualifies as being pretty rare. How many 721's do you see in service today? I looked back at my original bad double thread and reread what Johan wrote before appealing it. That also made me feel confident that the shot would make it onto the database.
I was wrong. Johan, to my total shock and surprise, rejected the photo stating bad double. I felt the progress I thought we'd made in January was just thrown out the door. But the bottom line is that it's his database and he can accept/reject whatever he wants for whatever reason. I just wish he'd publish guidelines we could clearly follow to avoid these disappointments. Something like: A maximum of one shot per aircraft per day, or one shot per operation (takeoff, landing, taxi, ramp, etc.) per day, or even a maximum of 'x' photos of any single aircraft. Some rule we could follow before we upload and know what we are uploading isn't a bad double. Sadly that never seems to come. In his response he actaully encouraged us to upload more than one shot if we thought the shot had "high additional value," which I thought this shot, when compared to the others, did.
I was disappointed enough in that bad double appeal rejection that I uploaded it to another site. The first time I've uploaded to another site. I, for one, am tired of beating a dead horse when, obviously, nothing seems to change.
: I'm not complaining about the screeners in this thread. The fact that different screeners apply different rules is not their fault or responsibility to fix. The lack of definitive rule leaves them as much in the dark as we are.