cicadajet
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 1:54 am

Bad Double / Good Double

Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:24 am

Hello everyone.

I was hoping a few of the longtime uploaders and whatever screeners still participate in this forum might be able to help me with a recent rejection.

And, yes, first of all, I am not happy with the rejection, so I will just get that out of way right now, but more important I want to understand how to avoid this kind of rejection in the future.

Here it is.. This image was rejected for "Bad Double":


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Tom Turner



Apparently because I have the following image successfully uploaded back in August ?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tom Turner



So, I need to understand the double rule. Is the rule "one image, one reg in one location" if they are even vaguely similar -months apart? The rule is not really specific, but this rejection seems much stricter than I recall. Did the standards change, and if so, when (more or less)?

What really made this worse, is I received a canned attachment threat to not repeatedly upload the same image or I will be banned. Why am I getting such a message?

Very Confused, and hoping I get some help here....
Tom
 
cicadajet
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 1:54 am

RE: Bad Double / Good Double

Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:58 pm



The more I look now, the more confusing this is...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui

 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Bad Double / Good Double

Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:03 pm

I am resisting the urge to say very mean things. I'll just say that everyone who reads this post thinks the same.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
Continental
Posts: 5222
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 3:46 am

RE: Bad Double / Good Double

Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:46 pm

Yeah I agree DLKAPA, I will resist though. I fully support you Tom.
 
neilalp
Posts: 1009
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2000 3:16 am

RE: Bad Double / Good Double

Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:36 pm

I'm no screener, but I'd say both of ::cough cough:: Sam's are blury in the center by the engines and center cabin.

I think it is starting to become apparent that this site as really gone downhill over the past few months. There seem to be many great photo takers who no longer will upload due to bannings, new rules, and other reasons.

I enjoy all the photos and the great work everyone does, but it seems the politics are really heavy here and "connections" really help you out. It is to much like a full time job. Who you know and what they can do for you.
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Bad Double / Good Double

Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:50 pm

Ok I'll probably be banned for saying this but it needs to be said. Both of those photos of sam's are crap. Sheer and utter crap. I'm not just saying this to say this either, so I'll point out all the flaws in the photo that had I submitted these photos they would be reason for rejection.

  • Sharpening halos like crazy. Everywhere

  • Soft

  • Blurry

  • Grainy


  • I'll give them this the shot does appear to have been shot in good light. But seriously come on folks just because it was submitted by Chui doesn't mean that if you reject it you'll go to hell.
    And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
     
    crank
    Posts: 1524
    Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 11:42 pm

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:59 pm

    Sam's shots were accepted more than a year and a half ago, when the starndards were far from what they are now. I don't think you can really compare...
     
    DLKAPA
    Posts: 7962
    Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:23 pm

    I'll give him credit he does have some very nice photos in the Database, for example:


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Sam Chui
    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Sam Chui



    Unfortunately there's also this:


    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Sam Chui
    View Large View Medium
    Click here for bigger photo!

    Photo © Sam Chui



    Both just don't seem like they have stellar quality, and by stellar I mean average. One is ripe with heat haze, the other just has that "too much modification" look to it.

    And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
     
    cicadajet
    Posts: 816
    Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 1:54 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:48 pm

    Erik, no harm meant, but you're going to get my thread deleted and I will never get my answers.

    There is a good bit of difference I am afraid to what many people see from one monitor screen to the next and dodgy images will be accepted and nice ones rejected from time to time. Some people will forever like soft images and others like them oversharpened. People will want aircraft high in the frame and low in the frame and the screeners are not robots... there's probably not much anyone can do about that.

    I don't wish this thread to be about Sam. His work speaks for itself, as does everyone's in one way or another apart from people dissecting images here piecemeal. None of us would like that if someone did it to us. Thats a non-starter.

    I want to know about "doubles" that taken/shot months apart, and for someone to step to the plate and explain why I should be threatened with a ban from uploading.
     
    DLKAPA
    Posts: 7962
    Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:00 pm

    OK since it seems I missed your point I will take my points elsewhere.

    Good luck getting your answers, but I am still confused, as I have 4 photos of 2 aircraft same day same airport in the db. I think mine got in because there's few pics of said airport in the db, mostly by me, and they are of different angle. Does that help?  Smile
    And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
     
    cicadajet
    Posts: 816
    Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 1:54 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:03 pm

    No problem.

    Keep shooting Erik...and let JeffM know we miss his salty posts.. at least I do.  Smile

    - Tom
     
    Psych
    Posts: 2944
    Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:02 pm

    I sympathise with your confusion Tom.

    I think that with all that has been going on here over recent times it would be an opportune moment for Johan and the crew to issue an updated set of guidelines/rules for acceptance of photos to the site.

    My feeling - though I can see why this may be seen as too 'diplomatic' for some - is that this should be put out for 'consultation'; by that I mean there will be an opportunity for photographers to ask for clarification about issues without being perceived as implicitly (or explicitly) criticising screeners for a specific acceptance/rejection. So, for example, when the bad double rule is clarified this would make it clear whether the key theme of this rule relates to variety of images per se within the database in general, or the photographer's own images, or variety for a specific registration. So, the example that you show us Tim is either evidence that the rules are not specific enough - both for uploaders and for screeners to follow - or it is simply a mistake by the screener involved - or it is a screener using their discretion (that some may not understand the basis of). Whatever - it needs clarification, not because screeners have to be robots, but to help photographers understand things better. As I have said in other threads, these issues should be possible to discuss without it becoming a free-for-all, with photographers criticising unpredictable screening methods and screeners having a go at photographers fro demanding robotic-style screening.

    But back to the topic - I am relatively new to uploading and I have seen almost identical shots of the same aircraft from the same location on the database, I believe because they are by different photographers. Is that okay or should it not really have happened? Would it be okay for the same photographer to have basically identical images on different days? Or would it be okay if the photos look identical but they are of different airframes on the same day/different days?

    Some debate about these issues as an attempt to clarify the rules would, in my opinion, help everyone. I think it is unreasonable for the photographers to expect all screeners to act as if they would all make the same decision every time - seems to me that is unrealistic - but somehow reducing any variation and uncertainty has got to be a good thing.

    Something has got to happen that enables people to feel that the playing field is level - even if it is just further clarification to show them - politely - that it is as level as it ever will be and they have misunderstood something.

    All the best.

    Paul
     
    cicadajet
    Posts: 816
    Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 1:54 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:38 am

    Hi Paul.

    Without being a member of the crew, I can clear up a couple of your questions:

    1> Identical Shots by Different Photographers - Same Reg, Same Day, Same Location.
    OK; Accepted. These don't do too much for the database of course in most instances (unless film, camera data is included, diff lense or filter used and noted etc.) - but it is the one very obvious courtesy to photogs and it allows photogs to hang out together that are keen to upload shots to A.net.

    2> Identical Shots - Same Day, Same Photog.. but different Airframes.
    OK; Accepted..same day or not. I take it you mean different Registrations. You plant your feet in one spot and take 20 AA MD-80s all in the same day, all look the same.. Yes, thats not a problem.

    3> Identical or similar shots - Same Photog, Same Reg, Same Location - Different Day.
    Yes, this is allowed. It happens all the time. To me, the closer the dates...and the more identical the shot, the less value I see it as having.. It will eventually turn the registrations into "Bad Common"s for no good reason etc. I don't see a reason why anyone would ever object to someone improving an existing shot either..but anyway, yes, allowed (until now?)

    I hope that helps.

    Tom

    In my case, the shots were taken months apart and a fairly nice shot as things go... and not quite identical. Now of course, I realize my shots are not setting the world on fire with the very high calibre of the best photogs here. But Unfortunately it appears I was singled out, and then encouraged to no longer participate.
     
    Skymonster
    Posts: 3428
    Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:40 am

    This image was rejected for "Bad Double"

    Tom,

    If this was the only image you submitted of that airplane on that date, then the rejection is incorrect - your picture from earlier in the year has nothing to do with it. baddouble only applies to same aircraft, same photographer, same date.

    However, if you submitted more than one picture of the aircraft from that date, one picture could have been rejected baddouble on first screening, and then the second one (perhaps on second or third screening) might have been rejected for some other reason. This is the only scenario where the rejection could be appropriate.

    Andy
    There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
     
    cicadajet
    Posts: 816
    Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 1:54 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:30 am

    Andy, thank you so much for responding here.

    You really deserve "hazard pay" at this point.  Smile

    Yeah, I checked my recent rejections..no doubles, so it must be a mistake.

    One question though - Although I am a prolific collector of Bad Soft, Bad Quality rejections, I am not familiar for some time with Bad Double Rejects. Apart from one a year or so ago..same deal as here. But does "Bad Double" *automatically* come these days with a final paragraph threatening a BAN?

    Or was that gratuitously added by the Trainee in Question?

    If its standard, its not very nice...

    Tom
     
    cicadajet
    Posts: 816
    Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 1:54 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:04 am

    Andy - just fyi.. turns to be "bad Reupload" box checked perhaps rather than bad double..though I guess that message references "doubles" in the text. Still not a reupload, but whatever... now taken out of appeal and resubmitted with a note.

    Thanks for your help.. I guess over-and-out from my end. ..the beat goes on...

    Resume Patrol....

    Tom
     
    User avatar
    clickhappy
    Posts: 9042
    Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:34 am

    Tom, the Baddouble text reads:


    BADDOUBLE
    These photos have already been added to the database or you have
    uploaded other photos that look very much like these. Please read more
    on this issue in the Upload-FAQ.

    Note: You could also get rejection message if there are photos very similar
    to these that have passed the first screening and are waiting for the
    second, final, screening. Also, generally if you submit a number shots of
    an aircraft taken at the same time, only the best 1 or 2 will be selected
    and rest may have been rejected as doubles. You can better control
    which ones we accept by only uploading the 1 or 2 best shots from a
    sequence of photographs of the same aircraft.

    Please check the database carefully for already existing photos of this aircraft
    before uploading new photos and retain from reuploading photos which where rejected
    with baddouble. Continous reuploading might result in a temporary ban from the site.


    The badreupload text is:


    BADREUPLOAD
    The photo you uploaded seems to have no changes
    compared to the version that was already rejected. If you don not
    agree with the screeners decision please be so kind and don not
    reupload this picture again. Instead use the appeal link which is
    included in you confirmation e-mail further down to move this rejected
    picture into the queue of the site admin who will have the final decision
    about acceptance or rejection of this picture. If the picture was
    already appealed by you and rejected by the administrator please be
    so kind and don not reupload it again without trying to improve it.
    Continous reuploading might result in a temporary ban from the site.


    Notice that both contain mentions of a ban as part of the canned message. We get a lot of people that continue to reupload rejected shots, sometimes several times, and it is the leading reason for a ban.
     
    cicadajet
    Posts: 816
    Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 1:54 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:09 pm

    Thank you Royal.

    That clears things up a bit. I received the "Bad Double" message after all for some reason. Never seen the Bad Reupload until just now thanks to your posting it here.

    I guess one of the disconcerting things is the part of "Bad Double" that reads:

    "Please check the database carefully for already existing photos of this aircraft
    before uploading new photos".

    That sentence implied to me that I should indeed go through the database and discover I had a similar image uploaded once upon a time and therefore cannot now add another, rather than a harmless screening error. It especially implied that understanding to me as it refers to "before uploading NEW photos".

    In retrospect I suppose it is to prevent the uploader from attempting to upload another image in the same sequence sometime later on etc...as well as someone tossing up two in a batch to let the screeners have to pick one, as is directly referenced in the text etc.. I don't really expect these messages can be 100% perfect to fit every possible scenario of course.. It just had me going this time..

    Thanks again,
    Tom

     
    glennstewart
    Posts: 952
    Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:11 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:36 am

    Thanks to Andy for clearing up some confusion with bad double.
    If I had seen the thread earlier, I would have posted the same reply.

    It was certainly a mistake, and with this you would have noted the screener to be "in training". Is it for this reason the posts about Sam popped up? He may be "in training" but this doesn't mean the rejection was his.
    Nevetheless, the "in training" text suggests that if you're not happy with the rejection that you appeal.....

    In the end the mistake has been identified, I can't help but notice instant replies against a screener in training.... posting threads that read similar to "slinging mud" against a screener doesn't go far to helping the situation.
    You can have your say, but I don't think there was any need for it - especially when you note the original cause was a mistake.

    But nevertheless..... I'll comment.

    Quotes:
    "The more I look now, the more confusing this is..."
    &
    "Unfortunately there's also this...
    "Both just don't seem like they have stellar quality, and by stellar I mean average. One is ripe with heat haze, the other just has that "too much modification" look to it.



    The first two are completely acceptable by the rules. So apologies on behalf of the screener who rejected yours in the first place.

    The second two....
    They are both acceptable shots. I know Sam to be a minimal editor as well. So I don't know how "too much modification" comes into it.

    Anyway.....
    if you ever get another rejection from a "in training" screener, you're not sure about. Please either appeal or ask the question of screeners. We're more than happy to explain the reason to you - especially in a clear cut rejection like the one you experienced.

    Regards,

    Glenn
    Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
     
    mikephotos
    Posts: 2888
    Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 12:52 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:19 am

    Tom, maybe the rejection was to be badinfo instead of baddouble and the screener just clicked the wrong box? Look at the date.....

    Mike
     
    User avatar
    xiphias
    Posts: 74
    Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:29 pm

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:03 am

    Good point, that picture won't be taken for 2 days. Big grin

    As for the baddoubles. I've had the same problem, baddouble rejection with 2 totaly different angles, or a baddouble on a reg where I was uploading my first image of.

    One question, where do you see that screening was done by trainee?

    BTW Cicadajet, that banked shot looks great eventhough the % of plane in the picture in verry low. But that's what you get with those slim long planes.

    Keep clicking,

    -XiP
    Xiph"i*as, n. [L., a swordfish, a sword-shaped comet, fr. Gr. xifi`as, fr. xi`fos a sword.]
     
    F9Widebody
    Posts: 1475
    Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 5:47 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:36 am

    If it is done by a trainee, the rejection notice will say

    PLEASE NOTE:
    These photos were screened by a screener-in-training. If you
    have any objections please DO NOT HESITATE to use the appeal
    function linked to lower down. Thank you for your patience
    and understanding.


    At the top.
    YES URLS in signature!!!
     
    User avatar
    xiphias
    Posts: 74
    Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:29 pm

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:47 am

    OK, I never noticed. To bad I have 2 pics in appeal already and they have been there for 2 months already, so can't appeal them anyway.

    -XiP
    Xiph"i*as, n. [L., a swordfish, a sword-shaped comet, fr. Gr. xifi`as, fr. xi`fos a sword.]
     
    N178UA
    Posts: 1693
    Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 9:56 pm

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:27 am

    Tom, your shot should be accepted except probably badinfo if you submitted wrong on that field....I didn't screen any shot last week so I didn't reject, infact I love your NY JFK A2A banking shot....I will add them for you  Big grin

    Now to whoever is very mean to me in this post....you show no class at all. The 2 Cathay shot is added long time ago and that was acceptable in quality then. They're also taken on different dates, 3 months apart to be exact. By today's standard, I won't even attempt to upload that.

    Finally. I would like to point out, I don't get priority upload/acceptance, infact screener look harder on my uploads because of my name and standard, if a newbie and myself upload a marginal shot together, they will give in to the newbie, much more likely to give it to me, for the reason of someone complainting about big names, preferences etc. I would like to remain you I have many rejection in past months and years and got treated just like any other uploaders. (even my VS promotion shot is deleted just like others). I will never go into a post and drag it away and bring someone's shot to complaint, which is mean and childish.

    Sam

    For more of myself and my flight reviews visit http://www.SamChui.com
     
    cicadajet
    Posts: 816
    Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 1:54 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:35 pm

    Hi Mike.

    Yes, I became of aware of the date issue in the interim. Perhaps. Is the Bad double next to the Bad Info button?

    This would not have been quite an issue for me, but I've had the double experience previously in this context. Appealed. And Rejected for the same reason on Appeal. (Glenn - Please Note.) That was when I used to upload with only the month and year, and I have since added the exact date for the edification of one or two screeners. In that particular (appealed) rejection, I wrote the reason (different dates) and it was rejected anyway.

    If it were possible to contact the specific screener, I would have done so, but its not. I brought this up in Site Related a couple of days ago, but it is too long-winded on my part (having to anticipate all the knee jerk resistance) that probably no one will read it through. And which photographers read that forum with any regularity anyway? I just don't see emailing 25 people to get an answer or guidance from one makes any sense. I suspect it would annoy a few.

    Also, Glenn, you put my quotes next to the quotes of someone else. When I started the thread I specifically asked for help from screeners or "long time uploaders".

    Sam's images here were a function of a search on the registration, not to find a "screener in training". As Sam is a screener himself now and a screener to be at the time, and his 2nd shot was presumably approved by at least one other, if not three other screeners, it seemed relevant to my case. I made no comment on the quality of the shots in question. (They're perfectly fine in my opinion.)

    Moreover, Sam's shots were in line with what I stated to be *within* the rules as I understood them, and mine was the one I thought had been the "exception". Hence, no "special treatment" accusation.

    Was I really "confused"? Not entirely perhaps. (apart from my own date mistake that is). I was a bit suspicious of an uneven screening hand really, but I wanted to be civil.

    Did I expect to get the responses the immediately followed? It did cross my mind to be honest that *might* happen. I tried to provide timely "correction" for what its worth as to the direction of the thread. However, it might be worth noting the thread was sinking like a rock to the bottom of the forum until that point.

    Unfortunately, if I started an "Awesome Picture, Sam" thread tomorrow, you'd likely see the same types of comments. That's the nature of this "community", as it exists in the forums, and not completely unrelated to why you need anonymity as a screener.

    Still though, Glenn you're certainly right in the main.

    Sam, I apologize if I offended you.

     
    Psych
    Posts: 2944
    Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:13 pm

    Tom,

    Just a brief note of feedback - I, for one, have found much of the content of your thread very informative and helpful. I certainly feel that I have a better understanding of this bad double issue.

    Also, thanks for your link to that item in the Site forum - an interesting idea (and absolutely not long-winded!). And, given the 'current context' that you mention there - a view with which I symathise - my congratulations to you for maintaining a very level headed and appropriate tone throughout the thread.

    All the best.

    Paul
     
    glennstewart
    Posts: 952
    Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:11 am

    RE: Bad Double / Good Double

    Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:02 pm

    Hi Mike,

    Apologies for mixing quotes.... it's a pet peeve of mine to mix quotes. I shouldn't do it myself  Big grin.
    You've nevertheless understood the point I was making.

    Kind Regards,

    Glenn
    Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: river38 and 12 guests

    Popular Searches On Airliners.net

    Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

    Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

    Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

    Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

    Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

    Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

    Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

    Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

    Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

    Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

    Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

    Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

    Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

    Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

    Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos