So I noticed recently that Screeners are not using "bad quality" by itself anymore, they are using it together with another rejection reason. A lot of us had complained in the past about the vague "quality" mark by itself and nothing more. That's good but.....
Take this for example. Rejected for quality/contrast/soft. Are we to believe that it was the bad contrast and softness that gives the photo a lower quality appearance? If so, then do we REALLY need "quality" anymore? Think about it. If your photo is soft or any other specific reason then can't we ASSUME that it will be low quality? and what is the difference between being rejected for soft/contrast only? Does that mean that somehow your photo is a high quality but still lacks in contrast & softness? That is ridiculous. If it was high quality then it should be on the database; if it has flaws it should be rejected for those flaws. Or, is "quality" still being used to hide some other Screener anonymous judgement - which is what photographers complained about in the first place?
"quality" is a vague, subjective overall judgement. I think that it should be estabilished that a photo failing any rejection category is automatically too low of a quality (for those other reasons) to be admitted to the database. You should be using only specific reasons and "quality" should be abolished.