Hi Ander and All,
Nice to see again some familiar faces
|Quoting sulman (Reply 33):|
I've always found it weird that an image can be rejected by one screener, but seldom is one approved by just one screener, indeed if memory serves, this is unusual and normally a senior screener privilege. Anyone see the problem there? Effectively this is approach promotes a rejection-focused attitude. If a photograph meets basic criteria, I really don't think it should be rejected because one person doesn't understand it.
Well, this is probably how you perceive the process, but it's definitely not how it's done! And this is not your fault (or any one else's for that matter), since you and most of the contributing photographers haven't had access 'behind the scenes' to see how the system really works.
All screeners have always been encouraged to accept pictures rather then reject, which is why they have the 'instant add' feature. I would venture in saying that a very high percentage of the pictures rejected by the first screener would also be rejected by almost anybody else here, as they are normally clearly outside the acceptable criteria of A.net. The pictures that get (and deserve) more attention are the borderline cases, when the screening team needs more than a pair of eyes to correctly judge a picture. And this is particularly applicable to the more 'creative pictures' (as Tim, I also never liked that term), where many screeners will give their input on the image. Even if rejected, that particular image still can be appealed, so that the headscreeners can have another look at it.
Now, to really grasp the idea of what screening means, you have to take into account the incredible pressure that screeners have in order to keep the queue down, which results in very little time per picture actually available for screening. Anyone can have a close look at any picture for 5 minutes and get a good idea if it meets A.net criteria or not, but can you do it in 5-10 seconds? And can you repeat this for another 100 pictures in a row?
Going back to Ander's question, I can sympathize that the comment might be misunderstood and that it could have been worded differently. But can you really blame the screener, who out of his 10 seconds for the picture took 8 to type it? Of course this is an exaggeration, but the idea is to put things into perspective. Without being part of the screening team, I can assure you that nobody would consciously want to insult a photographer.
Finally, please all remember that screening is done by humans, and it involves very big numbers, therefore it is inevitably subject to mistakes. Usually, what we see in these threads are those mistakes, and not the other 99.99% of correctly screened pictures...