An observation and a question. Last night two images of a new Scoot 787 (9V-OJI) were added, very close to each other. At the time of this post these images have views of 104 and 110.



Earlier this morning a third image was added (about 3 hours ago). That image now has over 700 "views."



I am making this thread because I am sick of the blatant cheating that is happening, and am asking that the crew do something. It is unfathomable that such a poor shot, of a nothing subject, would receive that many views, so quickly.

This happens all the time with this photog - surely there must be a way it can be stopped.

On a personal note, what kind of a person acts like this?

clickhappy wrote:

I am making this thread because I am sick of the blatant cheating that is happening, and am asking that the crew do something. It is unfathomable that such a poor shot, of a nothing subject, would receive that many views, so quickly.

On a personal note, what kind of a person acts like this?

Cheating?!?!? If getting views is some sort of reward, then I guess it would be labelled as cheating. I am a bit more drawn to the third view, but that is because of the brighter sky.

This is a topic?

clickhappy wrote:

It is unfathomable that such a poor shot, of a nothing subject, would receive that many views, so quickly.

I'm sure people are thinking that about some of your photos as well. Side-on photos of ordinary airlines at SEA that get thousands of views in a matter of hrs/days (even though the quality of your photos is always top-notch).

If you can post an example of me uploading a photo and getting more than a couple hundred views in an hour, aside from something that’s being promoted as new, then please do.

I do have a lot of pictures that make the front page - that’s a result of the barrier to making the front page is less than 200 views on many days. So do a lot of other photographers.

The difference is those images take many hours to accurate that many views. If people are artificially inflating their hit counts they are doing it in a lot less of a greedy manner than the example I’ve provided.

People get caught doing stupid things - and it’s often the result of arrogance and greed.

Royal,

Your clearly of the opinion that something underhand is going on here.

Is this more than people promoting links to their work via social media?

Mark

This had always been the case over many years.

There are things more important in life than worrying about a few hundred extra hits to a few photos. Just take good pictures and forget about what others are doing. Is this a hobby or a business?

And it also isn’t right calling out other photos like that. Never was, never should be. Poor form.

Mark - I believe it is much more than "promoting" photos on sites like Reddit (which I believe has cracked down on this by the mods of certain forums). Personally I've plugged my own shots on Reddit and gotten 200/300 views in a day or so. I view photos on a.net everyday; I usually start at the front page and go from there. There are also a few photos whos work I look for specifically.

Anyways - 1,500 hits in 5 hours is unheard of, unless it's something like an incident or something with a lot of media attention (think retro BA 747). Even on the front page, linked from FB, you won't see numbers like that.

Maybe nobody cares? If that's the case, game on.

Hi Royal,

Assuming that illegal hit-pumping has been gone on, that would indeed be uncool. Sure, 700/3 or 1500/5 is a bit unusual, but there is no way to know for sure. I'm not familiar with Reddit and how many views can come from there. The latter number (1500/5) could be the result of the lower threshold for the homepage that you mentioned yourself. There are also many other ways that the numbers could be explained, for example;
- Linked on multiple social media platforms
- Linked in places the photographer is not even aware of
- The photo getting accepted at just the right time when many people view the most recently accepted photos (A.net)
- Linking it somewhere at the right time (in general)
- Combinations of the above

And even though in your opinion it is "unfathomable that such a poor shot, of a nothing subject, would receive that many views, so quickly.", other people might like it enough to open it, despite your beliefs. I know I find myself in the same position every once in a while.

Linking images on social media/fora is not forbidden and perhaps even encouraged to an extent, although it would be nice if people use common sense when doing so. Using bots, paying for link pumping etc. is forbidden and I personally find it sad if people resort to that, but unfortunately we are unable to check where views originate from. If a photo gets thousands of views in a small time window, then we can always delete that photo due to the suspicious activity (it wouldn't be the first time). However this is not one of those cases.

I'm sorry you feel like there is cheating going on and I understand your thoughts, but I hope you also understand that we can't just act on an assumption without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That said, I will keep an eye on it and take action when action.

If people are using those underhanded methods to get hits, then that’s wrong and just plain delusional.

If hits are that important to you that you must resort to those methods (or in my view social media promotion) to get them, maybe it’s time to contemplate why you are still taking photos and what you are really getting out of it. And perhaps maybe it’s time to find something else to do.

In the time I did upload photos here, I NEVER did any active social media promotion. The image got uploaded, maybe accepted and whatever the views it got, so be it - outside of my control. I also have no social media accounts.

Oh, it is possible to check where views come from, and with the right reporting tools even exclude views from particular sources. I use these tools in my day job. But I guess this site also wouldn’t have the budget available that I do to get these enterprise level solutions.

If I showed you some of the data we can get, I’d guess a few of you would go very silent.

Kas - Thank you for replying with an "official" position. Honestly - as a community nobody needs to be banned, or have their images removed. But, the front page traffic should be organic - promoting a shot that wouldn't make it on merit just denies the next photog that opportunity. It would be nice if we could all play fairly.

The son of a photog that always has shots on the front page has admitted he tries to get his dads shots on the front page, his reasoning is he feels his dads images are under appreciated. So, it does happen.

Personally I have seen my own shots be the underserving recipients of Photographers Choice promotion - at one point a few weeks ago there was something like 5 or 6 in a row. Totally ridiculous (and unrealistic).

There are ways to cheat the system and it is happening. Maybe by bringing this topic out in the light people can be discouraged from behaving like that in the future.

cpd wrote:

Oh, it is possible to check where views come from, and with the right reporting tools even exclude views from particular sources. I use these tools in my day job. But I guess this site also wouldn’t have the budget available that I do to get these enterprise level solutions.

This was implemented on the previous site. I am sure it is somewhere on this endless "list" of correction of the new site.

One more parameter is the amount of images added on the same time. After one of my pics was added there was almost nothing added for 5-6 hours. Mine got around 150 views during this time (it was a 747) and the other 737s nearby around 80. This pic made it to the top of the day.

clickhappy wrote:

But, the front page traffic should be organic - promoting a shot that wouldn't make it on merit just denies the next photog that opportunity. It would be nice if we could all play fairly.

I agree with you (exception being newsworth/outstanding photos).

clickhappy wrote:

The son of a photog that always has shots on the front page has admitted he tries to get his dads shots on the front page, his reasoning is he feels his dads images are under appreciated. So, it does happen.

Yeah, I'm aware of those posts on that forum. I also posted the 'official' stance on that over there, although you likely don't know it was me

clickhappy wrote:

Personally I have seen my own shots be the underserving recipients of Photographers Choice promotion - at one point a few weeks ago there was something like 5 or 6 in a row. Totally ridiculous (and unrealistic).

I remember your post about that as well. Goes to show that not everything is as always as it seems. I too thought you were promoting your own photos, but your statement regarding that puts things into a different light.

clickhappy wrote:

There are ways to cheat the system and it is happening. Maybe by bringing this topic out in the light people can be discouraged from behaving like that in the future.

Unfortunately very true, but we just don't have the means to check at the moment. We can appeal to one's morals, but ultimately that's down to the willingness of the photographer.

solro wrote:

I am sure it is somewhere on this endless "list" of correction of the new site.

I don't think it's on the list (yet).

solro wrote:

One more parameter is the amount of images added on the same time. After one of my pics was added there was almost nothing added for 5-6 hours

Also a valid point, which I've noticed as well. But we can't force people to screen at certain times all the time.

solro wrote:

cpd wrote:

Oh, it is possible to check where views come from, and with the right reporting tools even exclude views from particular sources. I use these tools in my day job. But I guess this site also wouldn’t have the budget available that I do to get these enterprise level solutions.

This was implemented on the previous site. I am sure it is somewhere on this endless "list" of correction of the new site.

One more parameter is the amount of images added on the same time. After one of my pics was added there was almost nothing added for 5-6 hours. Mine got around 150 views during this time (it was a 747) and the other 737s nearby around 80. This pic made it to the top of the day.

Ah no, not quite- it was fairly basic. What I work with gets data so detailed it would scare the heck out of you. It's easy to filter out bots and those types and unusual patterns of hits so that when you look at the data, you can get some meaningful analysis and then work from that.

Playing fairly in aviation photography went out the window long ago when it turned into everyone trying to one-up everyone else. When a fairly well known photographer says to his mate "what did you put that on there for, now everyone will be there" in response to the ETA and parking location of a particularly noteworthy plane posted on a forum, that's a great example of how bitchy it got.

clickhappy wrote:

Mark - I believe it is much more than "promoting" photos on sites like Reddit (which I believe has cracked down on this by the mods of certain forums). Personally I've plugged my own shots on Reddit and gotten 200/300 views in a day or so. I view photos on a.net everyday; I usually start at the front page and go from there. There are also a few photos whos work I look for specifically.

I will plug some of my own shots on Twitter (don't use Reddit or FB), and have found similar to you that there are maybe 200-300 interactions with the tweet which maybe half of those inteactions will follow the link to view the photo full size. Having a photo plugged by the Airliners.net social media accounts leads to a much larger increase in views I've found. A case in point is the photo in question which was plugged by the Airliners.net twitter account not long after this thread started and had just under 2500 views now has over 5000.

I missed this in Royal’s original post, but it was related to the low number of views that the first 2 photos had got.
The number of views a photo gets in the first 24hours for what I would class as run of the mill photos that I’ve uploaded seems to have decreased over the past few years. Now if a photo gets over a 100 views its doing well, compared to a few years back when you would get 300 or more views in the first 24hours, and would usually need over 600 or so to make the front page. I assume traffic to the site hasn’t fallen away in that time.

Maybe the front page needs redesigned with a scrolling ticker of recently added photos? Maybe it needs a 1 click link to recently added?

I see the photo in question has since been promoted on Facebook, so that brings perfect clarity to this: its a non-issue and will actually be rewarded.

Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

clickhappy wrote:

I see the photo in question has since been promoted on Facebook, so that brings perfect clarity to this: its a non-issue and will actually be rewarded.

And to bring context to that, the only one to do the socials is Paul. We have no control over it, other than the fact that we can suggest photos that he should promote. But even that's not doable on a daily basis. He is more familiar than anyone one of us regarding what sort of photos are popular on social media, but I would guess that that new frame would qualify and he picked the most recently accepted photo for it. So in all likelyhood it has nothing to do with 'getting rewarded'.

In addition, I also tried to do some digging since posting early this morning and it has come to my attention that the photographer indeed posted the link in a few groups, which is not illegal per se. The time of acceptance may also have played a role in this.

Kas - Guess I was wrong.

Thanks for following up.

clickhappy wrote:

I see the photo in question has since been promoted on Facebook, so that brings perfect clarity to this: its a non-issue and will actually be rewarded.

Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

Hi Royal,

I don’t understand why you are concerning yourself so much regarding this. Seems to me like in the end we each have our own preferences in the type of photos we take. In the end it’s up to the powers that be, what gets promoted.

Regards,
Daniel

If you want to take pictures in poor light - more power to you. But, cheating to get views is weak.

I agree with Royal. If you look at the photos of this person in question. There are large amounts of views for airframes that are very common. It is quite obvious that his views are artificially inflated. How did the conversation turn from photos taken in poor light ? It is about inflated views !

quote="clickhappy"]If you want to take pictures in poor light - more power to you. But, cheating to get views is weak.[/quote]

clickhappy wrote:

If you want to take pictures in poor light - more power to you. But, cheating to get views is weak.

It’s good to challenge yourself once in a while. Some photogs don’t stop taking photos because the sun isn’t out. Taking photos of planes on the ground with the sun behind you is easy peazy lemon Squeezy.

But again to each their own.

clickhappy wrote:

If you want to take pictures in poor light - more power to you. But, cheating to get views is weak.

Of course the weather was not ideal, but I’m not afraid to take chances and get shots in poor conditions. That doesn’t mean it’s a terrible shot. Tell me how sharing the one or two photos I upload a month on social media is cheating?

I am not here for a lesson in photography Daniel. If it was there would be different title to this thread. Royal started this topic because there was some blatant abuse of views. Other photographers are not getting a fair share of there time in the spotlight on the site because of this.

dgorun wrote:

clickhappy wrote:

If you want to take pictures in poor light - more power to you. But, cheating to get views is weak.[/quote
It’s good to challenge yourself once in a while. Some photogs don’t stop taking photos because the sun isn’t out. Taking photos of planes on the ground with the sun behind you is easy peazy lemon Squeezy.

But again to each their own.

clickhappy wrote:

If you want to take pictures in poor light - more power to you. But, cheating to get views is weak.

Ah yes, like you’re one to talk that has basic side photos of a 757 or 737 making the front page and nothing significant to it. It’s kind of ironic you’re the one making this thread as many believe you already do this. But alas. To each there own.

pdxswa wrote:

I am not here for a lesson in photography Daniel. If it was there would be different title to this thread. Royal started this topic because there was some blatant abuse of views. Other photographers are not getting a fair share of there time in the spotlight on the site because of this.

dgorun wrote:

clickhappy wrote:

If you want to take pictures in poor light - more power to you. But, cheating to get views is weak.[/quote
It’s good to challenge yourself once in a while. Some photogs don’t stop taking photos because the sun isn’t out. Taking photos of planes on the ground with the sun behind you is easy peazy lemon Squeezy.

But again to each their own.

Yes, cause his shots are never on the front page. If you mean other photographers that aren’t the OP. Then yes, you are correct.

Right, so let's get this thread back on topic.

This is pretty much the basic breakdown:
- There is nothing wrong with linking photos on our personal social media profiles.
- Linking it on other pages is also allowed, since that brings views/visitors to the site, which is in turn good for the continuity of the site. The extent of this type of linking is down to common sense by the photographer. I hope everyone has a common sense and is able to use it. If the extent of the linking leans towards #3, then action may be taken. But this will be judged case-by-case.
- Using bots/paid methods/etc. for link plugging is not allowed and will lead to a sanction (which varies from deletion of the photo to anything beyond that when continued).

The case in this thread falls under #2. Since the photographer in question has posted in this thread, I'm assuming he reads this post as well and is now aware of what he can and can't do (if he wasn't already).

Gonna add my 2 cents.... At the end of the day it's not like anyone gets monetary compensation for top views, so a little healthy competition is great but to insinuate that someone is rigging the system is a little foolish when all we have to go off of is one has more views than the others. I personally know Alex, and Daniel and I can say alex will share the photos hyperlink in all of the Facebook groups applicable to the photo. I have had it go both ways with many photographers here and on other sites is that sometimes some photos get more views, and it shouldn't be the end of the world. At the end of the day we're all doing this as a hobby and to sit here and make accusations in an open forum is a little childish when not all the facts are known.
Also, quick side not on poor lighting comments made, unless OP lives in a different PNW than myself it can be flat or dark lighting for 90% of the year so to make comments about people attempting to shoot in the conditions the region is known for is also a moot point, sadly most people cant afford the luxury to choose the conditions they're able to shoot in.

Regards
Jordan

If anything useful comes out of this thread it should be this - that airliners.net itself should be doing more to promote a wider variety and greater amount of photos.

McG1967 wrote:

Maybe the front page needs redesigned with a scrolling ticker of recently added photos? Maybe it needs a 1 click link to recently added?

Unfortunately it's quite clear that current ownership doesn't have any interest in investing in the site, so a much-needed homepage redesign is out of the question. I still think it's absurd that a photo-based website doesn't have an instagram account, but that's probably because you can't easily link back to this website, where the ad revenue comes from.

Kaphias wrote:

If anything useful comes out of this thread it should be this - that airliners.net itself should be doing more to promote a wider variety and greater amount of photos.

McG1967 wrote:

Maybe the front page needs redesigned with a scrolling ticker of recently added photos? Maybe it needs a 1 click link to recently added?

Unfortunately it's quite clear that current ownership doesn't have any interest in investing in the site, so a much-needed homepage redesign is out of the question. I still think it's absurd that a photo-based website doesn't have an instagram account, but that's probably because you can't easily link back to this website, where the ad revenue comes from.

Scrolling tickers / carousels and other similar things are a no go anyhow and should never ever be used.

Perhaps the solution really is to take away the top photos of the last however many hours view and just replace it with recently added photos and then for photos that are noteworthy, people can vote for them as a photographers choice. That will stop gaming the system of views. If the photographers choice is gamed, then it is more obvious.

Turning off photo views has been suggested before. It's the nuclear strike option, but perhaps the only one.

I usually look at the recently added photos rather than top of the last whatever hours. If something in the recently added is interesting, I'll look at it.

cpd wrote:

If hits are that important to you that you must resort to those methods (or in my view social media promotion) to get them, maybe it’s time to contemplate why you are still taking photos and what you are really getting out of it. And perhaps maybe it’s time to find something else to do.

In the time I did upload photos here, I NEVER did any active social media promotion. The image got uploaded, maybe accepted and whatever the views it got, so be it - outside of my control. I also have no social media accounts.

While this website seems to be stuck pre-2009, there’s an entire generation of photographers who’ve only known the social media world where the game of self-promotion is key to getting any eyes on your work. A growing proportion of the internet isn’t visiting a website to see content. That’s too much work. Now they’re opening apps and scrolling through feeds customized to their interests. It’s the responsibility of the photographer to catch their attention just long enough to (hopefully) gather a “like” by literally putting their work in the viewer’s feed. The better you are at the game, the more traction your work gets. It seems only natural that in 2019 people are playing the game here, too.

There’s so much content out there. Our attention span is getting very short.

Silver1SWA wrote:

While this website seems to be stuck pre-2009, there’s an entire generation of photographers who’ve only known the social media world where the game of self-promotion is key to getting any eyes on your work. A growing proportion of the internet isn’t visiting a website to see content. That’s too much work. Now they’re opening apps and scrolling through feeds customized to their interests. It’s the responsibility of the photographer to catch their attention just long enough to (hopefully) gather a “like” by literally putting their work in the viewer’s feed. The better you are at the game, the more traction your work gets. It seems only natural that in 2019 people are playing the game here, too.

Nothing more really needs to be said, except that these comments:

clickhappy wrote:

It is unfathomable that such a poor shot, of a nothing subject, would receive that many views, so quickly.

clickhappy wrote:

This happens all the time with this photog

clickhappy wrote:

If you want to take pictures in poor light - more power to you.

...are not worth anything except being an @ss.

clickhappy wrote:

But, the front page traffic should be organic - promoting a shot that wouldn't make it on merit just denies the next photog that opportunity. It would be nice if we could all play fairly.

Same old A.net, same old arguments. This topic has come up, what, 20 times in the last 10 years?

clickhappy wrote:

The son of a photog that always has shots on the front page has admitted he tries to get his dads shots on the front page, his reasoning is he feels his dads images are under appreciated.

What's wrong with that?

dgorun wrote:

But again to each their own.

Both in photography, and in the promotion of said photography. Don't know why people get so upset about it.

Great thread. Would read again.

For me this is a non-issue as how others promote their images — and whether they cheat or not — is of no concern to me. They aren't hurting anyone. But as I've said in other threads, the direction in which aviation photography is moving is not, in my opinion, a good one. I see fractures in the community that would've been unheard of a decade ago; everyone's in it for themselves, and views are the apparent prize. It's all a bit pathetic but if that's what gives people their daily kicks...

Royal, I like your photos, because you shoot in a very similar manner to me. The old fashioned 'sunny side-on' is often sneered at these days (not here so much) but, given an old 35mm camera, I have to wonder how many of these digital whizz-kids could achieve the required standard without having Photoshop to bail them out. I know of a few side-on shooters who've been told a few times lately how they need to 'start doing angles' by people half their age — it's ridiculous when your skill as a photographer is judged on your shot preferences — I once heard that side-on shooters only do that style of shot because (are you ready?)... 'they're not good enough to do anything else'!

There are several names whose images unnaturally get thousands of views. Mostly the images are nothing special; in fact they're often so samey that any negativity aimed at side-on shooters seems totally hypocritical! But if people want to resort to this underhand practice let them get on with it — says more about their self-esteem and egos than anything else.

Silver1SWA wrote:

cpd wrote:

If hits are that important to you that you must resort to those methods (or in my view social media promotion) to get them, maybe it’s time to contemplate why you are still taking photos and what you are really getting out of it. And perhaps maybe it’s time to find something else to do.

In the time I did upload photos here, I NEVER did any active social media promotion. The image got uploaded, maybe accepted and whatever the views it got, so be it - outside of my control. I also have no social media accounts.

While this website seems to be stuck pre-2009, there’s an entire generation of photographers who’ve only known the social media world where the game of self-promotion is key to getting any eyes on your work. A growing proportion of the internet isn’t visiting a website to see content. That’s too much work. Now they’re opening apps and scrolling through feeds customized to their interests. It’s the responsibility of the photographer to catch their attention just long enough to (hopefully) gather a “like” by literally putting their work in the viewer’s feed. The better you are at the game, the more traction your work gets. It seems only natural that in 2019 people are playing the game here, too.

There’s so much content out there. Our attention span is getting very short.

I couldn't agree more.

Back in the day, the view counter was a key measure of 'quality' or 'interest value' here. Thus many got very hot under the collar at thoughts of unfair practices. Even the rules were indicative of the high 'status' given to the counters (e.g. banning elements of comments that some might consider were designed to seduce the viewer into opening the photo). Although it would be good to think there was still some relationship between views and some positive characteristic of the photo in question, they are now far more likely to be an indication of someone's presence on social media platforms and their skills in self-promotion (I am obviously not talking here about clearly newsworthy photos etc). I don't use social media and my views here are pretty paltry now. I cry myself to sleep at night trying to reassure myself that this doesn't simply mean that I am a crappy photographer

Take it easy.

Paul

I have just over 50 pics on A.net and proud of nearly everyone of them! I agree, I see some shots pass by which make me frown as why they have achieved 1000+ views inside 24 hours! But do I care? Not really! I post my shots for myself and for fellow enthusiasts to enjoy. Do I think some of my pics are of better quality than some of the top shots? Absolutely!

JakTrax wrote:

Royal, I like your photos, because you shoot in a very similar manner to me. The old fashioned 'sunny side-on' is often sneered at these days (not here so much) but, given an old 35mm camera, I have to wonder how many of these digital whizz-kids could achieve the required standard without having Photoshop to bail them out. I know of a few side-on shooters who've been told a few times lately how they need to 'start doing angles' by people half their age — it's ridiculous when your skill as a photographer is judged on your shot preferences — I once heard that side-on shooters only do that style of shot because (are you ready?)... 'they're not good enough to do anything else'!

Time for me to rant for a little bit, slightly off topic though.

I will not argue about the angles, a sunny side on is not worse (or equally boring) than a 3/4 portrait.
The thing that bothers me is that most of the "double of my age" photographers get their pro cameras and lenses out in the field and come to this site with 1000px sunny side ons. This means that they don't even bother to sit on LR on PS for the extra 2 minutes a full HD pic in ideal conditions requires.
So I am asking, why aren't my pics (95/100 last uploaded pics are over 1600px) seperated/distinguished in some manner from the 1000px ones?
There should be something in the thumbnail indicative of the size of the photo, like an HD mark for pics above 1600.

Connecting this to the topic, I think Royal gets pics on first page so frequently because there are 50-100 people here knowing that he is getting the most out of light camera and editing and they are giving him the extra clicks he deserves.

Good points, solro, and somewhat relevant.

There's a big difference between a good PHOTO and a good IMAGE — in my mind the PHOTO is what comes out of the camera, and if it requires very little editing it can be described as a GOOD PHOTO. The IMAGE is what that photo looks like after editing, and these days is not reflective of how good the original capture is. I have seen terrible photos edited into great images, and great photos edited into terrible images.

1000 pixels wide can mask a multitude of sins and although I wouldn't advocate the site making the distinction between low(er)-res and high(er)-res images I think you have a valid point.

As a former slide shooter specialising in sunny side-ons I think their appeal has waned with the advent of digital but they are still a complex art form to be admired rather than belittled or ridiculed. Each to his own and how one chooses to capture aircraft is entirely personal preference rather than a lack of skill or imagination. Front three-quarter shots are no more challenging than side-ons; in fact, since the aircraft moves across the frame much more slowly I guess you could say they're in some ways easier. Is someone with a whole collection of front three-quarters really any more imaginative than someone with a collection of side-ons?

What I'm saying is this: people will always shoot what they want, how they want. Never try to determine someone's skill or experience level based on how they choose to shoot. If we all shared the same preferences the world would be a pretty boring place.

Thank you for everyone who has taken the time to read and/or reply to this thread.

Karl, you are spot-on with your thoughts; thank you for sharing them.

One thing I have noticed in my 20 years here (didn't sign up until September 11, 2001 - which was a tough day to be an aviation enthusiast) - some people get a few photo views and all the sudden they are an expert. I can't think of a more obvious example of the Dunning–Kruger effect than some of the opinions I see here.

Anyways, with the help of a couple of people who contact me offline, I decided to poke around Reddit and see what was up. It was eye opening to see that some people post *every* shot they get accepted here. That seems odd to me, but I decided to try linking a photo that I'm quite fond of (and was rejected and then accepted on appeal), and the traffic was been quite good. I was surprised.

Personally I don't see the point in trying to promote every shot I upload, but I guess that option is there if people choose to take it. Going forward I will promote shots I think are worthwhile but aren't necessarily mine. It will be nice to get some diversity on the front page.

clickhappy wrote:

Anyways, with the help of a couple of people who contact me offline, I decided to poke around Reddit and see what was up. It was eye opening to see that some people post *every* shot they get accepted here.

Blimey - I really am a dinosaur when it comes to social media!

I like the insertion of a little psychology there, Royal!

Cheers.

Paul

clickhappy wrote:

Anyways, with the help of a couple of people who contact me offline, I decided to poke around Reddit and see what was up. It was eye opening to see that some people post *every* shot they get accepted here. That seems odd to me, but I decided to try linking a photo that I'm quite fond of (and was rejected and then accepted on appeal), and the traffic was been quite good. I was surprised.

Personally I don't see the point in trying to promote every shot I upload, but I guess that option is there if people choose to take it. Going forward I will promote shots I think are worthwhile but aren't necessarily mine. It will be nice to get some diversity on the front page.

Did you just forget that you posted 70+ photos of your own to r/aviation last year, or do I not understand Reddit?

If you read above you’ll see I mentioned having done it in the past - and experienced something like 200 extra views. It seems to have grown a lot - maybe their aviation forums are much more popular than they were?

clickhappy wrote:

If you can post an example of me uploading a photo and getting more than a couple hundred views in an hour, aside from something that’s being promoted as new, then please do..

How about N80GB with 7K views within less than 24 hrs? It's a nice Skyvan, but nothing special and the light is actually quite poor (nose is completely in the shadow). Or to use your own words:

clickhappy wrote:

It is unfathomable that such a poor shot, of a nothing subject, would receive that many views, so quickly.

dutchspooter1 - what exactly is "poor" about my Skyvan shot?

As mentioned above, I posted it on Reddit. Judging by the amount of likes and comments, it is a popular photo. Surprising, for sure.

But, it also didn't receive 750 photo views in a couple of hours (like the photo I questioned to start this thread). And there weren't two identical photos added before it (again, like the photo I questioned to start this thread).

dutchspotter1 wrote:

clickhappy wrote:

If you can post an example of me uploading a photo and getting more than a couple hundred views in an hour, aside from something that’s being promoted as new, then please do..

How about N80GB with 7K views within less than 24 hrs? It's a nice Skyvan, but nothing special and the light is actually quite poor (nose is completely in the shadow). Or to use your own words:

clickhappy wrote:

It is unfathomable that such a poor shot, of a nothing subject, would receive that many views, so quickly.

Dutchspotter1: Some people just don’t get it

clickhappy wrote:

dutchspooter1 - what exactly is "poor" about my Skyvan shot?

I already mentioned that.

clickhappy wrote:

But, it also didn't receive 750 photo views in a couple of hours (like the photo I questioned to start this thread).

On average it sure did.

clickhappy wrote:

And there weren't two identical photos added before it (again, like the photo I questioned to start this thread).

The N80GB photo of Rainer Bexten is pretty similar and it got less than 10% of that number of views (656 at the moment).

dutchspooter1 - Sorry, I missed that in your original post. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Is the photographers choice now being misused too? It has been gamed in the past on a few occasions if I remember right.

I wouldn’t have looked there if it weren’t for this topic.

I’m not naming anyone or pointing at any photos.

cpd wrote:

Is the photographers choice now being misused too? It has been gamed in the past on a few occasions if I remember right.

I wouldn’t have looked there if it weren’t for this topic.

I’m not naming anyone or pointing at any photos.

Quite clearly this is the case. Some people just want to blame and accuse others to divert attention away from themselves it seems like.

cpd wrote:

Is the photographers choice now being misused too? It has been gamed in the past on a few occasions if I remember right.

I wouldn’t have looked there if it weren’t for this topic.

I’m not naming anyone or pointing at any photos.

I was just wondering that myself...