airkas1 wrote:

Unfortunately the photographer has put us between a rock and a hard place

That's too bad. I don't know why photographers get so upset over a single image on a single website.

However, it might be food for thought to consider whether a photographer with considerably fewer photos would be able to cause this sort of "crisis". That could feed into the "different photogs get different treatment" thing.

(I'm not accusing screeners of anything; and as a website, I understand that A.net would want to keep prolific photogs)

airkas1 wrote:

Unfortunately the photographer has put us between a rock and a hard place

Although I don't know any further details, I think that could have been avoided if the photo was immediately rejected upon screening. I can imagine the photographer being upset when told that the photo will be removed after it attracted many views, became PC and promoted on the A.net FB page.

I think it's naive at best to think that implicit biases don't come into play here when they most certainly do in every other aspect of life. I'm sure our resident psychologist will chime in if he eyes this thread....

The fact that one photographer is basically holding A.net to ransom is in itself indicative of how some are treated differently (that's an observation, by the way, not a moan); if it were my image would it have been removed by now, in spite of my protests? I think the answer is succinct....

But the above post by dutchspotter1 hits the nail on the head: had it been diligently screened this problem wouldn't have arisen, and I think it's fair to suggest that another, less well-known photographer would have had it rejected.

Double post

JKPhotos wrote:

JakTrax wrote:

But the above post by dutchspotter1 hits the nail on the head: had it been diligently screened this problem wouldn't have arisen, and I think it's fair to suggest that another, less well-known photographer would have had it rejected.

I do agree with the first as well. But it is there, it was accepted, so unfortunately we cannot change it. So a bit pointless IMO. We all know it shouldn't be there. That's like saying if xy politician wouldn't have been there some stuff wouldn't have happened. Still they are there and doing their stuff.

I can only speak for myself and those 2 other screeners I really know well. But for us it doesn't make a difference who the photographer is and when we screen the shots we don't even look whose they are (okay on some shots it is obvious though). If theres is an issue that justifies a rejection it will be rejected and certainly I won't change my mind when I see the photographers name .I do believe that the majority of screeners do it that way.

But for sure I cannot exclude neither that any favorism isn't happening and yes it would be naive to think it isn't happening at all or never happened. As Karl pointed out this is basically happening everywhere in the world.
Still I can say with a clear conscience that it is not happening systematically in a big way as some suggest here.
It is absolutely not the case that if a certain photographer uploads a shot it will automatically be accepted.

And please don't take it that way to say: "Julien confirms that favorism is happening". No I don't have evidence for this. But can I rule out that anyone might be less strict on his buddies shots? Certainly not. Again that would be naive.

JKPhotos wrote:

I do agree with the first as well. But it is there, it was accepted, so unfortunately we cannot change it. So a bit pointless IMO. We all know it shouldn't be there. That's like saying if xy politician wouldn't have been there some stuff wouldn't have happened. Still they are there and doing their stuff.

The point is that accepting such a controversial shot and promoting it (although that would be out of screener's control) will have negative consequences with people getting upset (either the photographer who took the shot or other photographers or in this case both). I don't know if the screener(s) had realized that.

Speaking of manipulating the system, I have just noticed that the top photo of the last 30 days is a relatively mundane subject shot in very mediocre light — absolutely nothing special about it at all — however what strikes me as fishy is that it has more than double the number of views of the next most popular. It hands down beats all recent creative stunners and newsworthy images.

Is there a fault or can views really be manipulated to that extent?

Karl

Karl,

The photo you are describing is currently 2k views short of No.1 for the last 365 days (which I just noticed is from the same guy) surpassing the rollout of the 777-9 and the first A220 for Delta. If one clicks on that pic will see 0 likes and added in the usual album...This indicates rather limited views from a.net users.

Definetely the most weird thing I ve seen for a while.

JakTrax wrote:

Speaking of manipulating the system, I have just noticed that the top photo of the last 30 days is a relatively mundane subject shot in very mediocre light — absolutely nothing special about it at all — however what strikes me as fishy is that it has more than double the number of views of the next most popular. It hands down beats all recent creative stunners and newsworthy images.

Is there a fault or can views really be manipulated to that extent?

Karl

Very fishy, yes. Not possible with the usual social media promotions...because then we would have more shots with the same views.

No clue how it can get so far...

The DE shot had 12k views overnight 2nd-3rd Sep! Oddly enough the LH 747 image was nowhere near the top shot of the last 365 days 48 hours ago!

The DE has slowed a bit lately, only getting 5.4k views overnight last night... but having said that the next most popular (DL A220, UA 787-10 and 777-9) have remained pretty steady with only a few extra views over the past few days.

Does this warrant further investigation, just in case there's an issue and the photog isn't actually manipulating views?

JKPhotos wrote:

JakTrax wrote:

Speaking of manipulating the system, I have just noticed that the top photo of the last 30 days is a relatively mundane subject shot in very mediocre light — absolutely nothing special about it at all — however what strikes me as fishy is that it has more than double the number of views of the next most popular. It hands down beats all recent creative stunners and newsworthy images.

Is there a fault or can views really be manipulated to that extent?

Karl

Very fishy, yes. Not possible with the usual social media promotions...because then we would have more shots with the same views.

No clue how it can get so far...

It's actually not too difficult to code a little script to prop up a view count. If the site handles multiple hits from a single IP as single view it becomes a tad more labor some, but still doable.

But what's the benefit to this? Surely it's cheating? Is it likely out of the photographer's hands or is it more likely a case of deliberate manipulation?

Okay, this is getting silly...

The Condor shot now has double the amount of views of anything else from the past 365 days (despite being uploaded much more recently). The same photog's fisheye 747 shot is not far off and there's another, almost identical one working its way up (CZ 77W) that incidentally wasn't anywhere to be seen a couple of days ago — 36.2k views out of nowhere!

There's cheating the system... and there's taking the p*ss!

I had a sneak peek and the person's first uploads were in 2005. There was then a steady and consistent stream of images added up till summer 2016, all of which have very average view counts. Then the uploads stopped abruptly. The next we see is from August 2018, and every image since then has had that astronomical view count. Something isn't adding up.

What I don`t get is that the shot of D-ABUM gets so many views (80k) compared to other shots of it (couple of hundred). Am I missing something, but it looks like an ordinary shot of this plane.

spompert, it gets so many views compared to all other shots, full-stop! Double the amount of the first CS3 for DL, and well over double of the roll-out of the 777-9 and UA's first 787-10. And the plane in question has been around for nearly 10 years! I got it added as a priority when it was first painted and, after all these years, my newsworthy shot is nowhere near 80k!

If someone's not seriously manipulating the figures here I'll eat my hat! Usually this kind of behaviour isn't an issue but on this level it's bound to get attention. It's not exactly discreet either.

spompert wrote:

What I don`t get is that the shot of D-ABUM gets so many views (80k) compared to other shots of it (couple of hundred). Am I missing something, but it looks like an ordinary shot of this plane.

86.8K views now that I searched for it.

The photographer name seems familiar too, but I can’t quite remember why. Was that a former staff member...

cpd wrote:

spompert wrote:

What I don`t get is that the shot of D-ABUM gets so many views (80k) compared to other shots of it (couple of hundred). Am I missing something, but it looks like an ordinary shot of this plane.

86.8K views now that I searched for it.

The photographer name seems familiar too, but I can’t quite remember why. Was that a former staff member...

Same. Former screener?

Silver1SWA wrote:

cpd wrote:

spompert wrote:

What I don`t get is that the shot of D-ABUM gets so many views (80k) compared to other shots of it (couple of hundred). Am I missing something, but it looks like an ordinary shot of this plane.

86.8K views now that I searched for it.

The photographer name seems familiar too, but I can’t quite remember why. Was that a former staff member...

Same. Former screener?

Head screener actually, according to my Google research (which was only a minute or two). Either someone is playing a very bad game at the expense of that person, or they’ve got some explaining to do on how those images are getting so many more hits than the average.

Hongyin was a screener for sure, not sure if he was a HS at some point (but could very well be). I've reached out to him and asked if he knows what's going on.

JKPhotos wrote:

And as mentioned before the threshold is low - I would say (though I have no evidence for this) often 3-4 votes might be enough. I think there is much more going on there and that the story is different that one might think at first, for example as soon as any shot is positively commented by a certain user it is sure to later have the PC award. There were already discussions about this but with apparenty people also voting to discredit others I am personally totally lost on it.

Is there any chance that someone can check which photographers are voting for the photos that become PC? It is remarkable that on average 700 photographers are uploading photos (according to the photo corner) but that half of the PC's are from just one photographer. Wondering if he has a specific group of photographers who consistently vote for his photos. Not meant as judgement (I will leave that to others) but it would explain a lot.

We can't see who votes for which photo.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Wondering if he has a specific group of photographers who consistently vote for his photos.

This is a likely possibility, but reasons for doing so may vary.

What Kas is trying to say is that there are a few losers who constantly vote my photos, to make me look bad. It is ridiculous that so many standard shots of mine make PC. If there was a way to make my shots ineligible I would be all for it. Hopefully Paul can work with the Devs to see who is doing the voting (would be very easy to do).

The same people who do this also leave weak ass comments on my photos and then delete them right away. Fee free to see for yourself, the last one brought to my attention was my shot of TC-LLE.

clickhappy wrote:

What Kas is trying to say is that there are a few losers who constantly vote my photos, to make me look bad. It is ridiculous that so many standard shots of mine make PC. If there was a way to make my shots ineligible I would be all for it.

Not sure how getting a PC award would make you look bad, but anyway it would be better to block the voters in question rather than your shots in order to create a level playing field.

clickhappy wrote:

What Kas is trying to say is that there are a few losers who constantly vote my photos, to make me look bad. It is ridiculous that so many standard shots of mine make PC. If there was a way to make my shots ineligible I would be all for it. Hopefully Paul can work with the Devs to see who is doing the voting (would be very easy to do).

The same people who do this also leave weak ass comments on my photos and then delete them right away. Fee free to see for yourself, the last one brought to my attention was my shot of TC-LLE.

You know what, I'd just keep a low profile for a while, say nothing and let the storm clear.

Obviously they are going after you for a reason. Maybe you've upset someone with a forum reply somewhere along the line, I don't know. If I were in your position I'd just let keep a low profile for a while.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Not sure how getting a PC award would make you look bad, but anyway it would be better to block the voters in question rather than your shots in order to create a level playing field.

I would say that is probably going to take development work. Is anything happening or is the site in a BAU phase (business as usual - aka, no more development happening)?

It’s like this website is still debating VHS vs Betamax while the rest of us are debating Netflix, Disney+ or Apple TV+.

The photog in question upthread could just be really good at promoting his work, which is what the entire internet is now based on. The game has changed. Wake up. You’ve set yourself up for people being able to exploit the system to make a mockery of this site.

Silver1SWA wrote:

It’s like this website is still debating VHS vs Betamax while the rest of us are debating Netflix, Disney+ or Apple TV+.

The photog in question upthread could just be really good at promoting his work, which is what the entire internet is now based on. The game has changed. Wake up. You’ve set yourself up for people being able to exploit the system to make a mockery of this site.

If you have followed the photos in question you would notice sudden jumps in views. For example the 777 is sitting at 36.2k for the last 3-4 days after gaining thousands in a few days. Promotion would have had a more gradual fade-out.

How does a boring, bog standard and dull UAL B737 go top with more than 4000 views inside 12 hours?!?!

Well if a shot gets to the frontpage it will accumulate some views and 4.000 isn't an awful lot in the end.

And sometimes the threshold to the frontpage can be rather low, so if a shot gathers 100-200 views on social media it can quickly get there. Nothing that is paticularly suspicious IMO.

Well I know favorism was denied be you guys, but how can you explain the acceptance of this shot then?



Again clearly blurry and missing contrast, heat hazed and so on and by pure coincidence again by a photographer who gets plenty of facebook posts (feels like 50%) and a lot of questionable acceptances. And then this?

JKPhotos wrote:

Still I can say with a clear conscience that it is not happening systematically in a big way as some suggest here.

Are you sure?

The heat haze looks about on par with what's acceptable these days but the contrast is low and I've had similar rejected for distance.

I've come to the conclusion that screening will never be perfect - it is what it is and there's no great motivation to tackle inconsistency. Live with it or upload elsewhere seems to be the philosophy.

Karl

ChrisKen747 wrote:

Again clearly blurry and missing contrast, heat hazed and so on

I would call it soft rather than blurry. Some additional sharpening and contrast might make it acceptable.

I've seen worse heat haze accepted.

^ Photographer has been contacted to a reupload.

Curious how photos like this were accepted: ID 5657181 (https://www.airliners.net/photo/Maveric ... %2BwBK1i/F)
From the upload/acceptance guide:

Photos where the aircraft is covered (i.e. with a protective weather cover or for long-term storage). Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered. This does not include engine/pitot covers. For partial/canopy covers, this again will be at our discretion.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Curious how photos like this were accepted: ID 5657181 (https://www.airliners.net/photo/Maveric ... %2BwBK1i/F)
From the upload/acceptance guide:

Photos where the aircraft is covered (i.e. with a protective weather cover or for long-term storage). Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered. This does not include engine/pitot covers. For partial/canopy covers, this again will be at our discretion.

Partial cover (so per the rule, at discretion) and first photo in five years. Good add IMO.

Does this qualify as a "canopy cover" (i.e. at screener's discretion) or as a "cover over a significant part of the a/c" (i.e. only accepted if no uncovered image is in the db, which is not applicable here)? I would say the latter as it covers almost half the "fuselage" (due to the huge windows).

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Does this qualify as a "canopy cover" (i.e. at screener's discretion) or as a "cover over a significant part of the a/c" (i.e. only accepted if no uncovered image is in the db, which is not applicable here)? I would say the latter as it covers almost half the "fuselage" (due to the huge windows).

Either way and regardless of the rule, this is ultimately a database, and it being the first photo in five years tips it towards acceptance for me.

There's something to say for both sides, but ultimately I agree with Matt.

again a very low contrast example of the same photographer. Please don't call it coinicdence, if this isn't systematic, what is it then?
Apparently for some standards have no relevance.

Again, very oversharpened and very questionable quality and on top of it pre-screened (easy to tell from the ID). Did I miss that a Qatar 380 arrving at Heathrow was a special ocassion? Was it the 1.000th arrival?



The silence on this is rather telling! And everytime the same photographer. But of course no one gets favoured here.

And now it also gets promoted on facebook!

Let me sum up: Prio acceptance despite issues + promotion = full service package.

I am sorry but this is getting a joke here. One could at least try to make it less obvious, but apparently you want to show us "We just don't care and do what we want!"

Well I follow your / this thread and I chose not to reply as I honestly don't know what to say.

I can only say that I am trying to be as fair as I can upon screening and have rejected shots from people I consider friends and at the same time accepted quite some shots of people I don't particularly like. As this should not play a role upon screening. I could say the same of some guys I know rather well. But I cannot look into everyone's head.

Otherwise well, we do care, but not everything is in our control.

Ditto to what Julien said.

Jehan

I realize the actions probably undermine what we're saying, but for background info;

The log shows that the images were screened on request of the developers. Since you have such a keen eye, I'm sure you also noticed that we experienced broken thumbnails. The images were screened as part of testing/tracking for a fix. We prefer to use screener images for such purposes, as there is a chance that images get lost beyond recovering. To avoid users having to wait another X days to get their images screened, we use our own. This also explains why it was screened out of sequence.

The photographer was asked to reupload an improved version of the CX A330 linked above. He will do so once he is home (apparently currently on the road). The QR A380 looks blurry and oversharpened to compensate.

Standards are relevant for everyone, including us. It has our attention, but the solution takes time unfortunately. I'm still working on that.

Unfortunately I can't find the photo upload & acceptance guide anymore, but I'm pretty sure photos like this are usually not accepted for motive reasons: https://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM-Roy ... er/5964971

It would be very interesting to see what the daily traffic figures are for a.net now - when I uploaded back in the day it was known to be the best place on the web however i'm now not so sure.

I had a couple of rejections recently that I thought had been a bit harsh (especially as some images were taken 15 years ago!) - to be honest, with the website it is currently, no development, no interest from the developers and owners myself and many other photographers will probably just "give up" soon and focus on sites such has Flickr / Facebook etc where you'll get a lot more social interaction and interest in what you are uploading.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Unfortunately I can't find the photo upload & acceptance guide anymore, but I'm pretty sure photos like this are usually not accepted for motive reasons: https://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM-Roy ... er/5964971

Not a favorite crop for me, but seems acceptable. I don't see any concerns with motive. Let me know if you have a specific concern re. motive...perhaps I missed something.

Jehan

Airplanepics wrote:

It would be very interesting to see what the daily traffic figures are for a.net now - when I uploaded back in the day it was known to be the best place on the web however i'm now not so sure.

I had a couple of rejections recently that I thought had been a bit harsh (especially as some images were taken 15 years ago!) - to be honest, with the website it is currently, no development, no interest from the developers and owners myself and many other photographers will probably just "give up" soon and focus on sites such has Flickr / Facebook etc where you'll get a lot more social interaction and interest in what you are uploading.

I second that.
Years ago I'd visit Airliners.net daily but now it could be once a week or month.

Conor

The KL 789 crop works for the site I think, although from a personal standpoint I'm not overly enamoured. It does look a touch low-in-frame though, and has a yellow cast.

Screening is and always has been subjective but I'm sure most will agree that there are mistakes and there are... 'mistakes'. Mounting evidence lately suggests that screening needs to be more consistent, as well as transparent.

Karl

jelpee wrote:

Not a favorite crop for me, but seems acceptable. I don't see any concerns with motive. Let me know if you have a specific concern re. motive...perhaps I missed something.

Jehan

In the "old" acceptance guide the following is mentioned about motive rejections:

Motive
Your photo(s) showed a motive that is not accepted by Airliners.net. This problem may be due to a very wide range of reasons.

Some of the most common examples are:
Photos showing just a part of an aircraft (with no motivation for doing so, like a special sticker, damage etc.).

I agree that the KLM B789 has a special sticker so that might not have been the best example, but what about this one: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-A ... 02/5964957

JakTrax wrote:

Screening is and always has been subjective but I'm sure most will agree that there are mistakes and there are... 'mistakes'. Mounting evidence lately suggests that screening needs to be more consistent, as well as transparent.

Karl

I agree that screening is subjective up to a certain degree (e.g. colour, contrast, sharpness) since no pair of eyes is the same and people use different monitors, but screeners should at least be able to pick out the obvious flaws (e.g. motive, level, centering, dirt spots). In my opinion it is worrying when screeners nitpick about minor & subjective issues, but they accept photos with obvious flaws which are detected in a matter of seconds even by average photographers. So unless screeners screen with their eyes closed or they accidentally click the wrong button, such mistakes shouldn't happen.