Quoting Ivandalavia (Reply 99): And this Feeling means that there should be Many Views? So?

No. Read my posts carefully.

Here's an observation from me - interested to hear others' views and potential explanations. It relates to the question of whether we are witnessing a change in patterns of viewing vs. simply less views generally:

I have just had a batch of photos accepted and so I took the opportunity to look closely at what happened. In the old days a photo (here I am talking about one which ended up with decent views - e.g. 1000+) would gradually increase its views in the first few hours, and then the viewing numbers would accelerate over those latter hours in the first 24. I always assumed this related to the photo going up the pages in the 'Top of the Last 24 hours' section. Closer to the front page, and the quicker the acceleration in view numbers. i.e. more people were coming into contact with it because the first few pages of this section were where people looked for new photos.

Now I was fortunate enough to have one of my photos behave like that yesterday - it ended up on the front page and thus got to 700 views. However, there was no hint of this 'exponential' increase in view counts in the latter period of the' 24 hour window' for any of the other photos. The speed of the views increasing was pretty steady (and very slow) throughout the whole time. That 'acceleration' was completely absent.

Going back to a previous point discussed - in the old days, once the photo was through that 24-48 hour window, the hits would really slow down to a crawl, but these days they often seem to continue to grow for longer periods. Maybe this is a perceptual anomaly - is it the contrast between speedy increase and then slow, versus more consistent slow increase? I don't know. Are we seeing a change in the way viewers come into contact with photos - i.e. the 'Top of the last 24 Hours' section appeared king before - is it less so now (or does it only now apply to the first page or two, whereas it was more in the old days)? Or is all this stupid theorising and nonsense, and the bottom line is that less people are clicking on my photos, full stop? Hence most never see the 'light of day' on the top few pages of the 'last 24 hours' section.

Cheers.

Paul

Quoting Psych (Reply 101): Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2588 posts, RR: 62

=========================================

Dear Paul
Allow to explain to you as I see your problem. First about you. I have looked your the first TOP 15 photos and have made simply a conclusion-they have collected so many viewings only therefore because they are made 2004-2005 and only two of them in 2008. And only therefore them many times opened and looked. If you have made them in 2009 - they hardly probable would collect 500-1000 viewings.you and should understand it that it is the Naked truth. Now about viewings in general as a whole. People became simply too lazy also the same People already saw too much. It is enough to them to look at a small photo to understand - it is necessary to open this photo in the big size or not. And seeing that there the same planes, people do not open them. That's all. Exceptions certainly are, but they do not correct a situation

Ivan   

Thanks for your input Ivan.

Please let me be clear - I don't see is as 'my problem'. This thread is not a complaint. I am just thinking aloud if we are seeing something significant for A.net and raising an issue for discussion.

You are absolutely correct - photos taken now generally attract far less views than they did a few years ago - for all kinds of reasons. Many of my 'big hitters' got so many views because of a feature on the site that no longer exists. So those hits are saying nothing about the 'deserved quality' of some of those images.

I don't upload here for hits - I upload because I enjoy it and I like to be involved. True - I prefer it when more people choose to look at my images. But it is their loss if they bypass their superb quality    !

Cheers.

Paul

Quoting Psych (Reply 103): This thread is not a complaint.

=====================================================
By the way-I did not consider that it is your Complaint
All OK
  

Quoting Psych (Reply 101): interested to hear others' views and potential explanations.

I recently uploaded some shots - from the NTM - via priority request (new c/s). My first two uploads (poor weather conditions) got about 1500 and 1600 hits. Two days later, I uploaded 4 other shots via priority request (again new c/s), but the shots were made in splendid weather conditions. I got one with 4200 hits, 2297 hits, 1534 hits and 977 hits.
Later, I uploaded several other shots, without priority request and two shots made more than 1K hits (1311 and 1128), other are struggling between 300 and 1000 hits.

So, my observation is that the first couple of shots from aircraft with new c/s receive more hits than similar later uploads at a time when already more shots (of the same) are in the database.
Second observation is that shots in good weather get - in general - more views than shots taken under poor conditions (i.e. when no special effects are visible from the bad weather).

An other thought is that viewers don't come here for the extreme quality of the shots (which today is better than a couple of years ago, because of the improvements in the technology), but people want to seen new, rare things, spectacular things (accidents?), pictures from areas where they themselves cannot come (cockpit shots, cabin shots)... These "things" get rarer themselves, and hence there is the saturation issue of the "normal"-stuff.

Also, at certain times in life - as Royal already pointed out - there are more important things in life than browsing and clicking pictures on a website...

Would be interesting, however, to see whether the current trend (of decreasing views) continues or whether it will revert into the other direction as soon as the winter kicks in...

Best regards,

Walter

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 105): Would be interesting, however, to see whether the current trend (of decreasing views) continues or whether it will revert into the other direction as soon as the winter kicks in...

Not sure about that - it may reverse. I hope it does.

I think that poor weather is not the answer either - even in poor weather, shots can still get good hits, even if the weather effects aren't obvious.

Maybe it's the tendency for shutter speeds to be slower, meaning panning effect helps. I try to do that all the time now, with just about every new image I upload. Sometimes it has no effect at all on the hits - unless you do something at 1/30sec or slower.

I think it's more important to take the photos on days when other regular uploaders are hiding inside away from the bad weather. Then I do things like this:



It was worth getting wet (camera and lens had a hood over them so stayed dry). Just a shame the new few shots didn't work out, they were much better. The very next one had a tiny little taxy-way marker blocking a tiny little portion of one tyre (motive rejection), and the next was blurry. So have to use the less interesting one.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 88): what would you all think of a structure where Myaviation.net was not a separate site, but fully integrated with A.net?

An interesting idea, but one that would lead to an overall lowering of the average quality of photos on Anet.

I am actually advocating a RAISING of standards - through the application of generally-accepted photographic compositional norms such as the rule of thirds, the Golden Mean, etc. Ultimately, I would like to see exact centering being a cause for rejection (although I know that this will never happen here).

I would not mind if it became even MORE difficult than it is at present to get shots accepted here - provided the higher screening standards were based upon classical rules of composition and not on arbitrary centering and straightening rules.

We need less bureaucracy, not more of it!

Fix what is broken, but not what isn't - otherwise what will happen is that more people will be driven away from this place, nobody will contribute, the views will fall through the floor - the ad revenue won't work - the site won't make money and then it'll be closed.

No more airliners.net.

The conclusion appears to be that the site needs in some way to change its (at times ridiculous) policies. Do DM really think people are coming here to look at 20,000,000 shots of an ET 332 taxiing onto 23L at MAN? Surely the team with the know-how (the same team Johan had by his side) could persuade DM to re-consider site policy/accpetance criteria?

Why, oh why, are we still stuck with Johans methods and principles? It worked then; it probably don't now! Jeez, I bet even he would've seen the changes and tailored the site accordingly! It rings home to me every time someone points out the fact that Johan WAS NOT a photographer! Doesn't that tell you something?

Time to listen or a real downward spiral will begin and subsequently accelerate!

Karl

And what do you suggest, Karl? That we not not accept "an ET 332 taxiing onto 23L at MAN?"

I'd like to make one thing very clear. Demand Media has NEVER dictated what is accepted or not accepted here, it is the work of the screening team, WE set the guidelines as a team, and we are constantly discussing how to make the website a better experience for photogs and the people who like to view the photos hosted here.

On a personal note - while there are some good ideas in this thread - there is also a lot of nonsense. I can appreciate the energy and passion - but the ideas would be impossible to practice. Should we ban side-ons, just because some people don't like them? Guess what, then you would have a database full of 3/4 approach shots. Maybe we should ban centered, side-on shots, because they don't follow "good photographic principal?" Could you imagine a side-on shot using the rules of thirds. Wouldn't that be exciting, a plane pushed to one side with a bunch of empty sky.

My own opinion is that there will ALWAYS be a group of unhappy people here. I could hand you a suitcase full of a million dollars and you would hate me because I gave it to you in $20s and it is too heavy for you to carry. Then you would start a thread about it, saying I was insensitive to your needs and was a moron for not getting you larger bills.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 110): And what do you suggest, Karl? That we not not accept "an ET 332 taxiing onto 23L at MAN?

Royal, you're mssing my point - completely. Indeed, cater for those who wish to look at 20,000,000 side-on images of a common type at MAN; but at the same type cater for those who do not. At the moment we're catering for more-or-less one type of enthusiast - the enthusiast Johan chose to be the site's biggest fan. I'm pretty-much a side-on kinda guy (it's what I mainly do and enjoy) but I'm also an individual, like everyone else.

At the minute I can browse through the mundane stuff that every day lands and takes off at MAN, AMS, JFK, LHR, etc. But I can't browse through 20,000,000 images of a DC-3 drifting away into a sunset or a Connie kicking up spray during foggy weather. This type of image all-too-often falls foul of A.nets increasingly awkward red-tape.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 110): I'd like to make one thing very clear. Demand Media has NEVER dictated what is accepted or not accepted here, it is the work of the screening team, WE set the guidelines as a team, and we are constantly discussing how to make the website a better experience for photogs and the people who like to view the photos hosted here

All very well but it's taking an awful long time to implement change. By the time it happens it may be too late. If it's all down to the screening team why can't changes be implemented with almost immediate effect? 'Tis still this Johan thing in my opinion. Old habits die hard. This thread should highlight the dissatisfaction of both viewer and photographer alike - the very people who visit and keep the site running.

Just for the record, I actually quite like the site as it is (bar the creative issue), however I'm all too aware that if things don't change to cater for the masses it could all go very wrong.

Karl

Karl - let us say that, for the sake of this conversation, you were tasked with "making the site better." Keep in mind that I don't even know what that means - but we will ignore that for now.

The only thing you cannot do is lower the quality standards of the site.

Please list your top ten ideas - and if they make sense - I will present them to the team. You don't have to snap back an answer - take some time to think it through - as I am very serious about this, and I hope you are, too.

Work as a team, if other people are reading this, and have ideas, please send them to Karl in private - and one list will be submitted. No need for 25 people to produce lists.

I look forward to your ideas.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 112): The only thing you cannot do is lower the quality standards of the site

I think it has to strike some sort of balance Royal. Images clearly taken as side-ons-in-sun should be sharp, centred, level etc. and in my opinion fall foul of exactly the kind of criteria currently set now. However creatives don't always have to be, for example, pin sharp - there are, in the real world of photography, circumstances where 'faults' - to use an A.net description - can be aesthetic to an image.

Creatives need not adhere to the same strict guidelines as side-ons - can 'quality' also not relate to the aesthetics or composition of a image as oppoed to simply its technical merits? Obviouslt things like dust-spots, blurry, OOF, etc. must still be cause for concern but things like soft, level, colour casts and contrast can be used far more sparingly where an image is considered creative. As I mentioned, in some cases an image can have more appeal if it suffers from these so-called 'faults'.Sunset images, for example, often take advantage of casts to get the surreal look.

Karl

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 112): Karl - let us say that, for the sake of this conversation, you were tasked with "making the site better." Keep in mind that I don't even know what that means - but we will ignore that for now.

Now it means just one thing - doing something to stop the site from losing people, photographers as well as viewers.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 112): Work as a team, if other people are reading this, and have ideas, please send them to Karl in private - and one list will be submitted. No need for 25 people to produce lists.

Karl, are you taking it up? If you do, I'll send you mine in clear and concise form.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 110): WE set the guidelines as a team, and we are constantly discussing how to make the website a better experience for photogs and the people who like to view the photos hosted here.

This is very good news.

When will we see improvements?

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 110): saying I was insensitive to your needs and was a moron for not getting you larger bills.

Oh dear. We seem to have struck a nerve ...

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 110): Could you imagine a side-on shot using the rules of thirds.

This is where creativity would come into play. Sure, it would be a challenge. But wouldn't a real challenge be exciting?

The bottom line is that the current screening criteria are formulaic and boring. This is why many photographers have stopped uploading here - and at other sites with similar acceptance criteria.

Quoting Ivandalavia (Reply 102): is necessary to open this photo in the big size or not

That's a very good point I think.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 112): Please list your top ten ideas - and if they make sense - I will present them to the team.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 112): Work as a team, if other people are reading this, and have ideas, please send them to Karl in private - and one list will be submitted.

Karl, as you've been given this chance to head it up, then take it on mate. I think we've all got ideas. And if Royal et al, agree to peruse the list of modifications, then this could be a start, at least.
And Royal, I'm sure you'll do your part, together with the team of screeners, and read and discuss our ideas...?

Spence.

Referring to your earlier post Royal, I do agree that side-ons are a fundamental part of this site, and I personally find them attractive and view mainly that type of image here. Of course they should not be banned - that really would plunge the site into disarray! But...

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 110): My own opinion is that there will ALWAYS be a group of unhappy people here

...there will always be unhappy people whatever you do. As long as they're a small minority (or particularly elitist) then you can in the main ignore much of what they rant about. But while they are a significant minority (or even a majority?) their advice should be heeded. No-one's aking for the site to change and shift suitability from one group of people to another (and in doing so annoying people on one side) - it's about accommodating a group which currently isn't really considered, while still maintaining good links with the existing community.

Bending some rules to allow interaction by a growing type of viewer/photographer isn't taking away from the older principles - it's simply adding to them, and should not therefore be of any detriment to the traditional 'Johan-bred' enthusiast. Leave the side-ons to the folk who enjoy them, and at the same time open up a new chapter for the arty-farty types.

I'm starting to get emails detailing others' opinions and what they would like to see altered - any ideas and as Royal suggests PM or photog contact me and we'll get a draft of 25 or so priority suggestions. I will then subsequently post them here.

Cheers,

Karl

Quoting Spencer (Reply 116): That's a very good point I think

If this is the same point I raised earlier in the thread then I fully agree. I sometimes browse the database looking at what livery a particular aircraft is wearing (I think many others do likewise), and therefore rarely need to open the full-sized image. Whichever way you look at it I'm still viewing it. I'm convinced that, with so many images to look through these days, people simply aren't taking a whole lot of time out to click the picture.

On another note, let me say that I'm actually a big fan of the traditional side-ons-in-sun, so the site does its job pretty well for me at the minute. That's not to say however that I don't want to see more variety. I consider the site functional at the moment rather than interesting. I speak for the majority I think, rather than myself as an individual.

I also think that the site - if indeed on the decline - is suffering at a very slow rate at the moment. This could, however, accelerate very quickly, especially given the availability of this thread and the points raised herein. People here have been pretty much brainwashed for so long but are beginning to wake up a little now and shift with the times.....

Again folks, if you're serious and have ideas let me have 'em!

Karl

I have just been reading the last few points made as I haven't read this topic for a few days now. Please forgive me if what I say has been said before.


I have one comment to make on the 2 shot rule. I do think it's good for keeping quality up however I feel it might be making people upload less interesting shots. Let me give you an example:
I have been lucky enough to go to CPH, ZRH, OSL, AMS and CDG twice all this year. From those I have got maybe 100+ imgaes I could try uploading here. The problem is that with the two shot rule it woudl take so long to keep putting two at a time in the cue I just think I would run out of motivation and just forget which I have uploaded. On "the other site" I can upload 10 at a time so it's much more likely the pics will end up there than here. This is not through me liking the other site more it's just easier to get them uploaded there. (please note I am not saying all the 100+ images are very interesting one, I am just trying to give an example).


The other point is about all the side on shots. While I have no problem at all with there being quite a lot of them I do feel a fair few of them really capture none of the "spirit of aviation" if you like. I know each one of us is different but for me certain shots just give you that "wow that plane looks so amazing" feeling.
Just as an example these two have a real wow feeling for me:

View Large View Medium Photo © Paul Paulsen - AirTeamImages

View Large View Medium Photo © Paul Paulsen - AirTeamImages

They are big, vibrant and very atmospheric.



Andy S

Andy,

The two shot rule I guess prevents people putting rubbish in the queue, but at the same time I agree that it limits creativity, with many newbies choosing to upload the typical, 'play it safe' side-on rather than something interesting. That said, it does encourage people to upload only their premium shots and I like the system of 'earning' your queue allowance. Again, if you play your cards right you won't stay on two for long.

It's the current rules I think that really limit creativity. I've tried on a few occasions (with the team's public encouragement) to upload something I consider creative, only to see it fall foul of all the red-tape. The result is succinct - a loss of my hard-earned upload slots. I prefer to play it safe now, as do many others, and this effective 'strangulation' is influencing people's attitudes. It all has a knock-on effect.

What we are seeing in this thread is photographer input; and while many of us are viewers too I'd like to see more input from members who don't (for whatever reason)) contribute photographs. Perhaps a bit of an ask considering casual viewers would require a paid-for account (and I'm not at all suggesting we allow everyone free access).

We've seen many copy-cat sites (all no doubt influenced by A.net) that have adopted similar rules, and now really is the time for a new kind of aviation site to grace the internet. Anyone entrepreneurial enough could well break the mould if they were to act quickly and professionally. Let's hope A.net does a U-turn and gets there first!

Karl

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 110): I could hand you a suitcase full of a million dollars and you would hate me because I gave it to you in $20s and it is too heavy for you to carry.

Oh, I wouldn't mind..!! 

Just some food for thought: if an airline wants to effectively improve its service, it's starting a survey, asking people what they do and don't like and what they'd want to be improved and how...

Might work for A.net as well.

Thierry

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 120): It's the current rules I think that really limit creativity. I've tried on a few occasions (with the team's public encouragement) to upload something I consider creative, only to see it fall foul of all the red-tape.

Karl, when you say creative shots what sort of thing do you mean exactly? As there seems to be little of that sort of thing here I am interested to see what kind of shots you mean.
(sorry if that sounded like a mild insult. It's not meant, I just can't think of a better way to write what I mean   ).

Andy S

We already give allowance for creative shots. But there has to be a line somewhere.

Airliners.net is about the best shots - think of it as the "Miss Universe" beauty pageant. Sure, if you are ugly - tough luck, but that is why people come here, for the best. It is also why people upload here.

There are plenty of other sites that offer a lower level of quality - more of a "Miss Teriyaki Strip Mall" theme, if you will.

I understand the reluctance of no wanting to upload something "outside the box" because it will adversely affect your acceptance ratio.

What if we came up with a way, and I am just throwing this out there without regard to how we would make it happen, that would also someone, say with 100+ shots accepted, two photos at a time that they could mark as "Creative" and, if rejected, would not count against their acceptance ratio.

Would that work?

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 123): two photos at a time that they could mark as "Creative" and, if rejected, would not count against their acceptance ratio.

not a bad idea at all!
(and certainly better that just having the creative shots rejected for motive with no explenation whatsoever and having your ratio affected without even knowing wht went wrong).

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 123): two photos at a time that they could mark as "Creative" and, if rejected, would not count against their acceptance ratio

It could work Royal, but it still wouldn't solve the lack of truly creative images here as the acceptance criteria would be the same. Step in the right direction though no doubt.

I realise LIMITED provision for creatives has been created here but they still are basically subject to the same screening criteria as everything else. Like I say, 'quality' of a shot is subjective - I think quality can be achieved simply by being aesthetically breathtaking. If someone goes well out of their way to get something truly stunning it seems unfair and silly to reject on the grounds of it 'not being quite sharp enough', etc. Quality I think is capturing that rare moment; being in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. Such moments often become apparent to the individual right at the last second so it's not always possible to set the camera up as you would for a boring side-on. Being opportunistic is part of the art of photography in my opinion.

I've stopped receiving emails/messages by the way gang - if you're all as serious as this thread suggests let's get these ideas out in the open! No good wanting change if you don't wish to take the time to participate.

Karl

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 123): What if we came up with a way, and I am just throwing this out there without regard to how we would make it happen, that would also someone, say with 100+ shots accepted, two photos at a time that they could mark as "Creative" and, if rejected, would not count against their acceptance ratio.

Royal, I often think about uploading shots that challenge some of the normal criteria and wish how great it would be if I could give it a try without penalty. Instead of uploading and praying for the best, I have looked to the forum to ask for opinions. Unfortunately the forum doesn't offer as much help as I would like, especially from screeners. So most of the time due to lack of confidence, I just decide it's not worth it to try.

If a system was in place where I could upload a "one-in-a-million-chance-for-acceptance" shot and somhow to the screeners, acknowledge specifically what standard acceptance criteria I'm challenging and explain my motivation for doing so and not get penalized if the answer is thanks but not thanks (rejection)...well yeah, that would be great. But I don't think it should be as simple as ticking a box for "creative". I think the photog should be required to present a case and explain why they consider the photo to be creative. If it's an honest attempt trying for something out of the box, then the ratio hit could be waived.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 125): Such moments often become apparent to the individual right at the last second so it's not always possible to set the camera up as you would for a boring side-on. Being opportunistic is part of the art of photography in my opinion.

Is it just me or are we getting confused here?

There is a difference between the "decisive moment", opportunistic shot described by Karl and a "creative" image

A flash of sunlight through the wingtip vortices of an A-330 causing a momentary bright rainbow effect might result in a spectacular image, hardly creative though and certainly not worthy of consideration if blurred because the camera was not set up for it.

I am generally of the opinion that an image that has to have it's creativiity described to establish the fact has failed, certainly at some level.

Just some thoughts

Chris

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 127): I am generally of the opinion that an image that has to have it's creativiity described to establish the fact has failed, certainly at some level.

But when the creativity of the image challenges such strict rules and standards then I think some explaining is necessary, especially since everyone has different opinions of what creative means.

It's more of a, hey screeners check this image out. I am fully aware of the rules here and I am aware my image defies them in some ways, but I'm giving it a shot in the queue because _______(insert motivation here). Otherwise if you introduce a checkmark for creative shots to get around a rejection penalty, people are going to abuse it and try to get anything through the queue through that system to dodge the penalty.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 128): It's more of a, hey screeners check this image out. I am fully aware of the rules here and I am aware my image defies them in some ways, but I'm giving it a shot in the queue because _______(insert motivation here). Otherwise if you introduce a checkmark for creative shots to get around a rejection penalty, people are going to abuse it and try to get anything through the queue through that system to dodge the penalty.

The uploader would have to select the 'Creative' option, and fill in a field explaining what the creative aspect is, or what is being pushed to the line, or across the line in terms of rules. The screeners would then accept or reject, and confirm or deny the hit to the acceptance ratio.

Example: I upload a shot I feel is creative, I explain why. The screeners agree that it is creative, but it just pushes the rules too much. They would then give me a motive rejection (hopefully explain why), and checkmark the box applying the waiver to the acceptance ratio.

Similarly, if one was uploaded with the creative box checked, but the screeners did not feel it truly was creative, they would leave the box unchecked that applies the acceptance ratio waiver.

Therefore, the system would not be cheated, but it would reward those, who did put a creative effort forward, by not punishing them for trying.

Quoting Jetmatt777 (Reply 129): I upload a shot I feel is creative, I explain why. The screeners agree that it is creative, but it just pushes the rules too much. They would then give me a motive rejection (hopefully explain why), and checkmark the box applying the waiver to the acceptance ratio.

I think these kinds of shots should receive no dispensation. However, existing precedents should act as a guide - of course excluding things like a dark, blurry plane flying above the runway approach lights. This isn't runway-approach-lights.net.

You can already explain that an image is creative, there is a message to screeners feature.

Creative shouldn't become a method to avoid getting rejections for photos that don't work. If the image is creative, and works well, then the photographer shouldn't need to worry about rejections.

[Edited 2009-10-11 21:04:20 by cpd]

Quoting Jetmatt777 (Reply 129): The uploader would have to select the 'Creative' option, and fill in a field explaining what the creative aspect is, or what is being pushed to the line, or across the line in terms of rules. The screeners would then accept or reject, and confirm or deny the hit to the acceptance ratio. Example: I upload a shot I feel is creative, I explain why. The screeners agree that it is creative, but it just pushes the rules too much. They would then give me a motive rejection (hopefully explain why), and checkmark the box applying the waiver to the acceptance ratio. Similarly, if one was uploaded with the creative box checked, but the screeners did not feel it truly was creative, they would leave the box unchecked that applies the acceptance ratio waiver. Therefore, the system would not be cheated, but it would reward those, who did put a creative effort forward, by not punishing them for trying.

Exactly!

[Edited 2009-10-11 20:59:43]

Quoting Cpd (Reply 130): However, existing precedents should act as a guide - of course excluding things like a dark, blurry plane flying above the runway approach lights. This isn't runway-approach-lights.net.

A bit tongue in cheek here, but are you sure about that?


View Large View Medium

Photo © Tim De Groot - AirTeamImages


Airliners.net is what we make of it. If an image is good or striking or of high quality, it only does viewers a disservice to not see it for not fitting in a mold, but that's just my opinion.

[Edited 2009-10-11 22:01:12 by dvincent]

Quoting Jetmatt777 (Reply 129): The uploader would have to select the 'Creative' option, and fill in a field explaining what the creative aspect is, or what is being pushed to the line, or across the line in terms of rules

Quoting Jetmatt777 (Reply 129): Therefore, the system would not be cheated, but it would reward those, who did put a creative effort forward, by not punishing them for trying.

The system would reward people with good English skills. How about those with limited or no English?

I believe that creativity doesn't need explanation; it should be self-evident.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 123): What if we came up with a way ... mark as "Creative" and, if rejected, would not count against their acceptance ratio.

Could be done very easily. Just make it so that all 'motive' rejections don't count against acceptance ratio.

Royal,

Reviewing your idea about the 100+ database shots allowing a two-slot creative rule I actually think it's a pretty good way forward. It will obviously make more work for the screeners and the queue length will increase but I think most of us here would rather have that system than the current one. No moaning please - horses for courses and we can't have it all!

I especially like the way you suggest it should be restricted to those who've already proven themselves here, so to speak - should stop the inevitable flow of rubbish we'd otherwise get clogging up the queue. I think however that the screening team should become slightly more relaxed and apply slightly different criteria for true creatives - possibly by assigning a sort of sub-screening team dealing exclusively with the new images. Training such individuals to determine creativity from crap I think would be a good way in which to address this, and I think a slightly different, less traditional eye would be an advantage.

Let's face it, we all know that many fine images rejected here would be snapped up (pardon the pun!) by professional galleries in an instant. In the real world of photography (as an art) many images that don't meet the technical perfections required here would easily be considered beyond excellent from a professional perspective. I think the term we're looking for is that A.net should become a little more imaginative, as currently imagination here is seemingly at a premium.

Karl

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 127): A flash of sunlight through the wingtip vortices of an A-330 causing a momentary bright rainbow effect might result in a spectacular image, hardly creative though and certainly not worthy of consideration if blurred because the camera was not set up for it.

But how can you tell whether the photog had been in place planning and waiting patiently or whether he just saw a quick, opportunistic chance? I'm not saying we should overlook something like blurry - it would have to still be considered a good image; at least in the realms of pro-photography, outside the perimeters of A.net. If it has major flaws and sticks out as a lucky moment then hit reject.....

I don't think just by looking at an image you can determine exactly how the photog has tired to express him/herself.

Karl

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 135): I especially like the way you suggest it should be restricted to those who've already proven themselves here

I especially don't like this idea. This site is elitist enough to make it even more elitist.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 135): should stop the inevitable flow of rubbish we'd otherwise get clogging up the queue.

What 'flow of rubbish', Karl? The number of slots will still be limited, and the waiting time in queue will remain the same. And the number of slots the new photographers "under 100" have will make them think twice before uploading obvious rubbish.



[Edited 2009-10-11 23:47:24]

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 126): Unfortunately the forum doesn't offer as much help as I would like, especially from screeners. So most of the time due to lack of confidence, I just decide it's not worth it to try.

There are some fairly helpful experienced photographers who visit here who are'nt screeners,Yes being screeners its also hard to find plenty of time to help with pre/post screening threads aswell but creative images arent just 1 screener opinion & judge but it could be 5-10+ screeners giving opinions on the image as to what they think,So if one screener posts in the forum about a creative shot than that doesnt mean it will be accepted or rejected depending on the post from that screener.

If you have a creative image than put it in the que with images that are quite good & stand a chance as one rejected image shouldnt effected your acceptance too much.

For instance 1 day you put 4 decent images in que & maybe a day or two after put a creative image in the que,See how those 4 perform if they do they well keep it in the que,If 1 or 2 are rejected than maybe pull the image & try again with another batch.

Cheers Mark.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 136): But how can you tell whether the photog had been in place planning and waiting patiently or whether he just saw a quick, opportunistic chance?

It's irrelevant, the shot either works or it doesn't.
The amount of effort or time put into making a photograph should not influence (the viewers perception of) the result.

A blurry, out of focus, poorly exposed image does not improve based on the amount of time the photographer took to make the image.

If the image works and the result is a great photograph it matters not whether it was a carefully planned effort or a lucky shot on the spur of the moment....Just don't claim creative genius for the "snap" shot that you got lucky with!

An example...

View Large View Medium

Photo © Chris Griffiths

Is this image better or worse for being planned and prepared for or by being a lucky spur of the moment snap?*


Cheers


*It was not a spur of the moment snap.. I had planned for that kind of image before I went to that site at that time.

[Edited 2009-10-11 23:47:57]

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 134): Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 123): What if we came up with a way ... mark as "Creative" and, if rejected, would not count against their acceptance ratio. Could be done very easily. Just make it so that all 'motive' rejections don't count against acceptance ratio.

Guys,

Its very reasonable idea but it doesn't called to solve the main issue - decreasing of views. Most of creative photographers have enough slots at the queue and it can brigng additionaly 1-2, 10-20 but not hundreds or thousands photogs. The point is not to count or not motive rejections but to reduce number of motive rejections. It can bring as more photogs, as more viewers looking for something unusual.

Indeed line is important and aviation subject has to dominate at the photo.

Let me again return to Airports Life category suggestion. My media experience shows me that people like to see other people. Pilots at work are allowed at the site, why ground workers are not? I've just started to upload some albums to club.foto.ru website. Albums are very short yet however I'll plan to increase it. It is in Russian unfortunately but languege is not so much important there. Indeed, not all photos are good example to be uploaded but some are quite fine, in my view:
http://album.foto.ru/photos/35533/ - Airport life
http://album.foto.ru/photos/35388/ - different motives

Regards,

Fyodor

I've read this thread with great interest. First time I've ever read anything at length on Airliners. Great discussion guys!

I was a long-time viewer of A.net and only started contributing about 5 months ago. 5 months into the process I've only had 3 photos accepted, which is a little underwhelming. I opened accounts at other sites 2 months ago and already find I'm slowly spending more time on those sites. I'm going where my photos are, and they're not here. I think that's pretty rudimentary.

Here's my problem with the 2-photo limit: it's just not working for me. It's not just that I can't upload photos, it's that, while in the process of "learning" the A.net way of doing things, I'm being penalized for trying. That's an actual disincentive. How people can't see that is beyond me.

Why does there have to be a acceptance ratio at all? Why so complicated? Why can't you just receive uploads by pics in the database? This way you can risk submitting "risky" photos ad infinitum and it won't count against you. Only your accepted photos will count. A.net can maintain its standards, new photogs can labor to overcome this upload limit, but at least their attempts to upload won't be penalized. This is exactly how I screwed myself in the foot... I've attempted to upload one photo 3 times and not only has it not been uploaded, but I've racked up 3 rejections from one photo. Let's not even go into my other upload attempts.

Keep the criteria, but ditch the ratio thing completely. Just apply a Pics In the Database standard. At 5 pics in the database a photog gets 5 uploads, at 10 photos in the database he gets 7 uploads, or whatever numbers your gents please. That way I'm allowed to take risks with pics I'm trying to upload without the added penalty of having to worry about my acceptance ratio. I won't feel hurried to "improve" my ratio, I won't worry about a ratio, I'll just try to post pics to the site and to upload as many pics as I can because the more pics I upload the more pics I'm allowed to upload. Is that hard? What am I missing?

Anyhow, great debate, should be more of these.

Btw... you can't claim to be the "Best Aviation Site on the Web" as long as your Daily Top 5 includes air cabin shots with greasy bald heads center frame eating up 20% of the shot. If you're going to reject photos for "backlit" or whatever reason, you better start instituting some cabin shot protocol STAT, because I've seen some rather ridiculous stuff front and center on your home page the last few weeks. And I KNOW I'm not alone on this.

Btw... thanks to everyone who's added my shots to their photo albums!!!!!!

Nowhere else in the world of photography is there a requirement for the subject to be centred.

Can someone please explain to me why aircraft are different in this respect from all other subjects, e.g. motorcycles, flowerpots, buildings, people, landscapes?

If there is no valid explanation, there is no justification for the "centred" rule here.

Quoting Viv (Reply 142): Nowhere else in the world of photography is there a requirement for the subject to be centred.

Viv,
I agree and, yes, I do know the more normal rules of composition. The centred rule has its roots in the slide fraternity where that is what slide collectors sought and I have to say that aircraft are probably unique in often working well centred. Think of what is a standard side on of almost any aircraft, but in particular something long and thin, a DC 8-63 for instance and the only way it works is centred. Since we started to accept more 'creative' images (note the ' ' marks) we are accepting more standard rule of thirds/golden mean images where they work well. I hate the term creative but think of it myself as away from our normal a,net compositional rules, perhaps even our dogma !

My explanation, that you seek, is that aircraft tend to be inherrently long and thin so centring works. If you take an image that is not centred but it works well, subject to the usual quality constraints, it is now likely to be accepted which was not the case before.

Now, that is my explanation, but it is for others to argue if it is a valid one. There is one other aspect, the consideration of this as an aviation site, where people came to look at aircraft photographs. The emphasis has now changed making the site also for those wanting to look at photographs of aircraft, a subtle shift. I think that those nuances do actually sit pretty well together but the hits are down, the traffic up meaning that there has been a shift somehow.


My feeling is that the enthusiast, the one who comes to look at aircraft is the one who has gone and that that has nothing to do with the rather formualeic a.net recipe. Lets face it, other sites also have their own recipes just not quite so quality orientated as ours.

Mick Bajcar

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 143): The centred rule has its roots in the slide fraternity where that is what slide collectors sought and I have to say that aircraft are probably unique in often working well centred. Think of what is a standard side on of almost any aircraft, but in particular something long and thin, a DC 8-63 for instance and the only way it works is centred.

Mick,

Yes, I see that.

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 143): If you take an image that is not centred but it works well, subject to the usual quality constraints, it is now likely to be accepted which was not the case before.

I am happy to learn this.

I suppose I just find side-ons boring - not necessarily boring to look at, but boring to shoot.

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 137): What 'flow of rubbish', Karl?

If someone is a regular contributor here and knows the ropes they are likely going to select for upload something that will actually stand a chance as creative. Allowing a free-for-all will result in a longer queue and it's a fact (by screeners' testimonies and not my personal observations) that a good chunk of the existing queue is littered with well-below-parr shots. Do we really want to worsen the situation? I imagine we'd get all-and-sundry's out-of-the-window wing-view snaps being put in as creative.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 139): If the image works and the result is a great photograph it matters not whether it was a carefully planned effort or a lucky shot on the spur of the moment

That was precisely my point. The outcome is no different and no-one will know in what manner exactly the image was composed. Creative 'lucky shot' and creative 'planned' shot are one and the same aesthetically.

Quoting Zbot69 (Reply 141): process of "learning" the A.net way of doing things, I'm being penalized for trying

Yes, and it's unfortunate. Hopefully this thread will be the start of change.....

Quoting Zbot69 (Reply 141): Why does there have to be a acceptance ratio at all? Why so complicated? Why can't you just receive uploads by pics in the database?

A two-month queue? No thanks! There's no doubt in my mind that quality would slip too. It's an inevitability.

Quoting Viv (Reply 142): Nowhere else in the world of photography is there a requirement for the subject to be centred. I agree. That's why A.net isn't about photography (IMHO) but... Can someone please explain to me why aircraft are different in this respect from all other subjects, e.g. motorcycles, flowerpots, buildings, people, landscapes? If there is no valid explanation, there is no justification for the "centred" rule here.

...I do think the classic 'side-on-in-sun' should involve a correctly-centred subject. As was said above, an aircraft off-centre with an expanse of blue sky to one side would just look daft. And I doubt this is the legacy of slide photog's. It seems natural when composing such shots that the subject should be centred. Of course if there are interesting features in the frame then it's a different story.....

Karl

Howdy Trax, thx for reading.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 145): A two-month queue? No thanks! There's no doubt in my mind that quality would slip too. It's an inevitability.

How exactly? My point is, ditch the punishment, keep the reward. How does maintaining queue limits based on "Pics In The Database" criteria lengthen the queue or water down the quality? I'm not getting it. Keep the screening, keep the criteria, keep the upload limits, just base your submission limits on successes, rather than counting failures. It's the counting of the failures that is disincentivizing new photogs.

Thx again.

Quoting Zbot69 (Reply 146):

So your saying build up your upload slots on the number of one's accepted photos only?

Regards,

Conor

Howdy Connor,

Quoting Conoramoia (Reply 147): So your saying build up your upload slots on the number of one's accepted photos only?

Exactly. Simple and straight forward. Most importantly, you're not penalized for attempting to upload something you really believe in. If you tweak it enough, eventually it might make it into the DB, and that is enough of an incentive to keep trying. Now every time I attempt to upload the pic, not only do I get a rejection, but I keep bombing my acceptance ratio to the depths. This exactly what has happened to me now... I'm forced to revert to my side-ons at sunny noon to hope to revive my acceptance ratio, and the more pics get rejected the more of these I have to add to the DB to hope to be able to risk some interesting shots again.

Reward the successes, stop punishing the failures. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Cheers mate!

And again about 'motive'...

I see that my suggestion to make an exception for the "motive" rejection reason so that it doesn't affect the acceptance ratio, has been largely ignored. Maybe the readers of this thread thought I was joking.

But seriously, "motive" by its nature is a unique RR and could be looked at differently than others. See for yourself.

Level, Blurry, Borders, Color, Common,Compression, Contrast, Dark, Dirty, Distance, Editing, Overexposed, Grainy, Over-sharpened, Quality, Size, and Soft are all rejection that have to do with the quality of images.

Category, Centered, Common, Copyright, Info, Photographer, Reupload - these have to do with the photographer learning the rules of the website and doing his homework properly.

The 'motive' rejection, however, stands alone. It is the most contradictory, subjective and unclear rejection reason. There is no exact definition for it, and sometimes one and the same image could be rejected for it or accepted and end up in the top, highly praised exactly for the same reason for which it could have been rejected.

Why not then set it up so it doesn't affect the acceptance ratio? Also, if there are other reasons to reject the same photo, why not make so that 'motive', if applied, would override them and make the rejection non-affecting the acceptance ratio as well? Why? Well, just because image, rejected for 'motive', is not fixable anyway. In those rare occasions when it is fixable, say, by re-cropping, it could be noted in the screeners' message.

That would stop people from being afraid to upload 'creative images' once and for all.

Of course, there would be side effects, like a slightly longer queue (not by much, because the number of slots would still be limited, and the waiting time in queue would remain the same).

I believe that 'pros' of such change would considerably outweigh the 'cons'.

Andrei