This issue has been discussed in various guises before - including when the new Home Page was launched - but I thought it may be worthwhile to explore it again.

I have to recognise that very few of my images can be classed in the 'spectacular' category. But I still enjoy uploading and sharing my photos. I have noticed over more recent times that my 'standard' Manchester images are getting far fewer views than previously. For example, you could always be sure at MAN that a photo of a wide body would attract decent viewing numbers (regularly into the high hundreds and often four figures). More recently many of my photos are 'performing poorly' - that is, accepting that performance on the site is measured by how many views you achieve - another contentious debating point   . I am sure than in days of old some of my recent images would have had at least 4 or 5 times as many views as they do now.

Why do you think it is that numbers are so significantly reduced?

I was wondering if we are now seeing the results of a 'saturation' of images on the site/internet - thus only the images that stand out get the big viewing figures? Is it fewer people are visiting A.net generally? Maybe it is only me? Is this a thing peculiar to Manchester photos? What do you think this is evidence of? It seems the photos on the front page still generate similar numbers of views, so it is not all doom and gloom on this front.

Of course, many will say that numbers of views is irrelevant. In some ways I recognise that viewpoint, but surely we have to be honest that the vast majority of us put our images on here, not just to provide work for the screeners, but to share our images as much as possible. If very few are looking at them then we are sharing less. One concern is that if viewing numbers are frequently low then the incentive to strive to meet the high standards of the site might possibly be eroded - another debating point.

I am interesting in others' thoughts on this issue.

Have an enjoyable weekend.

Paul

Quoting Psych (Thread starter): Why do you think it is that numbers are so significantly reduced?

I've noticed the same as well. I think you are right to a certain extent with saturation of particular photos. I think the problem we have at Manchester is we regularly see the same aircraft. Registrations may vary, but it's the same types in the same liveries. Unless there's a particular selling point for the photo, I don't think viewers are clicking on them anymore as it's the same or very similar photos that have been upload previously. I've not been to MAN for a couple of months, apart from when flying out in search of some nice weather! so I've not uploaded any photos from MAN recently, but there's not much in the way of diversity this year. And when something 'special' is due, the weather has normally let us down. There's not many of us that upload shots from Blackpool, but viewing figures (hits) have been consistant, no change really mainly due to having some rare traffic through and luckily, some nice weather at the right times. I think a combination of saturation and to a certain extent repetative shots of same aircraft / liveries is the main reason.

Darren

Hi, Paul.

I've noticed this issue as well. My recent pictures got a low number of views; something I didn't expect.
It happens every time the screening team speeds up the queue. As every single day about 500 new pics are added to database; if you have one accepted among this 500 it becomes "diluted". If you are lucky enough to have your picture time enough on the first page of the 'New photos added today' to get some hits, this picture will have a bigger number of hits than if it stands on first page for one minute -or never if mire than 15 pictures are added simustaneously-
Only my theory though....

Best regards.

Stil

It's the a380 factor. Anything non a380 or non desirable/newsworthy just doesn't rate.

Although sometimes you can be surprised. There doesn't seem to be a common thread to it sometimes. However, a boring a380 photo (msn26) got better ratings than a nicely composed and arty photo of a common 737.

The 737 got a comment, but otherwise slow views. The a380 no comments but lots of views.

I think the one way now to get consistent high views is to take photos in unusual situations or tough light conditions, using advanced techniques, and make sure it's an a380 you are photographing.  

Paul,

I have to say that I have noticed the same. I have been lucky enough to have 98% of my images from my recent trip to YUL accepted, but only one of them has any significant amount of hits.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Dan Vincent - New England Airports


It's not really a spectacular picture, but it is of still fairly relevant subject matter - the new AF color scheme. It's got three times as many hits as my favorite photo from that day, though. True, I didn't go hit fishing by saying it's a panning shot but it should be clear from the thumbnail that it was.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Dan Vincent - New England Airports


The two photos aren't really all that different, except a KLM MD-11 is pretty "common" round these parts.

One thing that I think has been hurting recently is that the search engine, for me, has been very troublesome. Clicking on various "related" links comes back with errors, and some searches come up empty even though there's relevant photos on the site.

I would say that yes, having less pictures approved generally means more hits all around, but given the amount of quality photographs that have been coming through, this is a problem that would happen eventually. It's a GOOD thing even though we might take it on the chin for hits because in my opinion documenting the movements of airports is a worthwhile endeavor and if an image is high quality, it should be here. I still do my part by looking at nearly every approved image from BDL or BOS, for instance.

But, you never know. I just made a good sale the other week on an image that was not very popular, hits-wise. This place, for better or worse, is still what people go to first, so it is worthwhile for me to do the dance.

What could be done to improve hits? The only things I could think of are very expensive, processor/network wise. For example, the similarity database (remember that?), a very computationally expensive idea, was one of my favorite things. How about a random assortment of images in a strip like "More from this airport" or "More from this photographer"? What about slideshows? A Random photo list generator? Just a few ideas...

Quoting Psych (Thread starter): Why do you think it is that numbers are so significantly reduced?

It's obvious. Look at the changes to the site, the management, and the abundance of other sites with great images and you'll have your answer imo. It seems from conversations I've had with others that used to be quite active, there is much less interest in this place then in the past.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 5): there is much less interest in this place then in the past

Further evidence of this is the lack of constant activity in this forum. When I first started to contribute to the photography forum there was plenty of hustle and bustle. Now a lot of familiar faces (or names, should I say?) who were regulars here appear to have gone.

Karl

Quoting JeffM (Reply 5): others that used to be quite active, there is much less interest in this place then in the past.

Think you have hit the nail on the head there Jeff. I was only talking to a guy last night actually about this, and he said he hasn't even surfed A.net for a year!!! And he has over 1,000 images hosted here and was pretty active.
I can't say it's one thing or the other but there's definitely something that has changed here. And like Jeff mentioned, there's other sites up and running now with easier acceptance criteria, resulting in a wider range of photos on offer.
But to return to Paul's topic of views etc. then I too have noticed a drop in them. I'll admit I started to really like watching how well my pictures did and it made me go out and try new and exciting things that an audience would appreciate.
Spence.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6): Further evidence of this is the lack of constant activity in this forum. When I first started to contribute to the photography forum there was plenty of hustle and bustle.

hustle & bustle ?? All i see now is just these pre/post screening threads & although they're for the betterment of photographers blah....blah..... i'd like if A.net can have a seperate sub-section or sub-forum for all this like:-

Civil Aviation

Travel Polls & Preferences

Technical / Operations

Aviation Hobby

Aviation Photography

Pre/Post Screening Help

Trip Reports

Military Aviation & Space Flight

Non-Aviation

Site Related

I'm no genius who would never need help with a tricky photo/edit.
Quite the contrary, i emailed Royal for help & he was happy to oblige, my point is just that there should be a separate sub-forum for all this.

Unlike wayy earlier, these days when i log-on to the Av Photography forum i grimacingly try to see if there's something worth clicking & reading about

Quoting Psych (Thread starter): Why do you think it is that numbers are so significantly reduced?

There's the Question ^

There's the answer v

Quoting Psych (Thread starter): I was wondering if we are now seeing the results of a 'saturation' of images on the site/internet - thus only the images that stand out get the big viewing figures?

Paul, if your meaning of Saturation was 'Photographers dumping ALLLLLL of their day's worth of landing shots against a featureless sky' Then i Totally Agree.

Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 8): Paul, if your meaning of Saturation was 'Photographers dumping ALLLLLL of their day's worth of landing shots against a featureless sky' Then i Totally Agree

I think such photo's from MAN have over-saturated A.net. Just take a look at the amount of shots of an SQ 777 rotating from the same spot - there are far too many. There are plenty of MAN guys who do dump the whole day's shots on here, including really mundane stuff like FR and U2. I try and put on what's interesting; or at least what I think might be interesting.

Once again, the 'creative' point must be raised - A.net isn't creative whatsoever and pulling the wool over our eyes and pretending it is I think has pushed many away. 'Interesting' tends to be anything that ISN'T here on A.net; 'interesting' tends to always fall foul of motive issues.

I think people may well go elsewhere these days to look at 'interesting' shots.

Karl

Quoting Psych (Thread starter): More recently many of my photos are 'performing poorly' -

Define "more recently". Do you mean over the last week or two, or over the last few months?

Quoting Stil (Reply 2): It happens every time the screening team speeds up the queue. As every single day about 500 new pics are added to database; if you have one accepted among this 500 it becomes "diluted".

That's it   

sometime around mid-september I noticed a big drop in views (at least on my stuff).
Unless there is actually less traffic to the site, which certainly could be a possibility, then I would agree with Stil and say the main cause is adding images too fast.
It's still possible to get high views, you just need to post pics of seatbacks and airport overviews.

I have noticed this too. I have some shots that are similar in nature but not saturated as in the case of Ryanair at MAN. Some were uploaded about a year and a half ago and got decent hits in the first 24 hours. The one I most recently uploaded got about 300-400 views. I also noticed that even shots that get photog's choice and sit on homepage for 12 hours often don't make it past 15k views. 2-3 years ago most of these shots easily got 30k+ views.

I have noticed that if you want to get lots of hits your photo should be one of these categories:

1) A-380
2) Cabin shots and most cockpit shots(especially in flight)
3) Wing views with the airport right under or airport overviews in general
4) Iran
5) Russian military aircraft

Occasionally you get some breathtaking photos in dramatic light or creative photography but otherwise those 5 categories are almost guaranteed to net you above average views. So start snapping away!  

By the way, hits decrease dramatically if the queue gets reduced. IF on any average day about 400 shots are uploaded...this past week some days almost 1000 photos were uploaded. Of course people can't look at as many shots and hits go down. So a shorter queue is a double-edge sword in any case. As people see that the queue goes faster, more uploads per day happen until it stabilizes again.

Quoting Psych (Thread starter): I was wondering if we are now seeing the results of a 'saturation' of images on the site/internet - thus only the images that stand out get the big viewing figures?

You know Paul... it has always been this way. The most interesting/different photos make it to the front page.

With close to 1.5 million photos, I don't think that saturation has only "recently" occurred.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6): Further evidence of this is the lack of constant activity in this forum. When I first started to contribute to the photography forum there was plenty of hustle and bustle.

We can only blame ourselves for that, since we are they ones that contribute to this forum. When we slow down, the forum slows down.

I personally have not noticed any change, but I think my situation is a bit different from other photographers on the site. I rarely take pictures of major airlines or even jet aircraft, so I think it's a much different set of people that view my photos. A lot of times I know before uploading that a photo simply won't attract a lot of views, but I'm usually happy to upload it because there aren't many photos of a lot of the aircraft up here.
I am also the only photographer on a.net based in Yellowknife, so I think that helps me get more views than somewhere where there are many photographers at the same airport.

I play a little game with myself -- as I'm shooting, I try to guess how many views that photo will get here in the first 24 hours. It's scarily accurate. I know exactly when a photo of mine will make top of the day (barring one of those pesky 380s ahead of me...), I know exactly when it'll be in the top 5, and I know exactly when it'll make a crappy 250 hits. There's a fairly well recognizable pattern of what gets views on this site, no surprise there. If Ivan's scheme above is correct, and it is, shoot the cockpit of an A380 in flight over Iran with a Russian fighter out the window and watch your photo hit 50K. Audiences in general are predictable. Is it a bad thing? Nah, it's just the way it is.

As for why certain shots seems to get fewer hits than they used to, I suppose there is some kind of Saint Maarten inflation factor at play -- i.e. the first time you see a 747 buzzing the beach, wow. The second time, yeah, cool, but I've seen it before. Third time, meh. What is news, or in other words what wasn't known before, gets the hits.  

Quoting Alberto Riva (Reply 15): What is news, or in other words what wasn't known before, gets the hits.

Yes, but this theory falls apart when it comes to A-380 and cabin shots  

I can only speak for myself but I've noticed that though while the first 24 or even 48h are not the most active ones when it comes to views, I get much more hits in the longer run than I used to get a while back.

A good example is this one:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Planecatcher


On the first 48h it got barely 400 views but now, only a month later it's already at 920.

Views depend on many different factors as already listed in the posts above; some high-hitters are predictable, others aren't but all in all I believe we are doing pretty well here at A.net when it comes to views.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 5): Look at the changes to the site, the management, and the abundance of other sites with great images and you'll have your answer imo.

I agree with the later reason but as for the 2 first ones I think we've shown over the last few months that we care for our contributors and that A.net is on the best way to become better than it's ever been and I'm confident that people will notice this and many who have left will return (some already did).  

Thierry

This may sound ridiculous or absurd but what if A.net could just have a little widget like the one for Photographers Choice on the front page where Lets Say IF the #2 & 3 photos were ticked Cabin or Cockpit then they will automatically filter to that widget & the precious 5 thumbnail real estate on the front page could be occupied by next photos of AIRPLANES behind it.   

Weird. I just finished reviewing the thread about the "photos that make you go "wow!". I was just amazed at the photography, and motivated. I am so far from achieving some of the levels of artistic expression it is very humbling.

Then I read this thread. Not sure what to think, except that many are wayyyy too worried about hits and making top of the day. There is a gold mine of avphoto art on this site. I drop my jaw every day. If someone knows a better place to see this in one visit, I would be humbled and appreciative of the info.


My opinion only.

Thanks for the many contributions, which is a major motivator in launching this thread in the first place - discussion.

For me it is important that my thread is not distorted and thus perceived as an apparent moan about not getting enough hits. It is an attempt to discuss an element of the site that looks - to me at least - to be changing.

To give another example - as I write, Page 2 of the Top of the Last 24 hours starts with a photo with 309 views and ends with one at 227. Thus all subsequent photos accepted in the last 24 hours currently have less that 227 views. Of course this is a constantly moving issue but I don't recall similar low views a few years ago for photos outside the front page. Also, though I agree hits are significantly affected by the pace of screening, in the older days it was often the norm for far more that 4 - 500 shots to be accepted in any 24 hour period. This looks like a consistent number recently, though I know a lot has been done recently to get the queue moving faster.

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 17): I get much more hits in the longer run than I used to get a while back.

Interesting what you say Thierry - I have to say I have felt that too with some of my own photos: that they start slowly, but seem to pick up proportionately more views in later days than I might have expected some time ago.

Paul

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 12): I have noticed that if you want to get lots of hits your photo should be one of these categories: 1) A-380 2) Cabin shots and most cockpit shots(especially in flight) 3) Wing views with the airport right under or airport overviews in general 4) Iran 5) Russian military aircraft

Geez, I am pretty screwed, won't get many in this formula--

1) A-380, well actually this is the only category I have a chance in, SYD is pretty much the working A-380 capital of the world
2) Cabin shots and most cockpit shots(especially in flight)-Travel budget limitations severly restrict opportunities
3) Wing views with the airport right under or airport overviews in general- See #2 above
4) Iran- See #2 above
5) Russian military aircraft- See #2 above (actually I have a reasonable pic of an AN-2 I discovered in a paddock in NZ)

Back to Pauls original question, Viewing patterns.
Yes I think they are a little different and yes I think the "Airliners.net" or "Slide shooter" look is a saturated market. Perhaps mature market is amore appropriate tem.

Quoting Spencer (Reply 7): I was only talking to a guy last night actually about this, and he said he hasn't even surfed A.net for a year!!! And he has over 1,000 images hosted here and was pretty active.

I am not sure this is a real concern, I know several contributors that do not spend much time "surfing" a.net (I am one of them)

Cheers

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 21): I am not sure this is a real concern

How do you work that one out? Isn't this the crux of what we're discussing? The loss of people to the site has a direct impact on views, surely you can see that?!
Spence.

Spence, the loss of contributors is a different thing to a photog not browsing the site.
The person you mentioned, not browsing, is he not uploading any more as well... that is the concern.

One of the things that may be affecting the site is that the subject matter is less & less interesting(even to the contributors), the industry is consolidating and the opportunities for an interesting new image are decreasing(for many of us)
SYD is a great example, how many airlines and aircraft have we lost in say the last 5 years... too many. A visit to SYD these days will get you lots of white 737s, lots of red 737s, a gaggle of silver A320s and a few 747/777/A380, day in day out!

Cheers

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 23): SYD is a great example, how many airlines and aircraft have we lost in say the last 5 years... too many. A visit to SYD these days will get you lots of white 737s, lots of red 737s, a gaggle of silver A320s and a few 747/777/A380, day in day out!

And no more yellow tri-jet pouring smoke from its engines anymore.  

Even MD-11's sometimes seem a bit hit-and-miss.  

So we have to do what we can with those red 737s and silver Airbuses and what else can be done.

Not much can make a red 737 look interesting, though I tried:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Chris P Denton


Evidently, it didn't work - the hits are awful. And yet a boring A380 photo (of a new plane) uploaded at the same time gets more than 6 times as many hits in the same period.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 23): One of the things that may be affecting the site is that the subject matter is less & less interesting

Stop complaining!   You are in Sydney, unless you've been living under a rock, things are good here, and seeming like they might get much better for us who like to take photos of planes. (opposite of Spain). Just have to wait and see what happens.  (Fingers crossed).

[Edited 2009-10-04 07:02:41]

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 23): Spence, the loss of contributors is a different thing to a photog not browsing the site.

Well, yes and no. I see what you're saying but I know from experience that when I browse A.net I'm after ideas a lot of the time, ideas on where to go and ideas on how I could make an interesting shot. And for that I click on tens of images every single day. Now, take that over one year, you can see that just one person alone can make up for 4,000 views easy. If we're talking about 1000 people not viewing A.net anymore you can see there's a lot of views going missing somewhere...
Maybe people are afraid of trying anything new or different, resulting in the same old stuff we've seen for years. And after a while that's not going to attract many views, even if you're a top photog or whatever.
It kind of reminds me of something a well known photog told me once at JFK. We was discussing SXM and I said I'd love to go but it's been done to death (Yeah, I said it...!) He replied, yeah it has, but you haven't done it to death though! And he was bang on the money, because no, I hadn't done it to death. I hadn't even been there and I was writing it off already! The other photog's name was Art Brett and I'll always remember that bit of advice.
Spence.

Quoting Psych (Thread starter): I was wondering if we are now seeing the results of a 'saturation' of images on the site/internet - thus only the images that stand out get the big viewing figures?

I think this is certainly one of the contributing factors!
Recently, I was visiting the spottersday of the Nato Tiger Meet 2009 at Kleine Brogel and at a certain moment the speaker on duty made a special call. He stated that a large formation of different "Tiger"-aircraft were approaching KB and that this would be a unique photo-opportunity... My wife started laughing when a couple of thousand lenses were pointed skywards!   It was certainly a unique formation, but the photos were far from unique...

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 17): I can only speak for myself but I've noticed that though while the first 24 or even 48h are not the most active ones when it comes to views, I get much more hits in the longer run than I used to get a while back.

This might be due to the arrangements of search engines, and I think A.net is always placed rather high in the list. In general, however, the hits are lower than they were in the past (although it has never been sure that all those hits were unique hits...).

Best regards,

Walter

I usually upload images interesting to me. Sometimes my interest is shared by thousands of others. Sometimes I get a couple of hundred views. The traffic at almost any given airport is the same every day. You just have to find ways to get a more interesting photo. I don't really feel the "photo saturation" problem as there's only one other person that shoots at ORD regularly besides me.

Have to say I can not agree with Saturation Theory (as in too many sites offering quality content): the very noticeable drop in views happened to quickly for that.
2-3 month ago I would consider a side shot of 737 with less then 400 views unlucky. Now I have an airshow photo with less then 100 views.

I do agree that increased speed of screening has a side effect of reducing average views per photo.

Being the geek I am, is it possible that there are technical reasons contributing to the drop?
There were [ unconfirmed ] theories in the past that certain browsers/plugins register more then one hit per actual view.
Were there any recent changes to site engine? More mirrors added?

Hi all people

It's elementary-Too many same planes in a database!!!! Especially it concerns various aviation shows


А-380 Has bothered already,IMHO. While I shall not see this plane alive, flying by near me or over me, I do not open photo А-380 . More interests for me aircrafts of 1950-1960-1970
years

ivan

Ok my opinion..
Been viewing airliner.net for over ten years now and have seen some amazing images on this site.
Yes some amazing images get uploaded here to this day.
The problem is the pursuit for technical perfection has klled the goose that layed the golden egg.
Do i want to spend my time at looking at page after page of technically perfect side shots of aeroplanes.
NO.
I just looked at 6 pages at 120 shoys per page and found on averge less than one image per page i would look at the larger view on.
Sorry but im not interested in page after page of techniclly perfect yet totally boring side ons.
What made this sites name is spectacular images taken by people in all kind of places in all types of conditions.
Photography is more than noiseless grainless photos, way more.
Sorry but the crowd who view the images has changes here over the last two to three years.
For various reasons many people have left and if you where to say look at the number of standard shots to stuff that really stood out say three years ago compared to today the ratio has changed.
Flick the first 600 images here on latest uploads and do your own comparison.
How many truly jump out and say view me!
Not many, page after page of side ons against blue skies means people quickly lose interest and come back looking at stuff thats been top of the week/two weeks/month.
Tell me are these not some of the most amazing images you have ever seen??
And if uploaded today would bever be seen.
This would get bounced for grainy,soft and centered.

View Large View Medium

Photo © Samuel Lo

This for grain and soft

View Large View Medium

Photo © Samuel lo

This for grain and soft again.

View Large View Medium

Photo © Mark Garfinkel

And one of my favorite photos of all time.

View Large View Medium

Photo © Alan Tsui

Sorry it would again be rejected for grain and softness.
Grainless unimgainative technically perfect yet boring shots along with some terrible management decisions have led to what is happening to this day.
Where are the Garfinkel's and the Murray's gone?
Sorry but they have been driven away after being told time and again that there images are no longer acceptable because they are not technically perfect.
Sorry i'd rather look at a hundred pages of Garfinkels stuff than one new page of what is on the recent uploads page.

Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 13): it has always been this way. The most interesting/different photos make it to the front page.

Paul try being at an airport like BNA where even a technically great picture of a WN 737 might get a under 500 views. I find that the views don't come as fast as they did but after the picture is the database for a while the views are more then the same amount of time.

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 30):

I agree with you but I think given that was all photos on film you cannot compare the quality as such. Even today a lot of slides and film shots are still uploaded with grain and are much softer than your typical "side-on". The screeners know this and are a lot more lenient when it comes to these photos. No film shot will have the same(or nearly the same) quality as any of today's DSLRs. However, I have no doubt if Kai Tak was still open we would be seeing shots like that on a regular basis but in digital format and they would get lots of hits. But just like SXM, Kai Tak would get "overdone" as well if it was still open.

When it comes down to it and you go to the roots, the real "problem" if you want to call it that is the advent of the digital age in photography. MANY MANY more people can now afford to try photography. You can snap 1000 photos in a day and have many useable results to upload here. I don't think any normal person would do that 10 years ago while reloading film every 36 shots. Not only is that extremely inconvenient, it is expensive as well. As a result, you now have thousands more photographers all over the world taking photos of airplanes and uploading here or the other big sites. You think a.net has decreased in views? Go look at the "other site" and you'll feel much happier about your shots/hits here when you see how many less hits on average a photo gets there.

So while overall hits may have gone down, it is affecting every site, not just a.net. And if a.net didn't require all shots to be "technically perfect", we would have to sort through hundreds more photos per day(which means more side-ons, A-380s, whatever...) and that would dilute the hits even more resulting in even less hits. Should quality requirements be decreased for the types of shots you have posted? Maybe, but that would open a huge can of worms as to what is considered a shot that would be exempt of strict quality requirements and it is essentially almost impossible to implement such a rule. The whole "creative shots" policy is still under huge debate. As a result, 99.9% of shots go "under the knife" while getting screened.

Someone mentioned the "unique" moment that hundreds of people photographed. I think if we were still using film there would only be a handful...

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 32): However, I have no doubt if Kai Tak was still open we would be seeing shots like that on a regular basis but in digital format and they would get lots of hits.

Yup. I was going to suggest that Darren just wishes we could go back to the good old days with crazy Kai Tak approaches to get traffic to the site moving again. Would be fun though....

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 32): When it comes down to it and you go to the roots, the real "problem" if you want to call it that is the advent of the digital age in photography. MANY MANY more people can now afford to try photography. You can snap 1000 photos in a day and have many useable results to upload here. I don't think any normal person would do that 10 years ago while reloading film every 36 shots. Not only is that extremely inconvenient, it is expensive as well. As a result, you now have thousands more photographers all over the world taking photos of airplanes and uploading here or the other big sites.

Exactly. Couldn't agree with you more. Having learned to shoot with film, I'm a little more conservative than the machine-gun approach of firing away and hoping to get a good one, but I still take more shots on a given day than I would have with film, for the reasons you mentioned.

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 32): You think a.net has decreased in views? Go look at the "other site" and you'll feel much happier about your shots/hits here when you see how many less hits on average a photo gets there.

Also true. Go look at a comparable shot of an aircraft/location/time and you'll notice a large difference in the number of hits.

Ivan... I don't really need to add anything because I think you've summed it up pretty well!

Dana

Oh i wish Kai Tak was still around!!
Anyway its more to do with the images i see from friends that no one else will ever see because people really cant be bothered to be told that a spectacular picture isnt noiseless grainless or not super sharp.
I agree that digital means lots of people now have the ability of uploading large amounts of photographs.
Quite a few people here and elsewhere whine about rejects for ridiculous reasons.
I mean if your shooting a 30 or 40D against a blue sky in bright sunshine and the shots not perfect then it deserves to be bounced.
But to then apply the same criteria against someone that is standing in pouring rain to get a shot of moisture filled inlets and vapor pouring off wings is simply ridiculous.
Sorry but you can never ever convince me that they should be judged on equal terms.
In the same way film scans are judged more leniently how can you compare a panning shot taken at 1/20th or 1/30th with a similar side on in great light taken at 1/800th.
There are some amazing images still uploaded here but the ratio is far lower and the formula for many is the same.
Until some reality about degree of difficulty comes back those truly spectacular shots will be missing from the upload pages and so will the photographers and in the end the views.

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 34): But to then apply the same criteria against someone that is standing in pouring rain to get a shot of moisture filled inlets and vapor pouring off wings is simply ridiculous. Sorry but you can never ever convince me that they should be judged on equal terms. In the same way film scans are judged more leniently how can you compare a panning shot taken at 1/20th or 1/30th with a similar side on in great light taken at 1/800th.

I agree with everything you've said.

How many people will even go out and do plane photography if is anything less than bright blue skies. Oh no, it's dull, I won't take photos.

The whole attitude has changed now. How many people would have trekked along to get this photo:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Chris Griffiths


Not the easiest location to reach, and impossible to get to now. Hell, half the planes in that photo aren't seen anymore.   It just seems like this place has changed a bit. I didn't officially join up until late 2006 or early 2007 (and then left, and rejoined again later), but I lurked for a while. It's very different to what it was.

It's the best time to get out, practice panning and low light photography.

[Edited 2009-10-05 02:04:35]

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 34): Oh i wish Kai Tak was still around!!

You, and many others.

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 34): Anyway its more to do with the images i see from friends that no one else will ever see because people really cant be bothered to be told that a spectacular picture isnt noiseless grainless or not super sharp.

So true...I've run into several pilots who've taken amazing air-to-air shots from the cockpit, but who've had one or two rejection because the quality is slightly less than perfect and not bothered to try again... there are some amazing images floating around out there, that don't have the technical quality to get in here.

That having been said, a line has to be drawn somewhere for quality, and trying to figure out how to apply varying standards for shots of varying difficulty is something that would be very tough to do. As a result, a good number of amazing shots slip through - but anyone with any experience here knows that this site, as good as it is, is hardly the end-all be-all of aviation photography.

I think, it is necessary for editors to toughen requirements to approval of photos of those planes which we have seen already many times, in a particular-as we name them in Russia - so-called "LONG LOAFS"


"LONG LOAF" ("baton") - is the plane photographed in flight from the Terrestrial surface, at a stage of take off or landing , under a corner 30-90 to a longitudinal axis of the plane on a blue sky backgrond

Quoting Ivandalavia (Reply 37): I think, it is necessary for editors to toughen requirements to approval of photos of those planes which we have seen already many times, in a particular-as we name them in Russia - so-called "LONG LOAFS"

They already have done that.

If this idea were taken further, made more stringent and it should ever become normal policy, I'll pack up and go to the other site (not that it matters) or simply not photograph planes, simply because I won't have anything to photograph - all we ever see in Sydney is the same old planes, day in day out.

I don't fly planes for a living, nor do I get the chance to travel the world photographing planes (I have a proper job), so such a thing would rule me out for good, along with probably quite a few others.

[Edited 2009-10-05 02:50:05]

[Edited 2009-10-05 02:51:00]

Quoting Cpd (Reply 38): I'll pack up and go to the other site (not that it matters) or simply not photograph planes, simply because I won't have anything to photograph - all we ever see in Sydney is the same old planes, day in day out.

========================================================
Amigo, it is not necessary to leave anywhere, to other sites. Photograph planes for pleasure, for itself personally, for us, for your friends, for All people and send HERE.

"SHOW MUST GO ON "

BUT!!!! First it should be the MOST QUALITATIVE SHOW.
Secondly - INTERESTING.

Simply it is not necessary to demand in that case from the same planes many viewings

ivan

An interesting discussion and there is little doubt that hits have fallen, whatever the reason.
I used to find that even my old black and white images of light aircraft got a few hundred hits but now they get far less, even the unusual types.
But, and this is a big but, I do not care about that.
For many years I have recorded aircraft by photographing them, something that I did for myself. I never expected to share them with anyone except the occasional slide show or talk, generally to other like-minded people, aircraft enthusiasts. I think that the enthusiasts now have more internet sites to go to and it is inevitable that are now spead more thinly around the various sites. The spectacular images (which I rarely take) still get decent hits but they are from a different audience.
The bottom line is that if you like aircraft, you enjoy photographing them, then do so for yourself. If others like them too, then that should be a bonus rather than the reason to take them in the first place. If I worried about hits I would have stopped recording the GA (in particular) a long time ago. If I ever stop enjoying it, then I will pack in. Low hits will however never be the reason for me to stop doing so.

Mick Bajcar

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 32): MANY MANY more people can now afford to try photography. You can snap 1000 photos in a day and have many usable results to upload here.

There is an old saying that posits, if you give an infinite number of chimpanzees a typewriter each eventually they will produce the works of Shakespeare.
Modern photography seems like that sometimes
The flipside is...

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 32): You can snap 1000 photos in a day and have many usable results to upload here. I don't think any normal person would do that 10 years ago while reloading film every 36 shots. Not only is that extremely inconvenient, it is expensive as well

In my youth I was quite a serious motorsports photographer, a few weeks ago I shot about 800 frames at a '70s era historic race meeting, I went to one of my slide folders from a similar meet in the '70s and found I regularly shot 4-500 frames at an event*, less for sure but not by many orders of magnitude. The difference I guess is that more people do that these days.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 35): How many people would have trekked along to get this photo:

That was the joy of that location, you actually had to make an effort to get there and so few did. You could not sit in your car listening to the scanner and jump out as the target of the moment zoomed by, nor could you drive up from wherever, jump out, take the shot and drive away to wherever. A common occurrence at the "spots"

Cheers

Chris

* shooting hundreds of Kodachrome & Ektachrome slides every couple of weeks may be why I am currently living in near poverty!  

Quoting Spencer (Reply 25): It kind of reminds me of something a well known photog told me once at JFK. We was discussing SXM and I said I'd love to go but it's been done to death (Yeah, I said it...!) He replied, yeah it has, but you haven't done it to death though! And he was bang on the money, because no, I hadn't done it to death. I hadn't even been there and I was writing it off already! The other photog's name was Art Brett and I'll always remember that bit of advice.

A piece of advice to be remembered..!!!

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 26): It was certainly a unique formation, but the photos were far from unique...

You talking about this one:

View Large View Medium Photo © Eelco Vonk

View Large View Medium Photo © Glenn Beasley - Global Aviation Resource

View Large View Medium Photo © Christian Bremer

View Large View Medium Photo © Miloslav Storoska

View Large View Medium Photo © Planecatcher

View Large View Medium Photo © Ian Older

View Large View Medium

Photo © Tom Buysse
?? 

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 30): Sorry but im not interested in page after page of techniclly perfect yet totally boring side ons. What made this sites name is spectacular images taken by people in all kind of places in all types of conditions.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 35): How many people will even go out and do plane photography if is anything less than bright blue skies. Oh no, it's dull, I won't take photos. The whole attitude has changed now

Pictures tell more than a thousand words, so here you go:

View Large View Medium Photo © Ben Cooper

View Large View Medium Photo © Ben Cooper

View Large View Medium Photo © Sergey Krivchikov - Russian AviaPhoto Team

View Large View Medium Photo © Dana Low

View Large View Medium Photo © Ronald J Stella

View Large View Medium Photo © Sergey Krivchikov - Russian AviaPhoto Team

View Large View Medium Photo © Peter Spence

View Large View Medium Photo © Shary - Iranian Spotters

And that's only pictures from the last 48h...
There are still lots of people who get those special shots that are more than worthy of a regular visit to this site.  

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 40): Low hits will however never be the reason for me to stop doing so.

Admit it Mick, you only wanna be the first one to cross the 10000 photos boundary!!  

Thierry

As Mick said, this is a very interesting reading!
I think we all agree things have changed here, but haven't they everywhere? Why would A.net be any different than all other sites, aviation photography and the world in general?
If there is anything certain nowadays is that things will change, and, by judging what has been happening around our hobby, the pace of these changes is increasing.
How many more people are today snapping away at your local airport compared to 5 years ago?
I think in the past we were "spoiled" as airplane photography was still something novel, something just a few lucky ones were willing and able to do, and so their work displayed here got a lot more attention.
Today, competition is much tougher, and it has becomes more difficult to show something new and different.
I think we all like to show our work, and therefore we all like to see our pictures being viewed, that is hits. Nevertheless, hits never were and never will be a meassure of your skills as a photographer.
One final comment regarding screening and acceptance/rejection policy:
All the members of the screening team are aviation photographers and active uploaders, and we get as bored as you when viewing 100 side-ons taken at the same location at the same angle by the same photographer. And we all have a very good sense of what is an interesting photo versus a lucky snapshot. We know about the tecnical difficulties that photographers encounter, not only when actually taking the picture but also when editing them. And we all want the novel, unusual, interesting image online here.
But we have to balance this against the desire of each photographer to have his work diaplayed here, and we always have to ask ourselves: can it be better?
We have opened gradually the site to different and more creative images, which in the past would have not gotten accepted as they didn't comply with the upload rules. And we see them every day, many more than the ones you see on some threads here in the forum.
While nobody likes rejections, in the end it's up to each of you to go out and try new things to upload. We want you to try it out, and you will get our full support.

A quick check of Alexa shows:

(note: all three month moving numbers)

Traffic rank -193
Reach +2%
Page Views +8%
Page Views - per user +5%
Time on Site +5%
Percentage of traffic driven from Search Engines + 17%

The site is growing. More visitors who are staying on the site longer and visiting more pages.

But, I do agree, photo views are down. Why? Not sure, but my opinion is it is bigger than this site. I can't speak for others, but I know at my company we are doing much more with less (downsized, layoffs, rightsize, whatever) so there is less "leisure" time. Same goes at home. Neighbors are getting foreclosed on, my property value has dropped 30%, and at the end of the day, I am flat worn out.

I don't know how it is where you live, but it isn't all rainbows and unicorns. Things are tough out there - and if the biggest thing you have to worry about is a drop in your hits, I am jealous.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 35): How many people will even go out and do plane photography if is anything less than bright blue skies. Oh no, it's dull, I won't take photos.

Recently, several of us were out spotting on a cloudy day, to catch some rare visitors to our air patch. Shortly after the rarest of the visitors arrived, one of our "regulars", a friend who I spot with often pulled up, and I told him what he missed. Although he hadn't seen it before, his reaction was "I knew it was coming, but didn't bother to rush - the conditions aren't good, so what's the point..."   

Very interesting read with valid comments which is excellent as it means there is no argueing haha.

I am going to be getting back to photography in the next few months as all I need is an update in DSLR really as the Sigma 100-300 F/4 should still be in good nick.

I find it a shame to come back to see the front page blasted with cabin and wing views which to me "aren't" spectacular photos but unfortunately are popular.

The fundamental components to achieving a well viewed photo nowadays seem to be who can get access airside and who goes on flights which can create exciting photos but the photographic skill involved is minimal lets be honest. With it being increasingly more awkward to gain new angles from the public side of a perimeter fence due to security it is going to be the case that there are a limited number of new angles.

Without doubt the photographic skill of people on here is improving but the rare gem photos that skate under the radar are being shunted to the bottom of the top rated photos because people want to see the seat they are sitting in on their next flight.

People should go on myaviation.net for that (if it still exists).

I look forward to uploading my first photo in a long time and hope that it isn't as bad as the experienced people in this thread have said.

Cheers,
Dom

Quoting Acontador (Reply 43): But we have to balance this against the desire of each photographer to have his work diaplayed here, and we always have to ask ourselves: can it be better?

Thanks for the thoughts Andres, as those few words actually go a long way to clarifying the process with the 'creative' shots.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 44): if the biggest thing you have to worry about is a drop in your hits, I am jealous.

Also thanks for bringing some perspective back to things. I don't think people are getting too worked up about 500 fewer hits than before, but you're absolutely right that there are countless other more important things to spend one's time dwelling on than hit counts.

Things like photo views are in reality an area that is out of our control , all photographers can do is do their best to upload images of acceptable quality and
let views take care of themselves , In past times i found that many of my older scan
images had very good returns it was not uncommon to easily get 1.000 views on the
first day . I don't know so much how things would go in the present period as the
scanner has not seen much use for a long time , The more recent material i have
found certainly has not had such good returns and this appears to be the trend that
most people are finding , it might well be the case though that views will come later
rather than earlier - this will only be revealed of course as time passes

Anthony

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 30): Photography is more than noiseless grainless photos, way more

Try telling that to DM. It's been said a thousand times in this forum but no-one's listening. Things won't change around here but I'm not convinced lack of creativity is the reason behind falling hits. I don't care about hits anyway - I do it for me and unfortunately much of what's interesting to me isn't to others.

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 32): Go look at the "other site" and you'll feel much happier about your shots/hits here when you see how many less hits on average a photo gets there

Yup! I've got many identical shots on both sites and some here have 5-6 times the number of views!

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 45): I knew it was coming, but didn't bother to rush - the conditions aren't good, so what's the point...

But isn't it each to their own? I love shooting aviation but I feel it's a challenge to get technically perfect shots to meet this site's requirements. It makes certain elements of your photography better. Although I do it for me and me alone I do feel a sense of achievement every time I overcome A.net's strict 'obstacles'.

Besides, at my local (MAN) there are rarely the conditions and certainly not the backgrounds or positions for stunningly creative shots.

There are several very good theories put forward here as to why the site is losing views, and I'm guessing we'll never get to the bottom of it. Site traffic doesn't appear to have decreased - in fact it's apparently rising - so the lack of views may not be a completely negative thing. Perhaps it's a culmination of things? Major factors for me are the lack of creativity on the site and the sheer number of similar images being uploaded. Also, today's casual visitor may be different. Maybe the way the industry views the site has changed - after all we do know that much of the industry does come snooping here.

Another thing I've noticed since I first hung around here (hung around; not joined) is the ever-increasing number of newbies; no doubt brought about by the availability of digital. I know there have been differing opinions regarding this set of members but ultimately they are the veterans of tomorrow. Only problem perhaps is that these days many want to be 'spoon-fed' and enquire about the most ridiculous things - "How do I switch my new EOS 1Ds III on...?". We've all seen the threads. Of course this then annoys the long-standing community who had to learn the techniques themselves, from scratch. Perhaps a topic for another thread, however, as it isn't likely to be the culprit of declining views.

Karl