To the airliners.net photographer community:

Over the past several months there has been significant discussion both in the forum by the community and within the screening team regarding airliners.net screening criteria. While we have not completely settled on every nuance of what we should be doing differently, we have agreed to begin the process.

What will screeners be looking at differently in screening from now on? The following basis forms a starting point;

- Creative and exceptional shots
- Lighting around dawn and dusk to take into account local conditions more.
- Unusual shots or those composed that tell a story.
- If a shot, even the usual, has been seen by a couple of screeners and only a minor aspect of the image is in question, the next to see it accepts it.
- Contrast can be very subjective and we will show a little more leeway toward it
- Grain and noise in low light situations with subjects that are not static will receive more leeway
- Centering requirements will be relaxed somewhat, and more leeway will be exercised


Photography, being primarily subjective, means it will be difficult to implement hard and fast rules to govern acceptance and rejection. Over the coming weeks and months you may see some inconsistency as the screening team re-calibrates their screening towards the new guidance, and slowly begin adjusting the acceptance guide. We ask for your patience during this time period.

In order to assist the head screeners, a new Quality and Acceptance Criteria team, selected from the existing screening crew, is being established. This team will be tasked with reviewing a percentage of rejections and acceptances, checking for quality and the application of appropriate revised screening criteria.

On a regular basis, this team will provide feed back to the larger team, head screeners and the community manager on:

- images rejected that could or should have been added, along with rationale
- images that have been accepted that either
(a) exemplify our target images or
(b) perhaps should not have been accepted
- suggestions where current acceptance criteria could or should be revised
- drafting changes to the current acceptance criteria for upload to the site page(s)

Again we ask for your patience and support over this period. There will be some inconsistencies, and some mistakes will be made, but it is our belief that this will lead to a better overall experience for everyone.

The Airliners.net Screening Team

Although I too get rejections all the time, I still hope A.net hold high standard for quality. Some more reasonable considerations are welcome, but hope won't get too loose. Thanks for the update.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 1): Although I too get rejections all the time, I still hope A.net hold high standard for quality

My thoughts exactly.

Still, I welcome change, it shows a dynamic and flexible screening team. Well done all round.

Thanks for the update. This is exactly the modernisation many of us have been seeking for quite some time and for me personally, fully endorse and support this step. I think it has been needed for some time. Like powwwiii, I hope things aren't relaxed too much and detract from the high standards that are expected, but hope some of the petiness and ultimately inconsistency reduces over time. One thing I think needs adding to the above list of changes is communication. Before screening criteria is changed and rejections are given for such changes, for example centre that changes over time subject to current preference, I think this needs discussing in the forum to publicise and discuss before implementation. Other than that, I think this is a change for the better and the future if the site is looking more promising.

Thanks,

Darren

Hopefully this will work out, without the quality of the photos changing to the worse. What I found most irritating is the motive rejection, that most hopefully will change a bit now. I definitly think that photos can be stunning without being able to reach the motive-criteria!

Will the rejection-reasons page be updated?

[Edited 2013-06-29 01:00:24]

These are good news and it was discussed for the long time.

Anet popularity was founded on creative and exceptional shots and priority to this issue seems very logic. It will increase number of good photos (therefore - views) and will help to return those photogs who had left the site.

So many thanks for the Team for the hard work they've done!

I guess it could be nice if we'll be able to suggest some further ideas to develop Anet.

From my prospective I'd talk on following:
Size - we have 4:3 to 3:2 size, however there are nice shots with 1:1 and 1:2 sizes and additional empty space just make shot worse. I'd suggest these limits: 1:1 to 2:1.
Center - I'd suggest be more flexible with the aircrfat position (it can be the idea of photographer or simply not realy important) and reject only in case of obvious mistake in centering.

Any implemented rule should has it sence. As less 'rules for rules' we'd have as better site will be.

Regards,

Fyodor

Quoting FYODOR (Reply 5): Size - we have 4:3 to 3:2 size, however there are nice shots with 1:1 and 1:2 sizes and additional empty space just make shot worse. I'd suggest these limits: 1:1 to 2:1.

I'd like to see more flexibility on aspect ratio - if a shot looks right, does it matter if it isn't perfectly 3:2 or 4:3?

Given the proliferation of 16:9 displays and TVs, I'd also like to see 16:9 photos being accepted. It would seem to be an ideal format for a lot of plane shots.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 6): Given the proliferation of 16:9 displays and TVs, I'd also like to see 16:9 photos being accepted. It would seem to be an ideal format for a lot of plane shots.

Or at least 16:10.

Overall this sounds like a positive thing, although this 'transitional' period has already seen much inconsistency with some very poor shots being added. Still, this has been satisfactorily explained and is likely expected when a system deviates from its normal routine.

I think we still need to be applying the fundamental A.net criteria, in order to retain the high quality we're so used to seeing here; a set of revisions, rather than a complete overhaul of the rules.

I think the most important thing for the majority of us is a revision to the way grain is viewed by the site, to bring it in line with how it's viewed in general photography. Lately I and others have noticed that grain is being far too tenaciously pursued, while other, more serious image flaws have been missed (or certainly not acknowledged). Hopefully this can be addressed.

I have to say though that the issue for photographers lately hasn't been the criteria itself, but rather the hap-hazard application and interpretation of it. Providing this 'relaxation' isn't to the detriment of quality I'm sure this will soon be a much better place to host our photos.

Finally - and I don't mean this as a snipe - it's good to know that the screeners are indeed answerable to someone, and are not simply allowed to control the entire site based on their own opinions and ideas. Everything needs regulation, even if it's only periodically. Let's hope this works out for everyone.

Karl

I'm cautiously optimistic about these rule changes, hopefully it will allow for a more unified screening experience based on allowing some things like more subjectivity for contrast.

Less photos of common subjects taken in high sun would be appreciated!

I am excited and welcome the changes! I have struggled with finding the motivation to upload consistently because I didn't like being constrained (mostly) by criteria I found uninteresting to both shoot and process. There needed to be some significance in the subject to get my butt motivated to edit and upload a shot for anet while a large collection of traditionally non-anet material began collecting on my hard drive, some only seeing the light of day on Flickr. I hope to give many of those shots a chance on this site now!

  

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 11): I am excited and welcome the changes! I have struggled with finding the motivation to upload consistently because I didn't like being constrained (mostly) by criteria I found uninteresting to both shoot and process. There needed to be some significance in the subject to get my butt motivated to edit and upload a shot for anet while a large collection of traditionally non-anet material began collecting on my hard drive, some only seeing the light of day on Flickr. I hope to give many of those shots a chance on this site now!

I totally agree with you.

So what if the Quality and Acceptance Criteria Team reviews a photo that has been rejected, and they conclude that it should have been accepted given these new criteria, would they then accept it even if the photographer has not appealed it? or would they contact the photographer and ask that they upload it again?

Bruce

Quoting Bruce (Reply 13): So what if the Quality and Acceptance Criteria Team reviews a photo that has been rejected, and they conclude that it should have been accepted given these new criteria, would they then accept it even if the photographer has not appealed it? or would they contact the photographer and ask that they upload it again?

I don't think we can expect the screening team to go through previous rejections. This should be up to the photographer to act on any rejection given and re-upload if they feel it can be improved. I don't see these changes resulting in a lowering of the current quality criteria. I don't think that is healthy for the site. I see these changes purely as a modernisation to reflect the limits in camera technology and being more realistic in what quality can be expected in certain circumstances. It's all about consistency and reducing some of the petiness, not relaxation of the quality required.

Darren

Quoting hotplane (Reply 10): Less photos of common subjects taken in high sun would be appreciated!

Fully agree. It's essentially a quality issue, although there are FAR more of these images over at the 'other' site. Mid-day sun in June is just awful!

Karl

About 9 years late wouldnt you say?
This looks like trying to bring back in the horse that bolted a long time ago..
Take a look in the forum what the top photographers where asking back in 2004..

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 16): About 9 years late wouldnt you say?

I totally agree with you Darren, but better late than never.

Site is less but still popular and some people might come back.

I'm probably one of the small group of people that is a bit sad to see it change. Getting rejected over and over again was hard on the morale but when I got even one picture accepted at once it made me forget about the rejections.I always thought to myself that it should be hard to get pictures accepted to Airliners because they required the best. But after reading this sub-forum a lot I can see where people are coming from so if it means that it will be a bit easier to get pictures accepted then I won't complain.

Quoting ac190 (Reply 18):

Let's keep in mind here that anet will not be accepting everything. High standards will continue to be upheld.

Hello all..
I'm as new comer here feel glad about this information that some criteria gives little more leeway.
for me, even some criteria changes, I think A.net will be still hold high standard for quality and no doubt about it.
some spotters ever told me that he feels little bit stress and try to find out "how to make consistency for acceptance photos in here?" and there is some people decide to stop upload by reason they though the pic will rejected definitely.

in my opinion, there is one more thing issue in criteria, about leveling personal. some pics rejected by reason need CCW or CW that less than 0,5 degrees, including in appeal section and still rejected even already give correct reason from the uploader, is it possible this issue could be considered by the screener?. I think all photographer understand how to make the object really horizon in level.

Anyway, I really appreciate for all of this criteria and glad to be one of part photographers in A.net. thank you  

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 19):

I know, I never wanted to come across sounding like they would accept everything. I guess change can be good.

Still going to be a mates club that is why i have walked away from posting on Airliners.Some of us early photographers made airliners what it is today.

Quoting F27 (Reply 22): Still going to be a mates club that is why i have walked away from posting on Airliners

With all due respect, a.net is not just about photographs. The forums form an important part of the site. So even if you don't get photos accepted, it should not be a reason to entirely walk away from the site. We all love aviation in the end...  

Regards,

SA7700

Darren, re-read the original post. They will be looking at some rejections:

Quoting screeners (Thread starter): This team will be tasked with reviewing a percentage of rejections and acceptances, checking for quality and the application of appropriate revised screening criteria.

That's why I asked if those mistakenly rejected pictures would be added.


Bruce

Quoting F27 (Reply 22): Still going to be a mates club

???

What a very strange thing to post , i wonder who you are as youve hidden yourself !

Anyway , good things from the site.
Very positive move i feel.

cheers

Ас190, folks,

As I can read nobody have said all photos to be accepted. I quess Anet still looks for qualitive pictures and we should not be afraid of rubbish on the photopages.

The talk is about number of rules which do not complete the goals of the site (rules for rules but not for benefits) and need to be revised. If you'll look carefuly you'll find most of rules regarding the quality will stay the same with minor exceptions. If it with high quality of staff will return old and bring new photogs - there will not be losses in this point - just winners.

SA7700, let me disaree with you a bit. With all respect to forums and its participants - Anet was started as photography website. Nowadays discussion part of the site is self satisfied and its just great. However it is not mean that photography lost its importance. And it also doesn't mean that photogs would be happy to replace photos by talks. It is a bit the same if you'd suggest artists to write books with argument: 'It is also interesting thing'.   I not sure it will work. So it is better to give the floor for everebody - forums for those who likes to talk, DB for photographers. And everybody will be happy  

Fyodor

Quoting ac190 (Reply 18): if it means that it will be a bit easier to get pictures accepted then I won't complain

I don't think most of us want it easier to get acceptances. It should still be difficult to get images online here - the current criteria just needs to be applied a little better.

I've never actually had a problem with the majority of my rejections. The problem came when I saw something in the database that obviously suffered from a much worse case of the same flaw. There's a big difference.

Something had to change because there's been a lot of stubbornness on both sides lately. Photographers fighting with screeners and seemingly unable to settle on any beneficial solution. No-one wanted to listen. The result of this never-ending squabble is the change we're witnessing now. Screeners answerable to someone is certainly a welcome notion, however it remains to be seen just how much overriding of decisions made under the current system there's going to be. Allowing a broader cross-section of images sounds like a great idea but if it's going to be to the detriment of the quality built up here over the years then it could just be another nail.......

Frankly there have been some terrible images added lately and I sincerely hope that isn't a sign of what's to come. A.net can still function exactly as it has by simply revising its current stance on things like motives and grain, rather than totally relaxing the rules. If the motive works and the image is attractive, who cares if it doesn't tick every box of the traditional criteria set? If there's a touch of grain but the photo still has the 'wow!' factor, why boot it for something few people are going to care about? On the other hand if an image is blurry, lacks contrast, has an unnatural cast or is in any other way imperfect due to poor technique - in other words suffers from a flaw considered ugly in all branches of photography - then there should still be sufficient ground to give it the boot.

I'm going to wait and see what happens over the coming weeks before I form a solid opinion. This new system should make it slightly easier to get a GOOD photo accepted - not make it easier to get ANY photo accepted.

Cheers,

Karl

Quoting Bruce (Reply 24): Darren, re-read the original post. They will be looking at some rejections:

Bruce;

We will not be going back and looking at rejections from days, weeks, months and years gone past. On a day to day basis the team will look at what was accepted and rejected in order to calibrate our consistency. If an image that was rejected is one that, given the new criteria should have been accepted, that is a learning for the team. If the photographer appeals then it would be accepted, but we do not intend to go emailing photographers asking them to reupload in this case.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 27): This new system should make it slightly easier to get a GOOD photo accepted - not make it easier to get ANY photo accepted.

This is exactly the way I look at this revision to the criteria.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 27): Frankly there have been some terrible images added lately

Karl - would you mind emailing the head screeners with some examples? It would be helpful to see where your "calibration" is at regarding this.

Peter

I may be pretty far in the minority here, but I use airliners.net as a database, not a gallery. I browse looking for new registrations and paint schemes, airports that I can't visit, different types of aircraft that I don't often look for personally such as military and small-scale general aviation... Really, I'm not looking for every image to be amazing to look at and interesting in terms of motive- and with some photographers exceeding 10,000 photos in the database, that's not a reasonable thing to expect. Complain about high-sun June photos aesthetically sure, but from a spotting point of view, sometimes you don't get any other choice.

The point is, I don't see unfair acceptance as nearly the problem that unfair rejection is, if you accept my use of the two terms. I've squeaked in a couple of images that were probably reasonable to reject, and this may sound selfish, but I'm not nearly as broken up about that as I am about many more images that get turned down repeatedly despite correcting every rejection reason that comes up. I don't get upset because images worse than mine for a flaw get accepted- I get upset because either I can't find the flaw in question, or because that flaw appeared out of nowhere after previous rejections and revisions to the image.

So to sum up, I don't see the worries some are expressing about image quality as becoming a problem anytime soon. A crisp, well lit image with maybe a bit more grain is not going to ruin everything we've been trying to do here. There is a very long way to go downwards in terms of quality before I would express any alarm about standards being too low, simply because they're so damn high now.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 27): I've never actually had a problem with the majority of my rejections.

Oh Karl, you make me laugh sometimes.  

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 27): Something had to change because there's been a lot of stubbornness on both sides lately. Photographers fighting with screeners and seemingly unable to settle on any beneficial solution. No-one wanted to listen.

Perhaps I've missed it, but I thought things were relatively quiet lately, which is why when I awoke to this thread yesterday, I was shocked to learn that this had been going behind the scenes.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 29): A crisp, well lit image with maybe a bit more grain is not going to ruin everything we've been trying to do here

Pretty much what I said above. If the supposed 'flaw' in an image isn't down to photographer incompetence, then accept it. Grain for me isn't an issue, unless it's the size of basketballs.

As I said, any revised system should make it easier to get a GOOD image accepted. And each image should be judged on its merits - if a winglet is ever-so-slightly blurry in a night panning shot, there's not a lot the photographer could have done, so let it drop. Constraints imposed by nature or the very rules of photography should not be grounds for rejection in my opinion.

Karl

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 11): I hope to give many of those shots a chance on this site now!

Please do! Of course we all want to see them, but it'll also help get the word out if people start seeing some more "creative" or whatever-word-you-want-to-use shots added to the DB.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 30): Perhaps I've missed it, but I thought things were relatively quiet lately, which is why when I awoke to this thread yesterday, I was shocked to learn that this had been going behind the scenes.

Probably depends on who you ask, as always.   Can't keep everyone happy, but I think we're doing what we can to make the site and the database better overall.

Quoting hotplane (Reply 10): Less photos of common subjects taken in high sun would be appreciated!

Tell that to the people submitting.
  

Happy to hear this, it's been a long time coming. While it's still a good idea to try and upload the best quality you can I think the other 99% who visit this site normally wouldn't see minor flaws. We're just the 1% who are pixel peepers.

Hi Guys,

Just to remind everyone, in the past, whenever the screening team implemented changes to the screening procedure, it has been always for the better. I think we need to give the screening team credit for looking into ways of increasing screening consistency while carefully acknowledging that with today's various types of screens all around the world, issues like contrast are not so easy to nail down 100%. Nowhere did I read that the overall standard is going to be lowered.

As usual, let's give the team some time to adjust and see the results of these changes.

Btw, the screeners have always been accountable for, the headscreeners are on top of that   . Maybe one of the current screeners can elaborate a little about the internal appeal process and the quality control that has always been performed.

Cheers,
Andres

I don't know why several people need to say 'well I hope the standards of this site won't go downhill now'. It's not like it's going to become myaviation.net. The truth is that there was inconsistency in the way the criteria were applied, plain and simple. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be all the threads that discussed it. I am one of those folks who stopped uploading due to this, mainly because I felt ignored when I was calling attention to it. I'll give it a shot again, and will have an open mind about it.

I welcome the willingness to open a dialogue about this as well as the intention to improve the process. Time will tell if it is just talk.

Thank you to the screening community for being open to change.

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 35): I don't know why several people need to say 'well I hope the standards of this site won't go downhill now'.

Because in the original post, it talked about more "leeway".

[Edited 2013-07-01 07:48:49]

[Edited 2013-07-01 07:49:29]

Maybe it's just my imagination, but have the uploads dropped in the past few months, and if so, could this possibly be a reason for this change? Seems like people are getting frustrated with the rejections and out of frustration just stopped trying to upload.

Quoting andrew50 (Reply 37): Maybe it's just my imagination, but have the uploads dropped in the past few months, and if so, could this possibly be a reason for this change? Seems like people are getting frustrated with the rejections and out of frustration just stopped trying to upload.

Probably the only people that can say for sure are the screeners. I don't think anyone else can really count all the photos uploaded to the DB in the past few months.

Quoting powwwiii (Reply 36): Because in the original post, it talked about more "leeway".

The only times the word "leeway" was used was for very specific cases, not generally all uploads. In a way, the leeway the screeners are talking about will actually raise the quality of the images, not lower them (as in: more creative, eye-catching images will be able to make it in).

Quoting andrew50 (Reply 37): Maybe it's just my imagination, but have the uploads dropped in the past few months, and if so, could this possibly be a reason for this change? Seems like people are getting frustrated with the rejections and out of frustration just stopped trying to upload.

There are always seasonal changes. During the summer time in the northern hemisphere uploads usually go down every year. Partly because heat haze is getting worse and some locations are impossible to photograph, and partly because people are on vacation or concentrate on outdoor activities, rather than editing photos inside.

People have been getting "frustrated" with the site's requirements as long as it existed. It's nothing new and certainly hasn't gotten worse. It's just the nature of any site that requires upload limitations that are not easy to meet.

Quoting andrew50 (Reply 37): Maybe it's just my imagination, but have the uploads dropped in the past few months, and if so, could this possibly be a reason for this change? Seems like people are getting frustrated with the rejections and out of frustration just stopped trying to upload.

I dont think so. The rejection-reasons has been the same for as long as I have been active in here, and if that is true the photographers would have left much earlier. I cant see the positive aspects of leaving Airliners for some low-quality site with even stranger rejection-reasons than Airliners. That is the reasons why I stopped uploading to other sites. No other site is qurrently keeping the same quality of the photos than this.

Karl

I would also like to see some of these 'terrible images' that have recently been added.

Can you mail the Head Screeners with the links so we can discuss?

Thanks

Gary Watt - Granite
Airliners.net Head Screener
www.airliners.net
http://twitter.com/airliners_net

I think its already works. Site is going to be more interesting. Nice staff and I guess it has to be even more soon as I sure - after the notice guys already got some sweets from their archives   - we just need to wait while their queue will come.

Quoting eskillawl (Reply 40): I dont think so.

But it is. Or - I hope - it was. Many advanced photogs (including high professianals) who made the image of this site years ago had left Anet because they had found system of screening as excessive and unfriendly. If they'd come back it would be benefit for everybody.

Talking about 'quality' it is always important to remember that quality of the photo is first of all how picture is done: contest and composition. Post processing of photo is also very important indeed but clearly after the picture itself. No doubts - Anet should keep the high bar for images but this bar has to be logic and always has clear sense - what is this rule applied for. There is an average level of quality estimations besides Anet viewers - let follow it. Majority of people come here not to train to infinity their skills in 3-4 features in Photoshop, but to look at pictures. Lets make them happy  

Regards,

Fyodor

Is it me or things are really changing in here?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Everg...Boeing-747-230B%28SF%29/2280237/M/

Shots like this would have been rejected in the past for distance. Now i see them accepted and i'm really happy with it.

The shot above is exactly the kind of shot the screeners are talking about at the top of this thread! It deserves to be here.

[Edited 2013-07-02 10:27:50]

Quoting andrew50 (Reply 37): Maybe it's just my imagination, but have the uploads dropped in the past few months, and if so, could this possibly be a reason for this change?

I can't say I've been keeping an eye on upload statistics, but we seem to see anywhere from 700-1200 uploads per day these days. That seems to be relatively consistent with what I remember from a couple years ago.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 44): Really? Are we going to turn this into a public bash-fest?

Perhaps you should read a bit closer:

Quoting ilpavone2004 (Reply 43): Now i see them accepted and i'm really happy with it.

 

With that said, A.net has accepted distant shots for years, provided the motive is sufficiently interesting:

View Large View Medium Photo © Bailey - AirTeamImages

View Large View Medium Photo © Jeffwell

View Large View Medium Photo © Spencer Wilmot

View Large View Medium Photo © Greg Bajor

Heck, I had one accepted a few weeks ago.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 45): Perhaps you should read a bit closer:

Dangit! You're quick. My original post was up for about 15 seconds before I edited it. LOL

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 46): Dangit! You're quick. My original post was up for about 15 seconds before I edited it. LOL

Ha, sorry. It took me awhile to finish my reply (searching for the photos), so you probably edited it while I was doing that.

The shot posted above by ilpavone2004 is a good example of common sense prevailing and traditional A.net rules being relaxed in order to accommodate an interesting photo. There's quite a bit of visible grain there and I doubt it would have made it a few months ago - but like most I feel that grain (luminance noise) doesn't spoil such images.

Karl

Quoting eskillawl (Reply 40): I cant see the positive aspects of leaving Airliners for some low-quality site with even stranger rejection-reasons than Airliners. That is the reasons why I stopped uploading to other sites. No other site is qurrently keeping the same quality of the photos than this.

There is a site called flickr where the quality of many of those shots rivals what you see here. Please see the 'Buffalino Photography' stream there for examples. Further, there is a wonderful option of scrolling to the next photo should you find the quality of any shot to be sub-par.