Hey everyone, hope you all had a great start to the new year.

Had these two rejected this morning...

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0107_l1451586272.764img_3461r1.jpg
" Backlith affecting quality quality soft personal"
- To me this looks anything but backlit, maybe top lit?

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...107_z1451632160.6851img_9605r2.jpg
"Sorry Len, your pic is still a bit soft. dark personal"
- For this one how far different is it from these that got in (pictures taken just minutes apart), especially on the "dark" aspect:

View Large View Medium Photo © Len Schwartz

View Large View Medium Photo © Len Schwartz

Thanks!

Quoting len90 (Thread starter): " Backlith affecting quality quality soft personal" - To me this looks anything but backlit, maybe top lit?

I agree it's toplit iso backlit, but I wouldn't read into that so much. The image looks affected by heathaze, which would explain the soft and quality rejection. I would also center it a bit lower, but that's up to you since it wasn't listed as a rejection.

Quoting len90 (Thread starter): "Sorry Len, your pic is still a bit soft. dark personal" - For this one how far different is it from these that got in (pictures taken just minutes apart), especially on the "dark" aspect:

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 1): The image looks affected by heathaze, which would explain the soft and quality rejection.

Yeah, looks heat hazed or blurry.

The light isn't spectacular, but probably acceptable.

Quoting len90 (Thread starter): - For this one how far different is it from these that got in (pictures taken just minutes apart), especially on the "dark" aspect:

Honestly, the two accepted ones look a bit dark to me too.

Thanks Kas and Vik. I'm probably just going to put the FLL stuff to the side for a bit. Images do have some heat haze effects, which is to be expected in South Florida during the summer months. I would agree that the lighting isn't the best but not every day can be a perfect blue sky. Went ahead and brightened up that 757 and throwing it back in the queue.

This one really troubles me...

I have this overview of EWR that I submitted to the queue. It originally gets rejected for low contrast with the attached personal comment from the screener: "Nice photo but needs a bit more contrast. contrast personal"
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...102_l1451111734.8764img_9744r1.jpg

Figured, easy fix let me boost the contrast a bit and this should be good to go, especially with the screener being so kind to complement the picture. Today I get the re-edit back with rejection for: quality blurry grainy oversharpened soft dark
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0109_u1451753338.069img_9744r2.jpg

Appealed the photo with a lengthy explanation of this situation only to get it turned down with "screener correct"

I know we have beat the horse to death over and over about screening being subjective and there is no way to standardize screening; HOWEVER, I think this shows way too much variance a need to strive for some sort of standardization. I can understand if you get a rejection for one or two other reasons afterwards but to find 6 more is a bit of an issue, especially with the original screener complementing the image.

Please take this not as a post to complain about the screeners as I thoroughly appreciate the volunteered time and effort put forth. I just wish there was a way to get some better consistency.

The photo is very blurry and should have been rejected as such from the beginning. Mistakes happen.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 5): The photo is very blurry

Can you please elaborate this? Which blurriness affect this photo? Out-of-focus, or movement blur (camera shake), or jetwash or just of air and glass between camera and ground?

Also I honestly can't see any difference in quality of small details between Len's photo and this one, for example:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Bastian Ding


Is this screener mistake too?

PS: Len, I don't know why, but your second edit looks worse for me than first one in terms of overall quality. So my question to Royal is about first edit.

Quoting len90 (Reply 4): Figured, easy fix let me boost the contrast a bit and this should be good to go, especially with the screener being so kind to complement the picture. Today I get the re-edit back with rejection for: quality blurry grainy oversharpened soft dark

I think the photo may have a shot at a smaller size, maybe 1100. It does look a bit blurry, but there always seems to be a bit more lenience for that with airport overview-type shots from the air. But that's just my own observation, not necessarily a rule.

Quoting len90 (Reply 4): This one really troubles me...

I ran into a similar situation a couple of weeks ago, photo was complimented while receiving a rejection for level, so I did a simple fix and re-uploaded, then rejected with grainy, soft, and dark.

I understand it's difficult to be consistent with screening, but I think it really says something about how tight the tolerances here have become when even the screeners differ on several rejection reasons. One or two I understand, as Royal said it's easy to make mistakes. But a list like you received Len shows that this screening process is getting a little out of hand.

Maybe we need to restrict the upload queues to allow the screeners more time to screen more throughly if more time would allow for less mistakes. If it's not a time issue, it must be either screener skill or too-tight tolerances, or some combination of the three. But not being a screener, I can't claim any knowledge about any of this so...

[Edited 2016-01-10 13:57:31]

I'll redo it from scratch at a smaller size.

I know mistakes happen, but a single fixable rejection reason to 6 harsh rejection reasons has to say something.

Also when looking things over, I tend to agree with Alex in what he pointed out. Even going back to some EWR overviews you will see images that suffer OS seen by jagged lines on the runways (Left example). If you look at another shot that was accepted two years ago (standards on the site have been pretty consistent over the past two years) you will see even more blur than what is being referenced in my picture. (Right example).

View Large View Medium Photo © Fyodor Borisov - TransportPhoto Images - Russian APT

View Large View Medium Photo © Peter Tsagaris

So for that American/US 752 picture I pretty much went with what screener Kas said, maybe just a few notches brighter and still got rejected for dark along with grainy now.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...113_w1452234660.9843img_9605r3.jpg

I mean is that really dark at all? As for the grain would the screener be going towards the top of the image in the sky?

Hi Len,

While I don't really see the grain, I can agree to the dark part. I realize in hindsight that my previous example is still quite dark and I'm sorry I messed up there (part of my learning curve too).

I tried another quick fix using your latest rejection and came up with this. It's a bit low on contrast, but as you have the original, that should be fixable.



[Edited 2016-01-13 11:47:54]

[Edited 2016-01-13 11:48:23]

I brought the white point up by 5, and the midtones up by about 5, and it looked better.

I wouldn't go higher on the white point, as the nose starts to look blown out.

I see your very blurry EWR shot was accepted:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Len Schwartz


Good deal!

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 5): The photo is very blurry and should have been rejected as such from the beginning. Mistakes happen.

Congrats with frontpage for very blurry shoot  

Thanks Vik and Alex. Ended up going with a smaller size. Think that second edit suffered compression or something.

Currently have this one I am working on:

Rejected for soft
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...111_t1452060326.2038img_4590r2.jpg

Went ahead and added some sharpening, got this:
Rejected for Low contrast blurry soft contrast personal
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...117_b1452576151.2343img_4590r3.jpg


Also, how soft is this image? Rejection reason is only soft.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...117_g1452576042.3469img_3497r2.jpg

[Edited 2016-01-17 21:34:59]

Quoting len90 (Reply 15): Rejected for Low contrast blurry soft contrast personal

It does look blurry to me, along with flat. But I have no idea how to judge air-to-ground shots.

Quoting len90 (Reply 15): Also, how soft is this image? Rejection reason is only soft.

Honestly looks a bit blurry.

Air-to-Ground are the toughest for me as well... hence why I turn to here for the help.

As for the United 739, what makes you feel it is blurry? You can read all the typing on it pretty nicely including the United Wifi decal by door L1.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 16): It does look blurry to me, along with flat.

I agree with Vik. The blurryness was probably mistaken for soft at the first rejection.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 16): Quoting len90 (Reply 15): Also, how soft is this image? Rejection reason is only soft. Honestly looks a bit blurry.

I agree. It just this slight blurry/soft feel to it. For me at least visible at the nose and windows.

Thanks for the tips so far. Been pretty helpful.

With winter finally giving us some snow I went out and got this shot: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...202_u1453823568.8749img_5172r1.jpg

Rejected for soft and low contrast. I used this as a comparison for editing as the conditions are pretty similar... https://www.airliners.net/photo/Unite...d=6012e45e77b259cd41b4e5fdb6c81232

To me the contrast looks fine and is appropriate for the lighting. The soft aspect to me looks a bit tough as well. Engines, titles, tail, registration, cheat line look to all be okay.

Quoting len90 (Reply 19): With winter finally giving us some snow I went out and got this shot: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...202_u1453823568.8749img_5172r1.jpg Rejected for soft and low contrast.

Soft?? Not a chance. Looks pretty heavily oversharpened.

As to whether that's because of a soft original, I don't know, but the edit is definitely OS.

As for contrast, the blacks could maybe be a bit blacker.

Quoting len90 (Reply 19): Rejected for soft and low contrast. I used this as a comparison for editing as the conditions are pretty similar...

Well...to be honest, that one looks too OS as well.

Interesting... thanks Vik. The original is not that soft and I didn't really add much sharpening. Don't have the exact numbers though.

The only true blacks on the image are the tires and they are truly black. The underside of the wings doesn't get that dark shading when you have snow on the ground.

[Edited 2016-02-03 14:40:14]

Just had these two rejected.

Low Contrast/Soft: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...216_x1454994502.9379ii8a7800r2.jpg
Note the image taken with snow reflecting on the ground so that kind of makes it tough to look for contrast except on the true black, which in this case is the retracted gear. I have noted that to the screeners. I also think the sharpening is a bit tough... unless the screener feels it needs to be sharper on the wings/engines.

Soft: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...6_p1454996650.8098ii8a7839r1r1.jpg
Is it windows and nose only or is this an overall issue?

Quoting len90 (Reply 22): Low Contrast/Soft

I agree with low contrast, despite the snow. I'm not too sure about the overall quality of the photo; it looks pretty soft towards the tail end/engines and even marginally blurry.

Quoting len90 (Reply 22): Is it windows and nose only or is this an overall issue?

Overall, but especially towards the nose. It looks a bit OOF to me, contributing to the softness.

Amrit

Thanks Amrit. On the WN I thought the lines on the tail were sharpened just right as you can start to see some jaggedness there. Interesting that you see it a bit soft. To me it was just the leading edges and trailing edges of the wing along with engine. Not sure where the blur is happening as the original doesn't seem to have any.

United: I'll try sharpening the nose a bit and see how it looks at 1024 for a last chance. Otherwise it will just be for my personal registration collection!

Quoting len90 (Reply 22): Low Contrast/Soft: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...2.jpg

I find it low contrast as well, plus the whole image seems rather blurry (as opposed to soft).

Quoting len90 (Reply 22): Soft: https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1.jpg

Soft in general, with the cockpit being blurry.

Thanks I'll rework the WN as the original doesn't seem to have any blurry issue.

On a side note: "You currently have 1330 photos in our database. The large version of all your photos have been viewed a total of 1,000,217 distinct times. On average, each photo of yours has been viewed 752 times."

Happy to say I broke 1,000,000 distinct photo views on the site today!

Quoting len90 (Reply 26): Happy to say I broke 1,000,000 distinct photo views on the site today!

Very nice! Congratulations!!

Amrit

Very nice achievement, congrats!

Thanks a lot for the compliments.

Just had this one kicked for OS and blurry. Not sure where this one actually is either of those. Checked the original and it is not really blurry. Also I don't see any parts that have the jaggedness for OS.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...223_c1455603157.2247img_7094r1.jpg

Thanks in advance.

Hi Len,

it doesn't look blurry to me, but it does seem oversharpened to me, especially visible on the tail.

Julien

It has a bit of a blurry-ish look. I get where that is coming from. It's a little oversharpened in general.

I'll look through my set on that AC and see if I have one that is even clearer. I think the issue stems from the way the sun hits it and gives the nose details some issues.

I just had this one for soft/grainy. The soft part looks to be the wings, engines, stabilizer from looking at it. Titles, registration, cheat lines are okay. I have an issue with seeing noise. I would assume it is in the sky but doesn't look to be overly noisy, especially when compared to things I have had accepted recently.
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...225_i1455776995.1323ii8a7853r1.jpg

Quoting len90 (Reply 32): he soft part looks to be the wings, engines, stabilizer from looking at it. Titles, registration, cheat lines are okay.

I'd say tail, titles and wing. The tail has a bit of a blurry-ish feeling to it. Is the original sharp?
The noise feels acceptable. Personally, I would also add a bit more contrast to your re-edit.

Thanks Kas. I'll selectively sharpen the areas you pointed out, boost the contrast and reupload. Your input is always appreciated.

I have this picture that I want to bring some attention to.

https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...306_y1456552652.9261img_8614r1.jpg

Picture was originally rejected for motive with the statement: "Sorry, it looks like a photo of a pub. We do like pubs but on a.net a bit more aviation would be appreciated."

I appealed it to get rejected for Motive and People with the statement: "Screener correct. Also people's faces clearly identifiable."

What I find troubling about this rejection is that it is the picture of inside an airport terminal and you can clearly see that. The main motive for taking it is to showcase the decor of the terminal, which is really nice compared to what I am used to at Newark Terminal A. What ultimately dictates the criteria for the amount of aviation a picture has? To me that seems extremely subjective. Secondly, the head screener adding a People rejection makes no sense to me and makes me question the head screeners on this appeal. My reason for feeling this way is because the a.net rejection guide about people states:

Quote: People We allow people to be visible in photos and allow faces to be recognizable in photos. People can not be the main subject of the photo or the sole motivation. The people in the image must contribute to the overall aviation theme of your image, and not themselves be the sole content/motivation for the composition. We do not accept pictures where people pose in front of an aircraft, such as the example below. The people have to be either accidental or motivational to the pictures. For the former this means we allow airshow public or pilots faces to be visible. For the latter it means that people need to have a function within the picture. As you can see in example 1a the person does not have a function within the photo. In example 1b however the person does have a function in the photo. We allow flightcrew to be recognisable in the cockpit but we ask that you ask permission from the crew when you take the shot. This is very important! Respect the privacy of the people who generously let you photograph their working environment!

Now as this states, people's faces are allowed to be clearly visible, otherwise we wouldn't have all of the amazing SXM pictures. Just like in those picture the people are not the main focus but serve a function in the picture. The people contribute to the aviation theme of the picture which is seen with their carry-on suitcases. They are similar to what you would catch in any other terminal shot or would see in any cabin picture taken during a flight.

Ultimately, I ask where do we draw the line on this? How can this be deemed not enough aviation and how could this even qualify for a people rejection?

Thanks,
Len

Quoting Len90 (Reply 35): To me that seems extremely subjective.

And it its. I've had some terminal pictures rejected for "not enough of an airport/not recognizable as airport", I must say that I remember at least 3 being added in appeal. I generally don't agree with this rejections. Being on a.net, everyone knows that pictures will be a Terminal and not an train station or a shopping, showing something else than just gates and checkin area makes the pictures more interesting for me.

Happily everyday we're seeing more and more pictures with people being able to participate of the motive or composition. That being said, people rejection makes no sense in your picture for me. Sadly it really goes from who screen your picture.

Cheers

Quoting trevisan26 (Reply 36): Being on a.net, everyone knows that pictures will be a Terminal and not an train station or a shopping

You would think that, yes. But you'd be a bit wary too when you see some at the 'jokes' that get upoaded at times...

Len, I didn't screen your photo and this is the first time I'm seeing it. I'm not familiar with PDX and even though I trust you that you wouldn't upload a train station, for me there is nothing that really identifies it as an airport.

Although there is no clear-cut explanation of 'identifyable', I look for signs, monitors, gates, airport name, check-in counters, etc. (this list is not exclusive, but just some examples). In your photo I just can't see anything that gives it away as an airport, which to me makes sense since food courts aren't restricted to airports. If anyting could give it away it's the signs in the background, but I can't read those (but even if I could that leaves it very marginal). In the end I agree with the screener's personal message.

As for people, I see your point. According to the rejection FAQ quote, it would fit the "The people in the image must contribute to the overall aviation theme of your image, and not themselves be the sole content/motivation for the composition".On the other side you could probably have waited for that couple to move out of the frame? That would reduce chances of a people rejection significantly (unless of course you framed it like this on purpose to include the people).

Quoting Len90 (Reply 35): What ultimately dictates the criteria for the amount of aviation a picture has? To me that seems extremely subjective

I think the majority of the screeners would reject a photo like this for motive, which means in this case it's not extremely subjective. The public doesn't see the rejected photos, but we do get quite some terminal photos that are subsequently rejected for motive (not identifyable as such).

Quoting Len90 (Reply 35): Ultimately, I ask where do we draw the line on this?

I would say food courts (as in your photo, you even called it that in your remark) are over said line.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 37): for me there is nothing that really identifies it as an airport.

I'd have to agree - it looks like a shot of a mall and could be anywhere.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 37): "The people in the image must contribute to the overall aviation theme of your image, and not themselves be the sole content/motivation for the composition".On the other side you could probably have waited for that couple to move out of the frame? That would reduce chances of a people rejection significantly (unless of course you framed it like this on purpose to include the people).

Really not sure how an "general view" type shot of a public place can be rejected for people. The real irony being, the woman pulling a roll-on type bag is about the only clue this might be an airport terminal!

Kas,

I appreciate your response but I have to disagree with you to an extent on this. I understand some people try to submit crazy stuff that is in no way related to aviation. However, I think before you think something there should be a way to judge if a photographer is somebody trustworthy (photos in database) or not. Secondly, in the background the sings are for gates in the "C" concourse. C5, C6, C7 along with the large sign pointing to baggage claim and the other concourses. Sadly due to the site's upload sizing, you lose a small bit of the quality/detail in the background. On full size you can blow the image up and see those signs clearly.

As far as the people aspect... it's a busy airport terminal. It would look a bit strange with no people in it and they don't distract from the image.

As for my exact remark upon uploading the image: "One of PDX's food areas in Concourse C. Canon 6D 24-105 f4L IS".

I think I would be more understanding with this rejection if there was a clear written rule on terminal shots, but there is nothing against this shot besides a personal opinion. If we look at the database there are other interesting examples that make you question if this is an airport or not.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Fyodor Borisov - TransportPhoto Images - Russian APT

The above example is taken inside an airline lounge. People's faces are clearly visible. We could argue if the photographer would have been better off letting the person who was walking clear the frame as he tends to obstruct the only partial clue that tells me this might be an airport, which is the electronic signs. HOWEVER, those signs could also symbolize many other places like a train station, bus terminal, etc.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Mehrad Watson - Persian Spotters

This above photo was taken inside Dubai airport. However, to me it looks like a shopping mall. There is absolutely nothing in this picture that tells me this is indeed an airport terminal and not a mall. I don't see many suitcases, any signs for gates, monitors, etc. Stores are not restricted to airports, if anything a set-up like this looks very much like a shopping mall. There are a few examples on the database from it. All of which in their remark compare it to a shopping mall, one of which makes extreme reference to christmas decorations... something I have been hit with a motive rejection in the past for as well.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Darren Wilson

Another picture from inside Dubai airport, this time terminal 3. Signs might be a bit closer in but are quite overdone and blown out for the photographer to compensate for the duller lighting inside the terminal. They are pointing to B20s However, there is nothing in this image that screams airport instead of bus terminal or train station. I think we could also make the same argument about the people in this picture as we could in mine. The only difference here is they are a lot more blurry due to the slower shutter speed used by this photographer.


I understand we need to maintain this to be aviation, but the inside of an airport terminal is aviation. The examples I posted show there is extreme subjectivity when dealing with an airport terminal shot. The examples I posted were all accepted within the past two years and we really haven't made any changes (at least publicly announced) to stricter screening. If anything there have been loosening of screening announcements over this period. So I now ask, what makes my shot different than the three examples on here?

Quoting Len90 (Reply 39): So I now ask, what makes my shot different than the three examples on here?

Nothing, but as we know that's not how this site works. Maybe the images were accepted "in error". If that's the case maybe they'll even be removed- it's happened to me before.

I agree that your image should be accepted, as it is the scene looks airport-ish but the lady dragging a roller bag around makes it obvious that it's not a shopping mall.

Hi Len,

I agree with your opinion regarding people in the photo and it matches with the upload FAQ. No argument from my side there.

Quoting Len90 (Reply 39): However, I think before you think something there should be a way to judge if a photographer is somebody trustworthy

I somewhat agree with that approach, but it also that leads to

Quoting Len90 (Reply 39): extreme subjectivity when dealing with an airport terminal shot

Quoting Len90 (Reply 39): I think I would be more understanding with this rejection if there was a clear written rule on terminal shots, but there is nothing against this shot besides a personal opinion.

Would be nice, but just like in real life, you can't cover all the bases for the full 100%. There will always be (slightly) different cases.

Quoting Len90 (Reply 39): However, to me it looks like a shopping mall.

Was my first thought as well.

Quoting Len90 (Reply 39): So I now ask, what makes my shot different than the three examples on here?

For me nothing (in the sense that I would not have accepted any of the 4 images).

Quoting Kaphias (Reply 40): but the lady dragging a roller bag around makes it obvious that it's not a shopping mall.

Sorry if I'm nitpicking here, but anyone can drag a suitcase through a mall. Maybe they just bought it at the mall. Maybe they need to transit through the mall to get home/to work. Don't get me wrong, I understand your point, but imo it's a bit too easy to simply state that 'it's obviously not a mall because there's someone with a roller bag'.

Kas, I thoroughly appreciate you taking the time to reply and offer the opinion of the other side. It truly means a lot when the screeners actively partake in the boards. I wanted to reply sooner but I had a major exam today that I needed to study for.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 41): I agree with your opinion regarding people in the photo and it matches with the upload FAQ. No argument from my side there.

Good to see we are in agreement with the people aspect... Now if only the HS would see it that way as well  

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 41): For me nothing (in the sense that I would not have accepted any of the 4 images).

I guess this can open up another round of the subjectivity of screening. We ultimately have to lay down a rule with the site then. What makes those accepted examples more aviation themed than mine? Ultimately nothing. We need to either accept all terminal shots because airport terminals are just as much aviation as airplanes are or not accept any terminal shots and deem this to be aircraft only for airliners.net. Inconsistencies like this are what have driven photographers away from the site in the past. In addition, rejections like this take away from allowing photographer's to have creativity and capture everything else there is to aviation besides the side on view of an airplane.

Remember this: Unique pictures generate views. Views generate ad revenue. Shame to see the site not grasping this concept

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 41): Sorry if I'm nitpicking here, but anyone can drag a suitcase through a mall. Maybe they just bought it at the mall. Maybe they need to transit through the mall to get home/to work. Don't get me wrong, I understand your point, but imo it's a bit too easy to simply state that 'it's obviously not a mall because there's someone with a roller bag'.

I understand where you are coming from in making this argument but there is more than just a person with a suitcase to tell you this is an airport terminal and not some sort of mall. Look at the background where you can see the Concourse C area gates and the sign leading you to the other concourses/baggage claim. As for the Dubai terminal shot, if you look closely one of the stores is a Duty Free shop, a store most commonly found at airport terminals. A subtle hint; but not much.

When all is said and done, it would be nice to hear something back from a Head Screener regarding this or to have a detailed policy in place over this. Having different rules for different photographers/airports/etc should not be going on.

Thanks!

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 41): I understand your point, but imo it's a bit too easy to simply state that 'it's obviously not a mall because there's someone with a roller bag'.

You're right, it is too easy. I should have said something along the lines of, "I'm viewing this picture on airliners.net, a site that, based on the name, probably contains pictures that are related to aviation, and based on that fact alone, never mind the roller bag (most commonly used in airports), or the gate signs (most commonly seen in airports) or the signs to the baggage claim (also commonly seen in airports), it must be an airport terminal."

 

Hi Len,

No worries, hope your exam went well!
I see your points and I get it. But if I reply to everything again, I would be repeating myself again for the majority of it. We would be in a never-ending circle of voicing our opinion and that in itself is quite useless. I hope someone else can reply to you as well.

Shame I never saved any of the terminal photos we encounter in the queue. I could've used that to illustrate a point about terminal photos (exterior and interior). The general rule of thumb for terminal photos is they have to be recognisable as such. Most of the time, it takes 3> screeners to see a terminal photo before it is rejected or accepted. This should in theory balance out the subjectivity of the matter.

Kas,

Thanks! The exam... went.

It's sad that no other screeners have tried to comment here. I really thought I could at least get enough respect from someone, especially a HS, to state their reasoning. Instead, I have gotten silence from the HS and my acceptance rate over the last week has plummeted.

Quoting Len90 (Reply 45): and my acceptance rate over the last week has plummeted.

Hehe as a former Soviet Union citizen I develop a theory: there is a plan at A.net, to accept, say, 200k photos per year. So in the beginning of each year screening is very tight and
meticulous. Closer to August, crew see that even 100k will not be reached with such attitude, so...

Sorry for the off topic, but...

Quoting Len90 (Reply 45): Thanks! The exam... went.

I know that feeling all to well. I know you said it was a major exam, but sometimes you feel a little less certain of yourself after those, so it may have gone well after all!

Back to topic:

Quoting Len90 (Reply 45): It's sad that no other screeners have tried to comment here. I really thought I could at least get enough respect from someone, especially a HS, to state their reasoning. Instead, I have gotten silence from the HS and my acceptance rate over the last week has plummeted.

To be fair, that rarely happens, so as nice as it would have been, I don't think it was a realistic expectation. The last HS to regularly post here was alevik (Pete Nickerson), and before that, Dana Low.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 46): Hehe as a former Soviet Union citizen I develop a theory: there is a plan at A.net, to accept, say, 200k photos per year. So in the beginning of each year screening is very tight and meticulous. Closer to August, crew see that even 100k will not be reached with such attitude, so...

Haha, I love it!

Cheers
A

Quoting Len90 (Reply 45): It's sad that no other screeners have tried to comment here. I really thought I could at least get enough respect from someone, especially a HS, to state their reasoning. Instead, I have gotten silence from the HS and my acceptance rate over the last week has plummeted.

Unfortunately no-one can be forced and people lead busy lives too nowadays.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 46): Hehe as a former Soviet Union citizen I develop a theory: there is a plan at A.net, to accept, say, 200k photos per year. So in the beginning of each year screening is very tight and meticulous. Closer to August, crew see that even 100k will not be reached with such attitude, so...

I have a theory too; "In Soviet Russia, 200K photos accept A.net"  
But in all seriousness, there is no truth whatsoever in this.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 48): Unfortunately no-one can be forced and people lead busy lives too nowadays.

And I'm not forcing anybody to say a word. I completely understand how everyone has busy lives and this is done by people in their spare time. But with that said, how much time does it take for a quick response over the past 5 days? Even other screeners who are active on the board have passed by this thread only to post in others.... which is more the reason for why I appreciate your input.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 47): To be fair, that rarely happens, so as nice as it would have been, I don't think it was a realistic expectation. The last HS to regularly post here was alevik (Pete Nickerson), and before that, Dana Low.

Pete is still listed as a HS but I haven't heard from him in a long time. Also I remember Mick was pretty active as well before he left.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 46): Hehe as a former Soviet Union citizen I develop a theory: there is a plan at A.net, to accept, say, 200k photos per year. So in the beginning of each year screening is very tight and meticulous. Closer to August, crew see that even 100k will not be reached with such attitude, so...

Hahaha. I don't think that is the case in terms of the site having a quota. What I do think happens is we get periods of time where the screening team becomes overly strict and then other times where the site is more lenient.