Unfair Rejection due to Bad Date

[Diego727]

Hi People.

Some screener rejected me the following picture[/FONT] because of bad date

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2193650

I appealed it, and it was rejected without any comment.I am really dissapointed because I think the screening proccess is not being as fair and proffessional as it used to be. JP is with no doubt, an aviation site in which I take my valuable time to upload shots in a very professional way, so I expect at least a decent threatment from the site screeners, and this leaves me really dissapointed.

I would like to know, by some of the crew members the real reason this picture was recently rejected.

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Hi People.

Some screener rejected me the following picture[/font] because of bad date

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2193650

I appealed it, and it was rejected without any comment.I am really dissapointed because I think the screening proccess is not being as fair and proffessional as it used to be. JP is with no doubt, an aviation site in which I take my valuable time to upload shots in a very professional way, so I expect at least a decent threatment from the site screeners, and this leaves me really dissapointed.

I would like to know, by some of the crew members the real reason this picture was recently rejected.

What date was the photo taken? If you included the exif data in your photo submission, it may conflict with the date you actually entered.

Did you write any comments when you appealed, or did you just click the appeal button and send it back?

Perhaps double check and re-submit with the correct date, or alternatively with a note to the screeners if your exif data (i.e. the date loaded in your camera) is wrong.

[Diego727]

Hello.

The EXIF have the correct date, and the information in the picture too.

When I made the appeal i wrote that the Date was correct.

So, What can I wait? JP reject to me a picture with out any reason.....

That is very sad....

[tomas_cubero]

This is ridiculous, I hardly ever post in the forums but most us have had enough. So many photos are being screened with no care whatsoever. I have seen loads of pics lately which shouldn't be in the DB at all, overexposed pics, uncentered, even saw a pic with a rotation residue to one of the edges. I've also sent countless photo corrections with horrid data.

The screening in JP and the professionalism that this website used to have has gone down the drain lately. How can a pic be rejected because of its date, I mean come on, how many spotters don't even place a day on their date, or get their dates mixed up because the last shots they uploaded had a different date. The date is probably the least important details of a photo, screeners should be checking the aicraft type, registration and construction numbers, not a date.

I hope these issues are being addresed quickly, this is not the screening that users need.

[Thomsonfly757RB211]

^^^^

If i may remind you, i belive screeners screen around 1000 photos a day, And they arent getting paid to do this, most of them will probly have lifes away from there computers, So lets not get rash towards them. i belive there are many other photosites on the web you could use.

Well make sure the date is correct then it wouldent get a rejection, if it is correct then mistakes do happen, We are only human after all. Ive had photos wrongly rejected but instead of complaining why, i sort it out and reupload it then it gets accepted.

' screeners should be checking the aicraft type, registration and construction numbers, not a date.'

Well i think its fair to reject a photo because of an incorrect date, Get it right first time then it wont get a rejection, It isnt hard to have a quick look at the photos EXIF data to get the date.

[seahawk]

There is a simple answer to the question. The same pic was up-loaded with a different date before and rejected for other reasons. As it contains no EXIF with which we could check the original date (I checked this in screening) we must assume that the date is wrong. Especially as the original reject was up-loaded as a "hot photo" so obviously the date was important in screening.
previous rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2191249

new rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2193650

Btw. Nice to read such "screening team bashing" comments, when we just reduced the queue length from 8000+ to barely over 5000+ over the weekend. I am sure posts like the one by Tomas will hugely motivate the volunteer screening team to devote more hours every week to offering our users a quick screening.

[PMN]

The screening in JP and the professionalism that this website used to have has gone down the drain lately. How can a pic be rejected because of its date, I mean come on, how many spotters don't even place a day on their date, or get their dates mixed up because the last shots they uploaded had a different date. The date is probably the least important details of a photo, screeners should be checking the aicraft type, registration and construction numbers, not a date.

I completely disagree. Every time I go out shooting, the original RAW files and the edited JPEGs go into separate folders of their own specifically for that day and I put the registration, location and date in the file name of every image I edit, so a shot of G-LSAA taken at Leeds Bradford on the 22nd October 2008 would be 'G-LSAA-LBA-221008.jpg.' Doing that makes it very easy to ensure I get the date and other info correct when I upload. It's my job to make sure I get that information correct; not the screeners. They're there to say whether an image is acceptable or not, not to waste time correcting the mistakes of lazy or careless photographers. If you upload a photo with wrong information, it's your fault. Be more careful next time and don't lay into the screeners over your own mistakes. They work hard enough as it is.

Paul

[LX-A343]

Tomas, thanks for bashing us for no reason at all. We really appreciate it.

This is ridiculous, I hardly ever post in the forums but most us have had enough.

Really? Who is "most us"?

So many photos are being screened with no care whatsoever. I have seen loads of pics lately which shouldn't be in the DB at all, overexposed pics, uncentered, even saw a pic with a rotation residue to one of the edges. I've also sent countless photo corrections with horrid data.

If you want ridiculously high standards, there are always other well known sites. But then again, judging by some whining posts there, perhaps too high standards is not really what we all want. As for the data: funny that you mention the photos with "horrid data" in the db, but start a fuss when we reject for a wrong info. As this is a db, even the date is important.

The screening in JP and the professionalism that this website used to have has gone down the drain lately.

care to explain?

How can a pic be rejected because of its date, I mean come on, how many spotters don't even place a day on their date, or get their dates mixed up because the last shots they uploaded had a different date. The date is probably the least important details of a photo, screeners should be checking the aicraft type, registration and construction numbers, not a date.

If the date is so unimportant at all (I for one find the CN the least important info, but there you go), why are there topics asking, which regi was when at which airport, which aircraft has been photographed starting and landing on the same day or why even uploading a news worthy item, which per definition, MUST HAVE a date in order to be a hot item?

I hope these issues are being addresed quickly, this is not the screening that users need.

Which issues? I see a bad post by someone with a questionable history at this site. This makes it a non-issue for me.

Thanks for your attention

[brianw999]

Nice reply Gerardo.

Tomas,
How many of the 5195 photographers who have pictures in the database did you canvas to come up with.....

.....but most us have had enough.

I take it that the statement.....

.....I have seen loads of pics lately which shouldn't be in the DB at all, overexposed pics,.......

.....means one like this which I see as being overexposed, but which one screener rejected as overexposed and two others saw fit to accept on the grounds of giving a bit of leeway.

[photoid=6397914]

I don't often get so pissed off with adverse, unconstructive comments about screening to the point that I post about those comments...but today I'm making an exception......Mostly because I've just worked a 14hr night shift...yet here I am doing some screening before having any breakfast or getting some sleep.

[Eadster]

Seeing that we are screener bashing, I would like to add, that I would have rejected it for additionallly being soft on the rear of the aircraft and oversharpened the rest.

And on a further note, all us screeners have reduced the Queue by a significant amount over the last few days. So are we still being "unfair" and unprofessional? No of course not. We all get frustrated at times. Me included.

Fix the date, the oversharpend areas and the soft areas, and upload again. It's not hard buddy!

Oh and Tomas, if you feel the need to comment on the teams work like that in the future, I wouldn't expect anything great in the way of time, effort or friendship towards you around here anytime soon!

[hkgspotter1]

empty space........................................

[Alex - Spot-This !]

it's not about raising problems about screening, it's about the way it's been done...

If ANYBODY has some constructive complains, issues that he/she can show with some exemples, we'll be very glad to discuss them and try to find a way to improve those issues.

As screeners we do mistakes yes, and we realise it very well. But you guys should just realise that we spend many many hours a month talking about those issues in our crew forum or by msn.

What I've seen here is only very unclear accustations and some, it's true, quiet insulting bashing.

As an individual I don't feel offended anymore about this, I've been in the past but chose not to care UNLESS I see something positive coming out of such posts. We are many who are helping you (you included Tomas) and explaining many things via msn... that's not part of our duty, but we still do it because we want this place to remain friendly... But when I see some posts it's true that i wonder if it's really worth it...

As a last note I would just like to remain you something very important. You wonder sometimes why we accept such pic that you think is not good for wathever reason.

- As screeners we are looking for reasons to accept... and you might sometime not see this reason but it's still there.
- If we as screeners would screen and accept only pictures that we actually like can you imagine the mess ??? We have a clear guideline and we accept every day dozens of pictures that we might not like... But still if we don't like it doesn't mean that this pic doesn't have a good reason to be accepted...

cheers
Alex

[shakermaker]

Hi all,

I would like to contribute to this discussion.

I agree that it is imperative that photographers who upload their photos take the little bit of time and effort to be sure that the dates entered are correct. As a reg. spotter, I understand the importance of this aspect of the hobby.

...I would have rejected it for additionallly being soft on the rear of the aircraft and oversharpened the rest.

Hi Eadster, I am not an authority on editing or screening photos, but would you agree that this picture www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6182166, uploaded in high resolution, should have been rejected* for being soft on the right side (see windows below the titles). Would you have rejected this photo for that reason?

I think that the issue that is being brought up is the inconsistency in screening. I agree that if photos are going to be subjected to high screening standards, then let this standard be consistent as far as possible. I have also seen several photos uploaded only recently, of which even I found myself questioning the screening standard. Other issues that I, as well as other prominent JP.net photogs have observed, are the rejection of photos for dust spots which can only be seen when using software designed to expose them, photos accepted despite being dark, over-exposed, obvious rotation residue, as pointed out by Tomas, to name a few.

If you want ridiculously high standards, there are always other well known sites.

Firstly, it is attitudes like this (if you don't like it, don't question, just leave) that brought disrepute to that one very well known site.

Secondly, it's not the standards themselves, but the (lack of) consistency in the standards against which images are being screened. LX-A343, I have seen MUCH, MUCH better pictures rejected for reasons that can be considered suspect. But my problem is not with the actual standard, but with the consistency by which screening is being done. I will agree with Daryl that there are photos that have recently been accepted on this database that would otherwise only make it to myaviation.net and that is when you know that you have to voice out because, the standards here are actually much higher than that.

Contributing with this post because I feel strongly about this issue.

Cheers,

shakermaker

*Sorry Vishal, not trying to put down your work, just supporting my case. It's a great photo and can be easily fixed anyway.

[seahawk]

So let me get this straight. Are you demanding tougher screening, or are you just complaining because you think other pics have been screened to a lower standard, then your own? And especially if I see an example that was accepted on the 25th Feb. 2008, then I wonder if we are really doing so bad, or if you were just pissed about exactly that photo being accepted)

I can say that we are pttung a lot of effort into keeping the consistency at a good level, however one must consider the following points :

- the photos are screened by humans
- the moto made up by the founders of the site is "to look for reasons to accept"
- a fully consistent screening takes away room for the out of the ordinary shot and for the rare shot
- the screening team has grown to keep the screening time acceptable

And if I check the statistics. The acceptance ration for the last months is with less then 1% of the overall for 2008. Which again is less then 1% different from 2007.

[PMN]

If you want ridiculously high standards, there are always other well known sites.

Firstly, it is attitudes like this (if you don't like it, don't question, just leave) that brought disrepute to that one very well known site.

A very fair response, and a very honest one as well. Attitudes like that played a huge part in many people ‘defecting’ from ‘the other site’ to JP and the last thing we want to see is similar attitudes developing here. That said, I do consider a somewhat harsh response to be entirely appropriate where the person highlighting potential problems in the first place has made no attempt whatsoever to do so constructively, and that‘s exactly what we‘ve seen in this thread.

it's not about raising problems about screening, it's about the way it's been done...
If ANYBODY has some constructive complains, issues that he/she can show with some exemples, we'll be very glad to discuss them and try to find a way to improve those issues.

Absolutely! Problems are there to be resolved, but there are ways of going about it. Photographers going off at screeners, then screeners reciprocating really isn’t the way to solve anything.

I haven’t been a part of this site for anything like as long as some people, but with over 1600 shots in the database I probably now the standards pretty well and I have to say, I haven’t noticed the catastrophic drop in the level of ’professionalism’ people are talking of. By the screeners’ own admission, they occasionally make mistakes and having done a bit of screening on another site I understand perfectly well that’s the case; they’re only human after all. Ultimately this thread was started by a photographer who was unhappy with a decision a screener made; an ostensibly correct decision because the fault was on the photographers’ part and not the sites. Let’s perhaps see if we can be absolutely ’perfect’ as photographers before going off at the screeners when they’re trying their best to do their jobs as efficiently as they can.

Paul