Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

rejection: doesn't work mate.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rejection: doesn't work mate.

    last year I upload a picture in category "spotting location" that it was rejected by "motive". It showed some people spotting stand up right next to the runway, over dirt, with two aircraf holding at background. It was a good pic so I appealed it and it was rejected and the admin comment said: " It shows people standing on a mound of dirt. There is not much runway to be seen, or a terminal building, nothing." It said nothing about the two aircrafts and I'm sorry but here in SCL we don't have special constructions or grass where to saty when taking pics so we have to stand up where we have. dirt. Sorry about that.

    Today I had rejected this one:
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2226959

    the reasons were: Reason(s) For Rejection:
    - Categories wrong or missing
    - Bad Info in the following field(s): Airline,Aircraft,Serial Number/CN

    Categories I dont think so because when I uploaded entering SCEL in registration and Location fields the category "airport" is checked automatically in the form.

    "Bad info"... the registration was SCEL and the pic had all the necessary information, I did not have to enter a registration or a CN because it's not an aircraft. So I appealed explaining all this carefully with respect and trying to be clear and after several hours later I received a rejected appeal and this admin message. please red carefully:

    Admin Comments >> doesn\'t work mate.

    I'm sorry but what does that mean?... are you talking about the first or the second reason you rejected my pic first?.. maybe it was a copy and paste answer or your pick the wrong appeal?

    It means that you did not like it? if it was rejected by two clear reasons and I took the time to write an appeal explaining why I think you are wrong at less you should try to give an answer at the same level becasuse this kind of answer is kind of rude. first, I'm not your mate because I don't even know your name and if we support the site uploading pics, I have more than 600 in DB, you should try to be more "friendly" because this is "the friendly way to fly" remember?.

    Very dissapointing sr. (no mate) and I say this with responsability because until some point this site is still more friendly than the other side and we deserve another kind of answers. If you just don't like this kind of pic from this side of the world just say it but "doesn\'t work mate" is jus too poor.

    The pic was rejetec for two explicit reasons, please say something related to that, as easy as that.

    If you have a topic about "messages and mails we receive" maybe we should have a topic saying "answers we get from screeners" with a big surprise face on it

    have a good day and keep the good job. I hope this post receive some answers to keep the faith.

    Fdo. Olivares M. that's my name, mate.
    _______________________________

    Will I ever repeat this?

  • #2
    I wouldn't get so worked up over the reply. This is the friendly site, whoever is handling the appeals has just adopted an informal tone. I thought it was kind of a nice change but to each his own. Though I agree; it would've been nice to know what doesn't work. As to the error, I'm sorry I'm not sure what's wrong and hope that someone in a position of authority can help you.

    Comment


    • #3
      my guess is that they believe the shot should be uploaded as the registration and not as a spotting location because the aircraft is mostly the main subject in the image.

      If you look under the spotting location category, http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos....ing%20Location

      they appear to be wider shots that show more of the surroundings where your inbound plane seems to be more of the subject, but with one photog in the picture.

      That's how I would upload the shot, I would expect a better response than "doesn't work mate". They should have explained how it would work to get accepted in my opinion.

      Comment


      • #4
        I recently had a spotting location shot rejected for bad info in the C/N number, airline, aircraft type, etc. I promptly appealed and it was accepted. I'm guessing whoever screened it failed to see it was uploaded as a spotting location, but screeners are only human, and these things will happen.

        As for the "doesn't work mate" comment, I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean either and in a sense not leaving such a comment at all would probably have been best. It's surprising how words can come across sometimes and people arn't always as careful as they could be when using them. Compositionally it works fine for me although the slight unlevelness of the shot is a little irritating in all honesty, especially with a fence post so close to the left of the frame. That said, it probably really isn't worth getting all that worked up about. Perhaps a screener can clarify their thoughs on why it doesn't work as a photo.

        Paul
        Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

        My images on Flickr

        Comment


        • #5
          I wasn't the screener but I would think that it would have "worked" had it been shot in landscape view with more airport in view.

          It's very difficult to put across a comment in type rather than speaking directly to the photographer which we obviously cannot do. Spotting location pics need to strongly portray the location rather than an aircraft. In your case the aircraft dominates.
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
            It's very difficult to put across a comment in type rather than speaking directly to the photographer which we obviously cannot do.
            Indeed, but that's my point. Perhaps sometimes it's better to not say anything rather than make a three word comment that brings about even more uncertainty? "Doesn't work mate" actually comes across as being a little offhand to be honest, and it isn't really helpful in any way as it doesn't give the photographer any indication as to why it doesn't work.

            I had a brief PM exchange with Gerardo recently after one of my spotting location shots from LHR was rejected.



            I should have mentioned this in my previous post, but what he basically said was a spotting location photo should include a part of the airport; not just an aircraft. In the case of mine all I'm essentially showing is a 747 flying over a field. It doesn't really have any direct relevence to London Heathrow airport, and hence the rejection. This is the same case in yours; you're just showing an aircraft and a person in the foreground without showing much of the actual place or airport.

            It is a very vague category but that explanation did make sense to me.

            Paul
            Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

            My images on Flickr

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by PMN View Post
              I should have mentioned this in my previous post, but what he basically said was a spotting location photo should include a part of the airport; not just an aircraft. In the case of mine all I'm essentially showing is a 747 flying over a field. It doesn't really have any direct relevence to London Heathrow airport, and hence the rejection. This is the same case in yours; you're just showing an aircraft and a person in the foreground without showing much of the actual place or airport.
              Paul
              Absolutly Paul, and good example ! And yes that 767 is a borderline case and we all realise that the line in this "spotting location" is quiet vague sometimes on what's acceptable or not.

              Regards
              Alex

              Comment


              • #8
                When I'm travelling to somewhere I've never been before I always look up the spotting location pics. What I'm looking for is a clue to the accessibility of the location and where it actually is geographically. I would imagine that the same would go for the vast majority of viewers of this particular category.
                In fact, a thought crosses my mind on this subject. If possible something like a location reference using GoogleEarth in the comments would be a great help. The location can then be pinned down to an exact map reference.
                Last edited by brianw999; 2008-11-26, 15:36.
                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                  I wasn't the screener but I would think that it would have "worked" had it been shot in landscape view with more airport in view.

                  It's very difficult to put across a comment in type rather than speaking directly to the photographer which we obviously cannot do. Spotting location pics need to strongly portray the location rather than an aircraft. In your case the aircraft dominates.
                  Ok Brian I really appreciate your comment and I understand the message. Sometimes the correct use of the language helps and a short sentence from admin like "too big aircraft, upload as a regular one" it would be really useful for us.

                  But, as always the borderline between "spotting location" or not is very wide because you say the aircraft dominates in my pic but... I hate to do this but allows me to show you why I say the criterious is not the same for everyone again. please take a look.




                  But it's ok. It's not the first time and It won't be the last one we had differences, I know and I only hope for a better communication between us.

                  Thanks,
                  _______________________________

                  Will I ever repeat this?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The screeners who first looked at you picture felt that the aircraft is the main focus in the photo rather than an overall spotting location. The spotting location photos we have already tend to consist of a wider overview of the location where as you've chosen to focus on a small section of fencing and the aircraft, so the eye is drawn to the aircraft instead.
                    Hope this helps.

                    James

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi everyone,

                      by looking at Gatto-777's example and others, and comparing them with other pictures in the db under "Spotting location", I think that Gatto's should fall under the category. Here are just a few examples that (granted not exactly the same) show the aircradt as the main focus yet were added as spotting locations. Btw, they are all amazing photos, and I am not criticizing in any way

                      [photoid=6394014]
                      [photoid=6397131]
                      [photoid=6420684]

                      And regarding the 747, there too are several examplet where nothing if the airport is shown (again, great pics!)

                      [photoid=6404900]

                      my point is that it seems to be an open subject, possibly "too open"? Meaning that it seems like it will depend on interpretation. Maybe there could be a better way of getting all spotting location shots under the same umbrella? I was thinking something around the lines of "if the shot has people taking pictures at the a/c " then it would fall under the category?

                      just my 2c

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by B7772ADL View Post
                        The screeners who first looked at you picture felt that the aircraft is the main focus in the photo rather than an overall spotting location. The spotting location photos we have already tend to consist of a wider overview of the location where as you've chosen to focus on a small section of fencing and the aircraft, so the eye is drawn to the aircraft instead.
                        Hope this helps.

                        James
                        Thanks James... I understand what you say but the big problem I see here is what happens if my pic is screened first by another screener, the one that screened the example posted by me or Alberto. Maybe I should have gone to sleep that night and wait for the next morning to upload the pic.

                        thanks all.
                        _______________________________

                        Will I ever repeat this?

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X