Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bad Info rejections and reloads.

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

  • Bad Info rejections and reloads.

    Hi,

    Please have a look at this photo, which was correctly rejected for bad info.

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2835736

    I had a couple of e-mail exchanges after appealing with Stephen and Gerrardo, explaining why I had uploaded it as First Choice and at the end they convinced me that I was wrong, although I was misled by a couple of other photos in the database. Well that's my excuse anyway.....

    Then I reloaded this photo with the correct info. However it was again rejected, but this time due to multiple photo quality related issues. Here is the link for the second rejection.

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2847458

    I appreciate the fact that screening is not an exact science, but initially on first load at least two screeners had voted it to be OK. Exactly the same image then suddenly became totally unacceptable. This is not an isolated case and I have had a few cases like this, when a photo is rejected only due to bad info/date/airline/category etc. and when reloaded then it's rejected again with one or more photo quality related issues.

    A few times I have appealed against the second rejection citing the first rejection for bad info. But my appeals have failed and my pleas have been met with a blanket of silence.

    Personally I think it is a bit unfair and it also wastes my and screeners times. One could argue that if I had not put bad info in the first place then I would not suffer this fate. Well.......................

    Is there anyway that this could be mitigated?

    This post is also not to point finger at anyone either. I will be the first to admit that I have learnt a huge amount from the screeners and their feed backs. i.e. "JID Method" - to resolve my work flow issues. Cheers Jid!!! In 2003, I even didn't know what the screeners meant when they rejected a photo for "too much noise"



    .
    CheersAziz



  • #2
    Hi Aziz,

    You've kind of answered your own question in a sense by saying it isn't an exact science. However much we try and be consistent, slight variations will always occur and things will occasionally be missed or simply not mentioned. Just to put another angle on this; in expecting the screeners to be 100% consistent right across the board, it would be very reasonable of us to also, in turn, expect photographers to upload images of 100% consistent quality. We all know that doesn't and never will happen simply because we're all human, so unfortunately however frustrating it may be at times, that's kind of the way it is. All we as screeners can try and do is spend time discussing standards amongst ourselves to keep things as balanced as possible (which we do), and all you as a photographer can do is try to only upload images that have a very good chance of being accepted and do as much 'self-screening' as you can.

    As far as the image in question is concerned, it seems a little oversaturated and oversharp but otherwise OK, so I'm sure it can be acceptable with a slightly different edit.

    I'm not sure any of that actually helped, but in all honesty there probably isn't really much more to say unfortunately! Again, we're all human.

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

    My images on Flickr

    Comment


    • #3
      I've reviewed this one and elected to add it to the database.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Anthony - thanks for accepting it, although I didn't think or did the thread for that purpose, but I am not complaining on this decision

        Hi Paul - glad to know that you guys do review things and I thought that would be the case anyway. I do try to self screen as much as possible. Watch out for the day when I can see the fault with a picture before it's rejected and pointed out.....then I will be after someone's job here.....

        Just a suggestion - could it be possible that for photos that are only rejected for bad info, the up loader is given a chance to correct the bad info and re-submit it? It should still be rejected and should go to the back of the queue on re-submit. Which is now achieved by the photographer re-loading it from scratch. But what I mean is if there was some sort of flag/marker in your screening process/software to identify that the photo was rejected for bad info only and is being submitted with corrected info. A new file upload should not be allowed as that would open up the possibility/question of the image quality.

        This way I think it would be fair and also might save a fair amount of time for the screeners. Or is it too much of an effort to cater for a at times drunk (although I am tea total) like me.

        .
        CheersAziz


        Comment


        • #5
          We have discussed it many moons ago. The reason, why we don't come up with something like this is, that we fear, the usual suspects may misuse the system and simply not pay attention anymore on the infos and only final checking, when the photo has been accepted. As a result the quality of uploaded infos would decrease and make screening a bit more time consuming.

          We decided to judge every upload as a whole, including photo, infos and categories. Considering the low number of rejections due to wrong infos alone, I guess, we can live with that decision.
          My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi Gerrardo,

            Oh well, just an idea. I can see your point too. I better brush up on my vigilance so I don't face these any more.
            CheersAziz


            Comment

            Working...
            X