Old 08-03-2010, 01:07 AM   #51
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
How about bringing that information to this post?



Kevin,

Thanks for posting this. Now we just need the same information for the last few months so that it is relevant. The information provided is from 12.31.2009.
Down to 4 screening now so maybe why 2 max photos a day.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 02:42 AM   #52
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
Travis,



I would have to disagree with you about the second part. The more images accepted = more people who have images on the site = more traffic on the site.
Does anyone know the stats between daily traffic and photos uploaded between RP and RRP? That would be pretty interesting.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 02:45 AM   #53
gakei
Member
 
gakei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hong Kong, China
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
How about bringing that information to this post?



Kevin,

Thanks for posting this. Now we just need the same information for the last few months so that it is relevant. The information provided is from 12.31.2009.
That pieces of information are great. Thanks. We all understand screeners are hard working, screening huge amount of uploads every day. I guess many of us don't mind to wait for a longer time in queue so that screeners may spend more time on every upload. As compared to the website for aircraft photos of a similar nature, which may need 1-2 weeks time for a photo to be screened, the process here is simply more than super efficient.

And again the process may be improved by modifying the screening program e.g. to add more rejection options for screeners to choose, or for the one who handles appeals add feature to allow changing the incorrect selected rejection reason by screeners etc. I think it may help without adding more burden to the day to day screening and appeal work load.
__________________
GAKEI.com
EXHIBITION HONG KONG
http://www.gakei.com/

http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=4877

Last edited by gakei; 08-03-2010 at 04:18 AM.
gakei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 03:41 AM   #54
DWHonan
Senior Member
 
DWHonan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA
Posts: 590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mersenne6 View Post
Iím not interested in starting a war nor am I trying to be insulting but since you made reference to the fact that you are a business major in college I assumed you would make your case with data and analysis.
I'm a civil engineer by trade, so I wholeheartedly support this position. Were this Jalopnik, I'd nominate you for Commenter of the Day.

After a busy period where I didn't have time to deal with preparing and posting photos to RP, I started contributing again at the beginning of July and unexpectedly ran into a series of rejections.

The first rejection was for bad color, but was overturned on appeal when I explained the "blue hour" lighting conditions that led to this exposure:
Image © David Honan
PhotoID: 330120
Photograph © David Honan


Next was for bad cropping, as discussed in a thread I started a few weeks ago. The end result was a much-improved version of my original effort; as a side benefit, exploring different aspect ratios on this shot helped me to come to the realization that the default 1.5:1 ratio that my camera spits out might not be best for the final product which I want to share.
Image © David Honan
PhotoID: 330938
Photograph © David Honan


My next rejection was a PEQ for a rate sheet displayed in a station window. Even though I wrote a thoughtful "pre-appeal" explaining why I thought the photo was worth including in the database, the screener kicked it; since PEQ is their way of saying "not material we want," I let it go. As somebody said in this thread -- sorry for failing to provide attribution, but I'm not going through all 50-odd posts again to track down the author -- their game, their rules.

A few days later I received a back-lit rejection; no argument, the composition absolutely was back-lit, and while I had hoped the subject matter would offset that supposed flaw the screener didn't see it that way.

A couple days after that I got back-to-back rejections on the same photo, first for bad cropping and then for over-processed. They were absolutely correct about the original being poorly cropped, and re-processing without trying to squeeze everything into a 1.5:1 aspect ratio really helped. As for it being over-processed, I appealed and included a link to a screenshot of the Adobe Camera Raw processing screen showing the settings I had used to process the shot; since there was nothing extraordinary there and the end product was fairly close to what the screenshot depicted (I made minor additional tweaks to levels, contrast and saturation), the appeal was accepted:
Image © David Honan
PhotoID: 331596
Photograph © David Honan


In the same set of submissions, the following photo was rejected for underexposure. At a quick glance, one could make that case for the left half of the image; however, upon appeal that the left half was a reflection of the right half and thus would inherently be slightly darker due to light loss through the reflective surface, the photo was accepted.
Image © David Honan
PhotoID: 331482
Photograph © David Honan


My last rejection this month is an interesting case: I captured a half-broadside, half-going-away shot of an eastbound CP train crossing the Fraser River at Cisco, BC. The first shot I posted had the single lead engine just off the far end of the bridge, framed below the CN arch bridge; this was rejected for bad angle, presumably because the engine was too far away. It just so happened that this train had a read-end DPU with its nose trailing, so I posted that shot instead and it was immediately accepted:
Image © David Honan
PhotoID: 332200
Photograph © David Honan


What did I learn from these experiences?
  1. Pay attention to cropping; there are many possible choices, and the one you initially pick may not be the most aesthetically-pleasing one available.
  2. RP's screeners don't have the time to make thorough inspections of every image and will choose to reject a submission if they believe they see an issue at their first glance; taking the time to explain why I disagreed with their rejection resulted in the two affected shots being accepted on appeal.
  3. RP has a set of guiding principles in which they generally don't accept non-train, back-lit or going-away subjects. While these types of images can be interesting or aesthetically pleasing (take a quick glance through Dale Sanders' "Northern Light" for outstanding examples of what can be done in so-called "bad" lighting conditions), if they aren't what the guardians of the database wish to let pass through the gates they control, then there's really nothing I can complain about. My portfolio on the site certainly hasn't suffered from their exclusion, and I have plenty of opportunities to use those images for personal purposes.
  4. RP's screeners are attempting to maintain, if not improve, the overall quality of the database. They kicked images which they thought had technical flaws or didn't meet their guidelines; the appeal process worked in cases where the problem they had spotted wasn't actually an issue; re-editing photos improved upon the original submissions; and finding a way to side-step a guideline resulted in the acceptance of a shot all but identical to the initial rejection.
Are RP's screeners perfect? No, of course not -- they're human. Would we want robots screening our submissions? Hell no, because then this would become ProperlyLitRuleOfThirdsThreeQuarterWedgies.net. Even though two shots that I submitted didn't make it into the database and I had to put forth extra effort to get five others in, I'm quite satisfied with the screeners' recent efforts. Even if there are some data points (photos) which could be classified as outliers (fuzzier than a shag carpet, un-level, overexposed or whatnot), they get lost in the steady stream of properly-executed and creative shots which show up here every day, and isn't that the point of the site?


(Incidentally, the only reason I authored this post is because I have nothing to do while copying my archives onto new 1-TB drives. Jim T, got any popcorn you can share with us?)
__________________
Dave Honan
Issaquah, WA
View my portfolio at RailPictures.net
View my portfolio at Flickr Not quite so new anymore!
DWHonan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:14 AM   #55
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
As I have stated previously, anyone who frequents the forums, or has time to go back and review the threads, will see multiple situations where this has occurred. As far as me providing you with data, I'll get right on that when it becomes a priority. Right now, I have more than enough work to keep me busy. However, the forums are open to any and all, so if you question my opinions or those of others, please feel free to dig through the posts and find your own information. The people who discuss these issues frequently know where the site has been in the past, and where it currently stands.
I agree with Mersenne6. The key question is not so much does inconsistency happen - of course it does! - but rather does it happen with an excessive frequency, given the parameters of the site, namely the subjectivity of the evaluation and the number of different people screening. And for that matter, how tired they are while screening, especially Chris K.

To determine whether the subjectivity is excessive takes an effort along the lines of Mersenne6; the approach of Ryan is woefully inadequate and is in fact quite subjective itself, including the problems of confirmation bias and other cognitive biases.

Put differently, the belief that RP subjectivity is excessive requires the person making the case to explain how it should be different. Ryan makes on suggestion related to that, periodic cross-screener screening testing for quality control. But he cannot show whether that is even an issue. Perhaps a normal range of variation in what is quite a subjective process, especially under the extreme time constraint that screeners apparently face, is enough to account for the perception of inconsistency. If so, then implementing the suggested process will change nothing.

Of course Ryan can't know, and neither can I. It does seem, though, that a lot of complainers over the months/years seem to be quite sure of themselves, quite certain they have diagnosed correctly. I am not convinced, and it takes an approach more like Mersenne's and less like Ryan's to convince me.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 05:18 AM   #56
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DWHonan View Post
Jim T, got any popcorn you can share with us?)
Had I been at my computer when Ryan started this thread, that would have been post #2...IMMEDIATELY.

By the way, where the heck is Mitch?? Maybe I should break out the popcorn for his forthcoming reply to this topic.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 06:21 AM   #57
DWHonan
Senior Member
 
DWHonan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA
Posts: 590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
By the way, where the heck is Mitch??
He started typing during his lunch break and hasn't stopped yet.
__________________
Dave Honan
Issaquah, WA
View my portfolio at RailPictures.net
View my portfolio at Flickr Not quite so new anymore!
DWHonan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 06:23 AM   #58
california_railfan
Senior Member
 
california_railfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 117
Send a message via AIM to california_railfan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
But he cannot show whether that is even an issue. Perhaps a normal range of variation in what is quite a subjective process, especially under the extreme time constraint that screeners apparently face, is enough to account for the perception of inconsistency. If so, then implementing the suggested process will change nothing.
I'm sorry I don't follow. Are you saying that adding more screeners, and implimenting a cross check once a month (or something of that nature) would result in nothing changing?

I would argue that adding more screeners lightens the load on the existing screeners, thus giving them more time to evaluate a person's submitted image, and possibly even provide feedback if it is possible.

As for the cross-checking of the screening team, would this not allow CK and CS to evaluate the screening team as a unit in order to confirm that the screeners are accepting and rejecting images for the correct reasons or at least for reasons that CK and CS find acceptable?

Do CK and/or CS contact screeners about images that they let into the DB, or reject from the DB erroneously?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Of course Ryan can't know, and neither can I. It does seem, though, that a lot of complainers over the months/years seem to be quite sure of themselves, quite certain they have diagnosed correctly. I am not convinced, and it takes an approach more like Mersenne's and less like Ryan's to convince me.
I'm sure the administration can provide us with the raw data that are required. As for complainers and proper diagnosis of their issues with their own photos, I am not getting into a battle about that. I didn't start this thread to complain, I started this thread to point out the inconsistency that seems to be more apparent recently (again this is my opinion until we get raw data).

Maybe CK or CS could provide the numbers for all the screeners, and the times that they regularly screen and we can compare the acceptance/rejection rates of all the screeners together with the number of shots rejected during a certain time frame of the week. We should also be able to compare the appeal acceptance rates which would she more light on this issue.
__________________
Ryan Dadgari
California_railfan
Livermore, CA

My Railpictures.Net Portfolio!

Or

To view my website, click here: Dadgari Photography
california_railfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 06:41 AM   #59
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
I'm sorry I don't follow. Are you saying that adding more screeners, and implimenting a cross check once a month (or something of that nature) would result in nothing changing?
That is possible. You have no idea, because you have not checked your ideas against alternatives. All you have done is the equivalent of what in my trade is sometimes called a quick eyeball.

Quote:
I would argue that adding more screeners lightens the load on the existing screeners, thus giving them more time to evaluate a person's submitted image, and possibly even provide feedback if it is possible.
So true! This has nothing to do with your thesis, which is (I read to be) that RP screens poorly with the resources it has. If all you have to say is that RP needs more screeners, they should spend more time per shot, and that none of us should be charged more for that service, well I wholeheartedly agree! And this thread would have died quickly.

Quote:
As for the cross-checking of the screening team, would this not allow CK and CS to evaluate the screening team as a unit in order to confirm that the screeners are accepting and rejecting images for the correct reasons or at least for reasons that CK and CS find acceptable?
Yes. Whether it would improve the quality of screening depends on whether the variation in screening is tied to a lack of training/harmonization, as opposed to natural variation in a subjective effort conducted by volunteer humans under time pressure.

Quote:
Do CK and/or CS contact screeners about images that they let into the DB, or reject from the DB erroneously?
Interesting question!

Quote:
I didn't start this thread to complain, I started this thread to point out the inconsistency that seems to be more apparent recently (again this is my opinion until we get raw data).
Well, then you were not saying anything nearly as new as you seem to believe you are.

Quote:
Maybe CK or CS could provide the numbers for all the screeners, and the times that they regularly screen and we can compare the acceptance/rejection rates of all the screeners together with the number of shots rejected during a certain time frame of the week. We should also be able to compare the appeal acceptance rates which would she more light on this issue.
More criticism from the peanut gallery, I'm sure they will LOVE that!!!

I have no proof, for sure!, but my working hypothesis is that the current screeners are already more consistent than I would be in the same task. I guess the core at our different views is that I strongly suspect that the screeners are in fact - hold your breath, everyone! - maxing out on consistency, given the constraints of screening shots in a few seconds apiece. There is an obvious improvement to be made in screening, but the resources that would entail in terms of additional screener time I suspect simply isn't going to happen. Whether the average screener time is now 10 seconds or 40, I have a vague notion that the time would have to be maybe doubled to get a noticeable improvement. (Just like going from 8.2MP to 10MP on a DSLR matters little, you have to get to maybe 15MP to really see it, hence in part my continued use of a Canon 20D.) So, we need four more screeners!

Anyone volunteering! Frankly, not that I have the inclination, but I would be rotten at it by RP standards, I would be letting in a) noisy shots, because I don't think a little noise matters much so I don't notice, b) lots of unlit nose shots, because I don't think a little shadow matters much and so I don't notice, and c) there are certain categories of shots that I just would be unable to click on "accept" for So RP would give me the rejection mighty fast.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots

Last edited by JRMDC; 08-03-2010 at 07:08 AM.
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 07:27 AM   #60
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Had I been at my computer when Ryan started this thread, that would have been post #2...IMMEDIATELY.
Jim - why would that be? I think Ryan has legitimate concerns and he was "brave" enough to voice them here on the forums looking for intelligent feedback - both good and bad, in an effort to correct a problem that many seem to have expressed both on and off the forums.

As for my own opinion on what Ryan has brought forward, for the most part, let me simply say "ditto". Anyone looking for further response from me - or likely, Ryan, should simply rebrowse through the thread and weed out anyone who went off tangent from the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
An ongoing discussion... about what is and is not accepted on the site. So why is this acceptable?
Image © John Wiesmann
PhotoID: 333357
Photograph © John Wiesmann

This particular image is not out of the ordinary, its a typical picture from the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
I think what I'm trying to get at here is, does (my) image work as is? If yes, then it should be accepted. If no, then it should be tweaked. I can see how you could want to crop more off the bottom, but this is the way I framed the image, it has not been cropped. The specifics of where we think it should be cropped are subjective, but whether or not the image is acceptance into the DB as is, is not*.
*Suggestions for minor improvements or fixes are most welcome yet flat out rejections are rather confusing and harsh - repeat, minor subjective corrections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
The topic of this thread is and should stay on the screening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
It is simply an attempt to bring this issue out in the open so that the admins will hopefully address it.

...I don't think I have been out of line, or made any comments that warrant that. (banning)

Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
I would argue that adding more screeners lightens the load on the existing screeners, thus giving them more time to evaluate a person's submitted image, and possibly even provide feedback if it is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
...we (the photo submitters) do not own the site, but we are the ones responsible for keeping the site inundated with new images that keep people returning to surf the pages of RP, are we not? So, if an issue comes up such as this, doesn't anyone on RP think that the administration should address the issue? (to make it a better and more enjoyable site for it's patrons)

This is a lot like politics, if no one has the courage to stand up and be heard, nothing is going to change and the same things are going to continue to happen over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
RP is a great site...
/Mitch

PS - Dave, I'm glad RP was able to make you a better photographer, now maybe you can close the gap between you and I on PC's ; )

All kidding aside, I've certainly had a share of improved submissions thanks to the screening process. And I've had a fair share get in on appeal and I would like to thank both Admin for their support in those instances though there is one shot, dog gone it, that simply hasn't had it's day and for now I'll let it lay. If Chase and Loyd's shots can both get in, well, maybe there is hope that every dog will have it's day.

Last edited by Mgoldman; 08-03-2010 at 07:31 AM.
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 02:36 PM   #61
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
Jim - why would that be?

Quote:
I think Ryan has legitimate concerns and he was "brave" enough to voice them here on the forums looking for intelligent feedback - both good and bad, in an effort to correct a problem that many seem to have expressed both on and off the forums.
Posting a popcorn-eating smiley would have nothing to do with Ryan's concerns. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 05:14 PM   #62
Chase55671
RailPictures.Net Crew
 
Chase55671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nitro, WV
Posts: 2,194
Send a message via AIM to Chase55671 Send a message via MSN to Chase55671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
Screeners should not let their opinions of photos dictate whether or not a shot is accepted. Fundamentals and good execution alone should be the deciding factor. A screener can then decide to favorite the shot, leave a comment, give it an SC or what have you.
[/quote]

Ryan,

I partially agree with your statement. While, yes, they should certainly concur on certain matters, don't you think with certain rejections, the opinions of the screnner should vary? Like the PEQ for the example.. I enjoy the variety of opinions with the screener when it comes to images borderline on the PEQ.

Perhaps a revision of the PEQ rejection would be in order? Rather than material we do not wish to publish, maybe something along the lines of "material the screener does not want to publish".

I fully understand your point, respect you for expressing it, and even agree with it to an extent.

You're saying that you'd like everything to remain consistent and each image borderline on the PEQ be treated equally by all of the screeners. I agree with that, sure, all I'm saying is the occasional variety of opinions per screener is a nice change of scenery.

Chase
__________________
Chase Gunnoe
Railpictures.Net Crew
Rail-Videos.Net Crew
Click here to view my photos at Railpictures.Net
SLR Night Photography Tutorial | Railpictures.Net Beginners Guide
Chase55671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 05:25 PM   #63
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,899
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase55671 View Post
Perhaps a revision of the PEQ rejection would be in order? Rather than material we do not wish to publish, maybe something along the lines of "material the screener does not want to publish".
Then you'd either get more screener roulette or every single PEQ rejection would get appealed since the rejection pretty much states that "I, screener, did not like this, but one of the other guys might." In a way, that already exists when a screener holds a shot in the Q waiting for an admin to chime in.

It might be somewhat flawed -- which is not to say it does not work -- but I can't think of anything that would make the system work better. One possible change I've thought about before is to actually make the rejection list shorter. Too often we see folks confused over a High Sun rejection. They come to the forums defending their photo against High Sun charges and sometimes they're right. It's not High Sun, it's Poor Lighting due to the angle of the sun or something else. Not High Sun, but Poor Lighting. Or they come to the forums up in arms over a Backlit rejection when they argue correctly that it's not backlit. It's sidelit.

So combining the Poor Lighting rejections might work. Or at the very least, it might make the posts to the forums ask, "How is this poor lighting?" intead of "This isn't high sun. It was 7 p.m. when I shot it."
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 06:09 PM   #64
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
Too often we see folks confused over a High Sun rejection. They come to the forums defending their photo against High Sun charges and sometimes they're right. It's not High Sun, it's Poor Lighting due to the angle of the sun or something else. Not High Sun, but Poor Lighting. Or they come to the forums up in arms over a Backlit rejection when they argue correctly that it's not backlit. It's sidelit.

So combining the Poor Lighting rejections might work. Or at the very least, it might make the posts to the forums ask, "How is this poor lighting?" intead of "This isn't high sun. It was 7 p.m. when I shot it."
Yea, take all the forum activity away from me, Joe. All I get to look forward to on the RP forums is reading posts on how their badly lit photo is badly lit different then the rejection reason states so it should have been accepted. Joe trying to kill the RP forums = fail!
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 06:12 PM   #65
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,899
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz View Post
Yea, take all the forum activity away from me, Joe. All I get to look forward to on the RP forums is reading posts on how their badly lit photo is badly lit different then the rejection reason states so it should have been accepted. Joe trying to kill the RP forums = fail!
Yeah, what am I thinking? Then I wouldn't get to give such horrible advice or have the question asked of myself, "Can you be a bigger jerk?"

__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 06:49 PM   #66
california_railfan
Senior Member
 
california_railfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 117
Send a message via AIM to california_railfan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase55671 View Post

Ryan,

I partially agree with your statement. While, yes, they should certainly concur on certain matters, don't you think with certain rejections, the opinions of the screnner should vary? Like the PEQ for the example.. I enjoy the variety of opinions with the screener when it comes to images borderline on the PEQ.

Perhaps a revision of the PEQ rejection would be in order? Rather than material we do not wish to publish, maybe something along the lines of "material the screener does not want to publish".
Chase,

I personally don't think there should be very much variation. I believe that personal opinion of photos should not come into play at all when screening. Screening should only deal with the basic fundamentals of a photo. Is the photo captured well. Not "how would the screener do it?", but simply does the photo work well as is? There can still be issues with cropping, exposure, high sun, poor lighting , etc. Those are basic things that should be apparent, and done correctly, in each and every photo. If not, then a rejection is warranted. For example: If a train is not in the rule of thirds on a basic no brainer wedgie, it should be rejected.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase55671 View Post
I fully understand your point, respect you for expressing it, and even agree with it to an extent.

You're saying that you'd like everything to remain consistent and each image borderline on the PEQ be treated equally by all of the screeners. I agree with that, sure, all I'm saying is the occasional variety of opinions per screener is a nice change of scenery.

Chase
Sorry, but I don't think you are really getting what has been said here. I never brought up the issue of a PEQ. It can be subjective to a point, but personally, I believe a PEQ is a way for the owners of the site to say "we don't want those types of images on our site." There is nothing wrong with that, its their site! PEQs are not at all what I am talking about. I am addressing basic images of trains and the screening of those images. PEQ photos usually have some other sort of subject matter or other issue (like blatant trespassing) which makes them a PEQ.

Again, all I am saying, is that screeners should look at a photo objectively, with out their own personal preferences getting in the way of the screening. Judge a photo based on its technical qualities alone. Not "how would you (the screener) do it?" If the image is of some sort of subject matter related to trains that the owners don't want to publish on their site (like bad detail shots or whatever), give it a PEQ. That is fine by me.

I would also like to know what sort of measure the site owners have in place to qualify a screener and make sure that said screener accepts and rejects photos in a way that is consistent. Is a screener told that they need to calibrate their monitor on a regular basis by the owners? If not, maybe they should. Do the owners give screeners feedback or coaching on poorly screened images? if not, they should. So on and so forth.
__________________
Ryan Dadgari
California_railfan
Livermore, CA

My Railpictures.Net Portfolio!

Or

To view my website, click here: Dadgari Photography

Last edited by california_railfan; 08-03-2010 at 06:55 PM.
california_railfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 08:38 PM   #67
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
I would also like to know what sort of measure the site owners have in place to qualify a screener and make sure that said screener accepts and rejects photos in a way that is consistent. Is a screener told that they need to calibrate their monitor on a regular basis by the owners? If not, maybe they should. Do the owners give screeners feedback or coaching on poorly screened images? if not, they should. So on and so forth.
Unfortunately, RP is a private business and how they run it is none of your business....or mine. Seriously, if Chris and Chris decide to annoint their best buds as Screeners, do you really think anything you or I might say (or do) is going to change all of that? They get to decide if such a move works for them.

I'm sure that the RP site owners review all of their business practices periodically and decide amongst themselves if their processes and procedures are adequate. And in business, adequate is cheaper and less maintenance-intensive than overkill.

In the case of the whole screening issue, you have to assume that the two Chris' look at their ad revenue and their hit counts all the time. If they were to see major drop-offs, I'm pretty confident that as businessmen, they'd take corrective action. If the trends in their Key Performance Indicators aren't negative, there's no reason to increase the workload or stress on their crew. If they don't perceive the system to be broken, there is no need to fix it. The fact that you perceive it may be broken doesn't matter. You are not a customer to RP. You are a vendor....and there are lots more "vendors" out there if you elect not to "sell" your product to RP.net. Seriously, my friend....we are a commodity...and right now at least, it's a buyer's market.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 08:52 PM   #68
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by california_railfan View Post
For example: If a train is not in the rule of thirds on a basic no brainer wedgie, it should be rejected.
That's one of the stupidest things about the so called guidelines here. Rule of thirds is supposed a guideline in photography and should not a hard "rule" be the deciding factor as far was a picture getting on.

For a ho-hum NS -9 catfish roster shot or wedgie, maybe, otherwise, no.

Same thing with nose light, which they seem to be the most INCONSISTENT about. But it's their sandbox.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 10:25 PM   #69
BurghMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 130
Default

Is this site perfect? No.

It is a business, not that different then a department store. If you're not happy with the service, you have the freedom to shop elsewhere. It is impossible to make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time.
BurghMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 10:57 PM   #70
Greg P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,003
Send a message via AIM to Greg P
Default

Sounds like they need some more volunteers to work the que.

I did have a thought as I was reading this.

What about moving all of the historic photos onto a subsite like "historicrailpictures.net" or "historic.railpictures.net" and have the area devoted just to historic pictures.

I do really enjoy the historic photos that get posted but I could see how new people could get confused by their quality compared to the modern ones.
Greg P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 12:07 AM   #71
Amtrakdavis22
Senior Member
 
Amtrakdavis22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz View Post
Does anyone know the stats between daily traffic and photos uploaded between RP and RRP? That would be pretty interesting.
I think one of the strengths RailPics has is that it will always have a lot of high quality images which drives a lot of people to view, unlike RRPA. I think keep the standards around where they are so it doesn't become a frenzy of poor images.
__________________
Amtrakdavis22

Flickr

RailPictures.Net
RailVideos.Net

Youtube Videos
Amtrakdavis22.com

"Love the sound of that shutter!" -Peter Lik
Amtrakdavis22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 01:52 AM   #72
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Cool

Three out of my last six submissions have been rejected for what I consider nit-picking reasons, the first for undersharpening, the second for lack of color depth or some such, the third for cropping. All were accepted on appeal with no changes. The screeners have a tedious job, and it inherently involves a lot of judgement, but in my book they are loosing credibility. The image that started this thread is proof enough, and of course there are others. It the old days we could argue about interesting stuff like backlighting and roster shots versus artsy fartsy. But now it is simply the inconsistency that is frustrating and takes a lot of the fun out of it. Posting an image now is a bit like playing roulette....will I get an SC or a reject...you just don't know.

Image © John West
PhotoID: 333521
Photograph © John West

Image © John West
PhotoID: 327509
Photograph © John West

Image © John West
PhotoID: 324767
Photograph © John West


This is their place and we all have the ability to vote with our feet. And some good photogs seem to have done just that. But like some other posters here I have invested in posting 384 of my best images here, so I feel like I have some equity in the future of this site. I'd like to see it maintain the good rep that it has earned through the combined past efforts of posters and screeners.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here

Last edited by John West; 08-04-2010 at 01:57 AM.
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 02:01 AM   #73
DWHonan
Senior Member
 
DWHonan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA
Posts: 590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg P View Post
Sounds like they need some more volunteers to work the que.
Really? The issue Ryan brings up is consistency in the screening process, and by introducing more screeners into the mix you increase the opportunity for variance. Just as too many cooks spoil the soup, too many eyes can blur the prize. (Yes, that makes little sense, but it rhymes so we're going with it.)

I do not think RP needs more screeners. The queue zeros out multiple times daily, which means the current staff is capable of handling the workload imposed by the demand on the site (I'm sure the decision made at some point in the recent past to limit new users to two uploads/day has helped with this). Contrast that to JetPhotos, a massively popular site CK also owns; even with a staff of 38, the current screening queue has managed to accumulate over 12,800 photos, and it's unlikely to zero out for a long time unless they institute a moratorium on submissions until they can work through the backlog. (A shot I recently submitted took over 12 days to work its way through to a screener.)

If Chris & Chris wish to reduce their workload at RP then, sure, they're free to look for someone to lend a helping hand (or finger), but right now the "need" does not seem to exist.
__________________
Dave Honan
Issaquah, WA
View my portfolio at RailPictures.net
View my portfolio at Flickr Not quite so new anymore!
DWHonan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 02:35 AM   #74
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

I like the Idea of a place where a number of people vote on PEQ'ed shots. In actuality that would never happen. But I think that would be awesome.

P.S.:If you were to do that, you would have to differentiate between the "low esthetic qualities" and "material we are not willing to publish," because the former deserves the suggested voting, the latter does not.
__________________
Peter Lewis | Portfolio | Profile | Flickr | Facebook

Canon EOS 40D
Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM


Quote:
Originally Posted by A Friend
everytime i see non-train photos of yours i think, "so much talent. wasted on trains."
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 02:37 AM   #75
Greg P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Baltimore MD
Posts: 1,003
Send a message via AIM to Greg P
Default

I based my comments off the statements earlier in the post about the amount of work he has. I wasn't sure if he was saying it was over worked or not.
Greg P is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.