Should Have Been Rejected For...

Note
This forum is no longer automatically anonymous. If you require anonymity, please log out of your account and post as a guest.
Post Reply
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

That’s 2 FB promos for Andrew in 2 hours! I think McCarthy is trying to send a message.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Just when you think it can't get any worse, we have another outstanding Andrew Hunt beach photo...

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Thai-Ai ... 16/5998433
And now it's a Photographer's Choice. Amazing... :roll:
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:Just when you think it can't get any worse, we have another outstanding Andrew Hunt beach photo...

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Thai-Ai ... 16/5998433
And now it's a Photographer's Choice. Amazing... :roll:
PCs tend to go hand in hand with promotions. The extra exposure naturally ends up bringing in more votes, unfortunately.

Also, it's funny how fellow screeners drool over his photos:
beaverhunter
2.2K British Columbia, Canada
14 hours ago
What a composition!
Yes, a composition that wasn't even allowed before a few months ago, until the Andy "blurry scantily-clad girls with blurry airplanes in the background" rule went into effect.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

BeaverSniffer is a dirty old man who is a * photog.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

The blind, un-waivering defence by the new HS of Andrews shots is becoming cringe worthy. Apparently unlevel is not a show stopper any more. I think I’ll appeal those many shots I’ve had rejected for the slightest amount of level now.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, had not read those threads, as I stay away from anet mostly these days...

Let me cite the new HS:
"The site is trying to adapt to what seems popular while still maintaining its standards. Feedback on this is welcome."

Both sentences make me laugh big time!
"What seems popular" is actually "what we make popular by giving all kind of promotions to ever the same guy". So first they make it popular artificially and then they use the popularity as an excuse for acceptance? LOL! :D

"Feedback is welcome". As long as it's not negative, then it will be deleted.

Cheers, Julien

I have zero need to hide.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Thanks for bringing this to my attention, had not read those threads, as I stay away from anet mostly these days...

Let me cite the new HS:
"The site is trying to adapt to what seems popular while still maintaining its standards. Feedback on this is welcome."

Both sentences make me laugh big time!
"What seems popular" is actually "what we make popular by giving all kind of promotions to ever the same guy". So first they make it popular artificially and then they use the popularity as an excuse for acceptance? LOL! :D

"Feedback is welcome". As long as it's not negative, then it will be deleted.

Cheers, Julien

I have zero need to hide.
But this is what the people want to see!

Image

:lol:
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Someone nailed it under his newest marvel. I'Ve been thinking that for quite some time. It is rather creepy when an old guy shoots young girls in bikinis like that. To me that's the definition of a pervert. They are the main object and not there accidentally.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Thai-Vi ... 14/6000875

Image

I bet by the time you read that it got deleted, by Paul Yong-Un (yes that is how we call the community manager with his strong democratic sense) himself!
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Someone nailed it under his newest marvel. I'Ve been thinking that for quite some time. It is rather creepy when an old guy shoots young girls in bikinis like that. To me that's the definition of a pervert. They are the main object and not there accidentally.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Thai-Vi ... 14/6000875

Image

I bet by the time you read that it got deleted, by Paul Yong-Un (yes that is how we call the community manager with his strong democratic sense) himself!
Yeah, that comment is already gone. And judging by someone else's post...
I don't understand the reactions here. Some of the most viewed shots in Airliners history are pictures of planes landing over people in swimming suits. Perhaps this photographer is just trying to capture some of that magic.
...it sounds like there were other negative comments that were deleted.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote: But this is what the people want to see!

Image

:lol:
And the Facebook comment that said they didn't like Andy's beach photos got deleted as well. Guess they need to make it seem like everyone loves his photos. Yet a photo A.net promoted around the same time has 11 TIMES (over 2,000) more likes than the Phuket modeling shoot. It's what the public wants to see!!

Image
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Quoting Paul's last answer here:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... &t=1426225

"The last 12 posts in this thread are all in relation to Phuket Beach images. Primarily by members who do not actively upload or in the case of CPD deleted all his images years ago and only posts what is perceived to be popular opinion. More posts than any uploads and it is not to improve his, or others, experience as a contributing photographer like this aviation photography forum should be for. Others like ChrisKen747 have only 1 image uploaded in 2 years and make repeated "me too" posts here. How does that improve his, or others, continuing contributions? That is what this forum is for. It doesn't and to be heard only one post is required."

Easy to say that after you remove three screeners that disagree on the matter, others stopped uploading due to reasons stated in the topic "Airliners.net behind the scenes" and other photographers that still upload but are afraid to say something and received that "special treatment" later.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Whatever...Andy's pics are perfect and he never gets any preferential or inconsistent screening.

Image

Please remember that 6 degrees is within acceptable tolerances. However, we will reject other photos for being 0.1 degrees off [yes, this really happened and was upheld by a head screener]....only to be accepted when 0.1 degree of rotation was applied. But I can totally see how something 60 times as crooked could sneak by :?
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Quoting Paul's last answer here:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... &t=1426225

"The last 12 posts in this thread are all in relation to Phuket Beach images. Primarily by members who do not actively upload or in the case of CPD deleted all his images years ago and only posts what is perceived to be popular opinion. More posts than any uploads and it is not to improve his, or others, experience as a contributing photographer like this aviation photography forum should be for. Others like ChrisKen747 have only 1 image uploaded in 2 years and make repeated "me too" posts here. How does that improve his, or others, continuing contributions? That is what this forum is for. It doesn't and to be heard only one post is required."
I had a few of those "last 12 posts" even though I don't upload to A.net (or JP.net) anymore given the crap shoot that screening is. That doesn't mean I don't want to see quality images on the site, or think that the current crop of screeners show favoritism towards certain shooters. I guess they don't want any true discussion of the site, only blind allegiance to those in charge. I understand VerticalScope not wanting to do any development work that won't bring in more revenue, so forum upgrade requests are on a list somewhere that the developers will work on "someday" but you would have thought that the volunteer screening crew would care enough to maintain the supposed "high standards" of the photos on the site.

Moose
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:Quoting Paul's last answer here:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... &t=1426225

"The last 12 posts in this thread are all in relation to Phuket Beach images. Primarily by members who do not actively upload or in the case of CPD deleted all his images years ago and only posts what is perceived to be popular opinion. More posts than any uploads and it is not to improve his, or others, experience as a contributing photographer like this aviation photography forum should be for. Others like ChrisKen747 have only 1 image uploaded in 2 years and make repeated "me too" posts here. How does that improve his, or others, continuing contributions? That is what this forum is for. It doesn't and to be heard only one post is required."
I had a few of those "last 12 posts" even though I don't upload to A.net (or JP.net) anymore given the crap shoot that screening is. That doesn't mean I don't want to see quality images on the site, or think that the current crop of screeners show favoritism towards certain shooters. I guess they don't want any true discussion of the site, only blind allegiance to those in charge. I understand VerticalScope not wanting to do any development work that won't bring in more revenue, so forum upgrade requests are on a list somewhere that the developers will work on "someday" but you would have thought that the volunteer screening crew would care enough to maintain the supposed "high standards" of the photos on the site.

Moose
The response shows where the problem is for the site. I mean what kind of site manager responds by attacking / discrediting critical members? If anything his response should be professional. This is clearly not. And what does he knows? Trying to defend his pals, that's it..
But he is good in running his site into the ground. Have to aknowledge that!

That Aeroflot is shameful. And yes that is a massive off-level... Again how could someone accept that? I am lost.
The site is in a worrying state. Standards are completley irrelevant these days (wasn't that what anet used to be about, it's true point: High quality images with high standards?), photographers are leaving, site looks like 1998 and nothing is done to work on anything there...

The great leade Paul Yong-Un is trying to compensate by bringing some back and getting them the "come back and you'll get everything accepted" deal, but that does make things only worse...

Julien
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

And just to show everybody who’s boss Paul has featured the UA 787 fro AH on FB for the second time in a week! Take that you plebs!!!
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

I guess the screeners don't check aircraft info when screening photos:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-A ... /5973771/L

In case they manage to correct it, since someone pointed it out in the forum:

Image

Image
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:I guess the screeners don't check aircraft info when screening photos:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/China-A ... /5973771/L

In case they manage to correct it, since someone pointed it out in the forum:

Image

Image
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :clap: :roll:
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

I guess the screeners are too busy checking out Andrew's beach bikini shots to pay attention to something like this.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

You've got to be kidding me:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Qantas/ ... 38/6018927

And instant promotion. 1999 isn't that old that all standards should be ignored (soft/blurry, level, tint, centering, etc.). Plenty of other quality shots of it in the database, like this:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Qantas/ ... 438/616618

And they wonder why the number of uploaded photos are around 35% of what they were in A.net's prime :think: Maybe treat all contributors equally, for a start? Is Paul's job to accept Andy's sub-par photos and build up Andy's ego, or to increase viewership and interactions with the site?
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

I’m sure if you were to ask Paul he would say his job is to accept Andy’s sub-par photos and build up Andy’s ego! The site exists for a very select few to have their photos featured as much as possible. The rest of the days shots are basically bulk loads of Chinese 737 type shots with similar paint schemes uploaded by card dumpers just to make up the numbers. A.net has been destroyed by the hubris of individuals like Paul and Andrew.
Post Reply