What a pity!

[J.Louwen]

Originally Posted by brianw999

..........But I for one am going to keep my back(side!) to the wall if you carry on like that !!

hehehe, you too Brian!

[seahawk]

Originally Posted by Bjorn1979

From milan malpensa i can only say great job guys. Now only hope people don't start uloading in mass loads. I won't as i'm on holiday hahaha

Just below 1800 up-loads on sunday. Guess the queue will soon grow again.

[Alberto U.]

Hi everyone,

First of all, thanks to the team that made a real effort this past weekend especially. I don't remember seeing that many screened pictures in such a short time, so again, thanks for that!
But (and here comes the bad part ) it is obvious that there is a problem. Most people won't care how long it takes to get their pics screened, some will care, but the real issue in my opinion is that JP is losing in screening time with the competition. A.net has a similar amount of pictures uploaded per day, but their average screening time is considerably shorter. If they can manage (and we all know how bad it used to be over there in the past!), then anyone can, especially a website as big and popular as JP.
Would adding more people to the crew be the solution? Have a tighter upload limit? What do you guys think?

In any case, I'm by no means complainig, just trying to have a respectful debate on an issue that always comes up every now and then.

All the best,
Alberto

[seahawk]

Hello Alberto,

thank you for your input. One prlem that is often overlooked is the fact, that a.net gets roughly the same amount of up-loads we get, when our queue is around 15.000. When our queue goes down the up-loads go up. Recent experience shows that a reduction of the queue by 25% increases the up-loads by 30-50%.

[Alberto U.]

Originally Posted by seahawk

Hello Alberto,

thank you for your input. One prlem that is often overlooked is the fact, that a.net gets roughly the same amount of up-loads we get, when our queue is around 15.000. When our queue goes down the up-loads go up. Recent experience shows that a reduction of the queue by 25% increases the up-loads by 30-50%.

Thanks Stefan,

so if I undertsand properly, the number of uploads is similiar but JP already has 15,000 waiting while anet doesn't have that "debt" in its queue?
About the increase in uploads when the queue is reduced, I am aware of that, and I know it has happened in the past. So the question is, what's better, to have along queue (and losing in that sense to the competition) or to have more uploads but less waiting time? Personally, as a simple contributor to all the main aviation websites, I prefer a shorter queue, but that's just my opinion.
In order to have that, then JP would have a 30 to 50% increase in uploads (50% is a lot!!!! wow!), so how can that increase be dealt with? Probably a mix of more screeners in addition to a reduced number of uploads available?

thanks again,

Alberto

[Mr Chips]

Alberto,

I've just done some sleuthing around and according to A.net's search function, they've had 3106 images added to their database within the last 7 days. Currently their queue currently stands at 9673 images.

Jetphotos on the other hand, within the last week added 7961 images to the database whilst the queue currently stands at 12026 images. So currently as it stands, A.net's queue is only shorter by 2500ish images.

The fact that jetphotos.net added almost THREE times as many images as A.net over the same time period shows that the screeners at jetphotos are doing a pretty damn good job.

Dave

[Alberto U.]

Originally Posted by Mr Chips

Alberto,

I've just done some sleuthing around and according to A.net's search function, they've had 3106 images added to their database within the last 7 days. Currently their queue currently stands at 9673 images.

Jetphotos on the other hand, within the last week added 7961 images to the database whilst the queue currently stands at 12026 images. So currently as it stands, A.net's queue is only shorter by 2500ish images.

The fact that jetphotos.net added almost THREE times as many images as A.net over the same time period shows that the screeners at jetphotos are doing a pretty damn good job.

Dave

Hi Dave, I never said otherwise. And I have already praised and thanked the team for their work, especially in the past few days. I may be wrong, and I apologize in advance, but I fell you are being defensive in your reply. And I am not attacking anyone, on the contrary.
But again, a.net has a constant screening time of about 8-9 days on average, whereas JP takes about 15 days. That is a considerable difference, and I am sure there must be a way in which JP can reduce average time to 3 or 4 days less.
I was thinking about what Stefan said about the huge increase in uploads on the days where the screening is fastest. If the average time could be reduced, I have a feeling that eventually those "extra" uploads would also dissapear, because there would be less demand to upload on the specific days where the screening is extra fast.
Obviously I am just giving my opinion, and by no means I am saying this as a fact.

all the best,

Alberto

[Mr Chips]

Originally Posted by Alberto U.

Hi Dave, I never said otherwise. And I have already praised and thanked the team for their work, especially in the past few days. I may be wrong, and I apologize in advance, but I fell you are being defensive in your reply. And I am not attacking anyone, on the contrary.
But again, a.net has a constant screening time of about 8-9 days on average, whereas JP takes about 15 days. That is a considerable difference, and I am sure there must be a way in which JP can reduce average time to 3 or 4 days less.
I was thinking about what Stefan said about the huge increase in uploads on the days where the screening is fastest. If the average time could be reduced, I have a feeling that eventually those "extra" uploads would also dissapear, because there would be less demand to upload on the specific days where the screening is extra fast.
Obviously I am just giving my opinion, and by no means I am saying this as a fact.

all the best,

Alberto

Hey Alberto,

I wasn't being defensive at all so I apologise if it comes across that away, it was simply food for thought.

A.net's screening time may be more consistant at 8 to 9 days however it would seem that the JP crew goes through more images than at A.net (based purely on the number accepted in the last 7 days in my previous reply) which equates to higher workload between the JP team when screening.

A shorter queue would be desirable of course, as I don't think anyone likes waiting 12 days to have their images screened, although there are uploaders who are more patient and accepting of the situation than others. Idea's are being tossed around regarding lowering the queue, it may just take time to have any ideas agreed upon and implemented. So far the majority of uploaders have stuck with the website despite the long queue time which of course is appreciated.

Dave

[Alberto U.]

Originally Posted by Mr Chips

Hey Alberto,

I wasn't being defensive at all so I apologise if it comes across that away, it was simply food for thought.

A.net's screening time may be more consistant at 8 to 9 days however it would seem that the JP crew goes through more images than at A.net (based purely on the number accepted in the last 7 days in my previous reply) which equates to higher workload between the JP team when screening.

A shorter queue would be desirable of course, as I don't think anyone likes waiting 12 days to have their images screened, although there are uploaders who are more patient and accepting of the situation than others. Idea's are being tossed around regarding lowering the queue, it may just take time to have any ideas agreed upon and implemented. So far the majority of uploaders have stuck with the website despite the long queue time which of course is appreciated.

Dave

All good Dave

I am one of those that have stuck with the website as well, and that's why I felt the urge to give my opinion on the subject. In fact, I don't really care that much if I have to wait a few days more or a few days less, but it would be better if waiting time could be reduced somehow, and at the same time keep the quality and standards of both the pictures and the team. So I agree it is not an easy job to find a solution, but possibly through debates like this one, soe good ideas could come up.
Would it be possible to know what kind of ideas are being thought of internally within the crew?

thanks Dave!

Hello all,

I have only a small question:
Why you talk about the "competition" ?
I do not think there is any competition...

All the best,
Erez.

[seahawk]

Originally Posted by Alberto U.

Hi Dave, I never said otherwise. And I have already praised and thanked the team for their work, especially in the past few days. I may be wrong, and I apologize in advance, but I fell you are being defensive in your reply. And I am not attacking anyone, on the contrary.
But again, a.net has a constant screening time of about 8-9 days on average, whereas JP takes about 15 days. That is a considerable difference, and I am sure there must be a way in which JP can reduce average time to 3 or 4 days less.
I was thinking about what Stefan said about the huge increase in uploads on the days where the screening is fastest. If the average time could be reduced, I have a feeling that eventually those "extra" uploads would also dissapear, because there would be less demand to upload on the specific days where the screening is extra fast.
Obviously I am just giving my opinion, and by no means I am saying this as a fact.

all the best,

Alberto

Hello Alberto,

I try to answer some of the points you made. Since I started screening (been a few years now) the jp.net crew was always able to handle roughly 800-1100 up-loads a day while keeping the queue constant. (When we have many screeners on holidays, busy or ill then we do not achieve this obviously) So let just say we can do 800. In 2005 the up-loads dropped down to 800 when the queue reached around 500. To day we get around 800
up-loads with the queue at 13.000 and we got them even at 16.000+. If we reduce the queue the up-loads go up. How much nobody knows as one can always argue that the peaks after a queue reduction are caused by a backlog of up-loads that will dwindle down in the end. But I dare say if we get the queue down to 5000 the daily up-loads would constantly reach 1500+.

So how could we handle this? One answer is to increase the screening team, which we are looking into right now (and have already done - hello Dave). But there is a limit to the screening team size if there is to be at least a decent level of consistency. A new screener usually takes 3 months to train and we have assigned 2 mentors for him. Without a doubt we need to add screeners to the team, though. But I doubt we can add so many that we could handle the 1500+ up-loads on a constant basis.

1500 up-loads a day are 45000 a month. Noew we consider the 2 of 3 vote system and say that every photos needs 2.2 votes. Which means 99.000 or roughly 100.000 votes are needed every month. The quota for a screener is to do at least 1000 votes a month but many do way more, but we would also need a reserve for illness, holidays and real life issues. So I dare say that we would need between 50-70 screeners to handle the workload. That is a huge team. I am not sure such a team could reach the desired consistency in screening.

Reducing the up-loads would be the other option. We also have ideas for that. The only problem is. The only problem is, what do you gain when you get 4 photos screened in 5 days or 20 in 20 days?

I by no means want to say that we can not improve the issue, I think we have to, but I also think jp.net has become so popular that the days of screening in less than a week are over.

Regards

Stefan

[CO777/200]

Originally Posted by seahawk

To day we get around 800
up-loads with the queue at 13.000 and we got them even at 16.000+. If we reduce the queue the up-loads go up. How much nobody knows as one can always argue that the peaks after a queue reduction are caused by a backlog of up-loads that will dwindle down in the end. But I dare say if we get the queue down to 5000 the daily up-loads would constantly reach 1500+.

Good morning

I have some questions to the uploaders. Why are the people waiting with uploading just because the queue has 15000+ pictures? Why is it so important that a picture is uploaded within a week? I can understand this when I got an exclusive or a rare picture of an aircraft. But most pictures have the style. And if I have a backlog of pictures and just wait until the queue is down to 12000 doesn't make sense. So I wait, maybe weeks, until I can upload my pictures because the queue is down to 12000???
Personally, when I have time I edit a couple of pictures and then upload around 10-20 per day and never have a look at the queue number!

Small suggestion. What about adding a rejection for "common" which will reduce the number of uploaded pictures. I know a.net use this and I can't imagine people upload less to their website just because of this rejection reason. I thinks its not that bad or do we really need more than 300+ from the same AirBerlin 737 D-AB...?

Cheers
Julian

[seahawk]

Hello Julian,

thank you for your input. The "common" rejection is something most of us screeners here at jp.net strongly dislike, because surely jp.net does not need more AB 737 or Southwest 737s or BA A3210 or....

But we think this would be unfair to our users. A photographer from Australia could spent lots of money to visit FRA, LHR and CDG and most shots would be rejected as "common". A photographer from Germany could spent equal amounts of money to go to Australia and most up-loads would also be common, while for the photographers they would not be "common" at all. As the database grows most airliners of major airlines will become or are already common.

Originally Posted by CO777/200

Good morning

I have some questions to the uploaders. Why are the people waiting with uploading just because the queue has 15000+ pictures? Why is it so important that a picture is uploaded within a week? I can understand this when I got an exclusive or a rare picture of an aircraft. But most pictures have the style. And if I have a backlog of pictures and just wait until the queue is down to 12000 doesn't make sense. So I wait, maybe weeks, until I can upload my pictures because the queue is down to 12000???
Personally, when I have time I edit a couple of pictures and then upload around 10-20 per day and never have a look at the queue number!


Small suggestion. What about adding a rejection for "common" which will reduce the number of uploaded pictures. I know a.net use this and I can't imagine people upload less to their website just because of this rejection reason. I thinks its not that bad or do we really need more than 300+ from the same AirBerlin 737 D-AB...?

Cheers
Julian

-

Originally Posted by seahawk

Hello Julian,

thank you for your input. The "common" rejection is something most of us screeners here at jp.net strongly dislike, because surely jp.net does not need more AB 737 or Southwest 737s or BA A3210 or....

But we think this would be unfair to our users. A photographer from Australia could spent lots of money to visit FRA, LHR and CDG and most shots would be rejected as "common". A photographer from Germany could spent equal amounts of money to go to Australia and most up-loads would also be common, while for the photographers they would not be "common" at all. As the database grows most airliners of major airlines will become or are already common.

Hello Julian,

1. I agree strongly with the first thing you wrote, I working this way like you.

2. I do not agree with your suggestion about "common",
I think Stefan is very well explained in this issue.

All the best,
Erez.

[Alberto U.]

Originally Posted by seahawk

Hello Alberto,

I try to answer some of the points you made. Since I started screening (been a few years now) the jp.net crew was always able to handle roughly 800-1100 up-loads a day while keeping the queue constant. (When we have many screeners on holidays, busy or ill then we do not achieve this obviously) So let just say we can do 800. In 2005 the up-loads dropped down to 800 when the queue reached around 500. To day we get around 800
up-loads with the queue at 13.000 and we got them even at 16.000+. If we reduce the queue the up-loads go up. How much nobody knows as one can always argue that the peaks after a queue reduction are caused by a backlog of up-loads that will dwindle down in the end. But I dare say if we get the queue down to 5000 the daily up-loads would constantly reach 1500+.

So how could we handle this? One answer is to increase the screening team, which we are looking into right now (and have already done - hello Dave). But there is a limit to the screening team size if there is to be at least a decent level of consistency. A new screener usually takes 3 months to train and we have assigned 2 mentors for him. Without a doubt we need to add screeners to the team, though. But I doubt we can add so many that we could handle the 1500+ up-loads on a constant basis.

1500 up-loads a day are 45000 a month. Noew we consider the 2 of 3 vote system and say that every photos needs 2.2 votes. Which means 99.000 or roughly 100.000 votes are needed every month. The quota for a screener is to do at least 1000 votes a month but many do way more, but we would also need a reserve for illness, holidays and real life issues. So I dare say that we would need between 50-70 screeners to handle the workload. That is a huge team. I am not sure such a team could reach the desired consistency in screening.

Reducing the up-loads would be the other option. We also have ideas for that. The only problem is. The only problem is, what do you gain when you get 4 photos screened in 5 days or 20 in 20 days?

I by no means want to say that we can not improve the issue, I think we have to, but I also think jp.net has become so popular that the days of screening in less than a week are over.

Regards

Stefan

Thank you Stefan, very interesting to know all the numbers. And you are right about the fact that consistency is better achieved with fewer people screening. In regards to your question, I think there is an advantage, especially regarding new contributors. If they can get their pictures screened (and as newbies, their rejection percentage at first will likely be high) in fewer days, that means they will be able to make corrections and imporve their uploads in less time. At the same time, with 4 or 5 pictures in the queue, there is less overall queue. Just as an example, let's say I started this hobby recently, found JP and decided to upload here. As a newbie, I will likely not know so much the rules (even if there are guidelines), probably my editing experience will be limited since JP looks for a few specifics that many times does not apply to other photography, etc. And beacuse of me being a newbie, I upload 20 pictures at once becuase I'm sure they are JP material. That creates a longer queue and a slower "learning process" for the new photographer since he won't have feedback (i.e. rejectiones) for two weeks.
That's mainly why I think it would be good for eveyone to have an average shorter screening time (without meaning that you guys have to screen 4000 pics per day!).


In any case, it's good to have some postivie debate on this issue, I truly feel something good might actually come from all this.

all the best,

Alberto

[Alberto U.]

Originally Posted by seahawk

Hello Julian,

thank you for your input. The "common" rejection is something most of us screeners here at jp.net strongly dislike, because surely jp.net does not need more AB 737 or Southwest 737s or BA A3210 or....

But we think this would be unfair to our users. A photographer from Australia could spent lots of money to visit FRA, LHR and CDG and most shots would be rejected as "common". A photographer from Germany could spent equal amounts of money to go to Australia and most up-loads would also be common, while for the photographers they would not be "common" at all. As the database grows most airliners of major airlines will become or are already common.

could not agree more. The rejection I hate the most over there is "common" (and "motive", but that's for some other time ). What's common for one spotter (or website in this case) is completely rare for the other. I have just been on a spotting trip at MAD, and yes, an IB A320 is freakin common ever there and there are tons of pictures of them around the web, but for me it's rare and it's exciting to be able to take pictures of these planes. I'm sure many would like to have shots of an a AR B737 in new colors, and yet for me that's common. So again, please, don't introduce the common rejection! I started hating it when I got the Wunala Dreaming rejected for "common"

[CO777/200]

Oh it seems like I started a nice discussion about the "common" rejection.
People are complaining about the long queue so it seems we need a solution. Maybe one of these is that we think twice about uploading a picture on JP or not. If I see there are more than 200 pictures of the same BA A319 in the database I usually don't upload it to the site and keep it for my personal collection. Is it really worth uploading?
I don't go out for spotting just to upload them to JP, anet or anywhere else!
First of all I go out for my personal satisfaction and collection. Seems like some people forgot this. Upload them to a photo site is a great side on effect but not a must have! We should see this additional "feature" more relaxing, especially when the queue is too long or a rejection.

[brianw999]

I never have and never will agree with a "Common" reject reason. As has been said elsewhere, I would be mightily pissed off if I were to go to say China and shoot "China Southerns", which I never otherwise get to see and have them rejected because the locals have uploaded a bunch of them.
JP is a member's database, where members store their portfolio whatever might be in it and wherever they might be from.

[Alberto U.]

Originally Posted by CO777/200

Oh it seems like I started a nice discussion about the "common" rejection.
People are complaining about the long queue so it seems we need a solution. Maybe one of these is that we think twice about uploading a picture on JP or not. If I see there are more than 200 pictures of the same BA A319 in the database I usually don't upload it to the site and keep it for my personal collection. Is it really worth uploading?
I don't go out for spotting just to upload them to JP, anet or anywhere else!
First of all I go out for my personal satisfaction and collection. Seems like some people forgot this. Upload them to a photo site is a great side on effect but not a must have! We should see this additional "feature" more relaxing, especially when the queue is too long or a rejection.

I understand your point Julian, but please undestand mine; I have never even seen a BA A319

And besides, the common rejection wouldn't reduce the queue since in order to get the rejection, it has to be uploaded in the first place

For your attention:
In A.Net the reason "common" it's only if there is at least one more reason for a rejection.
If the photo is a good quality, without any other reason, there is no rejection because of "common".
Also, there is no reason "similar" in A.net...

Just my 2 cents ...

Have a nice weekend.

PS - By the way, Well done to the JP screening team for your hard work today.