Anet hating Austrian A330 photos like these...

[SoPictureThis]

Hi everyone,

So...a.net loves to reject every photo of an Austrian A330 that I send them, always with the rejection reason being: "common." I dont think these aircraft have been overly photographed to such a huge level that they dont accept shots of them much anymore frankly. I can only assume that an issue regarding the size of the server is non-existent, because I know a.net prides themself as being the "largest aviation database on the web," as displayed on their homepage. I just think the reason "common" is an aweful, aweful rejection reason! Check out these photos of mine that they have rejected:











http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l58/LAXspotr/Austrian_OELAP_120206.jpg

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l58/LAXspotr/OS_OELAN_101406-1.jpg

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l58/LAXspotr/Austrian_OELAN_120906.jpg




Ok, I'm done ranting about this absurd rejection reason :P But what do you guys think?? I'm curious...


- Josh May
LAX/IAD/ and soon JFK!

[nwafan20]

I think A.net shouldn't be rejecting for common unless you have photos very similar in the database that YOU have taken.

[T-Bird76]

Common is absolute bull**** and a piss poor excuse to reject a good photo. The only time common should be used if the same photog uploads the same plane at the same airport over and over again or if others uploaded the same plane, regi, and date. Otherwise if its a good photo then it should be accepted.

[NIKV69]

So...a.net loves to reject every photo of an Austrian A330 that I send them, always with the rejection reason being: "common." I dont think these aircraft have been overly photographed to such a huge level that they dont accept shots of them much anymore frankly. I can only assume that an issue regarding the size of the server is non-existent, because I know a.net prides themself as being the "largest aviation database on the web," as displayed on their homepage. I just think the reason "common" is an aweful, aweful rejection reason! Check out these photos of mine that they have rejected:




Nice pics but if you read the rejection reason below and you will see that standards are raised for shots that are common. It happens to all of us. I nailed a nice shot of LTU at JFK and the same thing happened I did a search and there are a ton of them in the DB. Nothing you can do about it except upload it to JP.


I think A.net shouldn't be rejecting for common unless you have photos very similar in the database that YOU have taken

Well you would get a double rejection only if it is the same regi, same day under certain circumstances. Though that doesn't stop some from uploading the same regi at the same airport on different days.


Common is absolute bull**** and a piss poor excuse to reject a good photo. The only time common should be used if the same photog uploads the same plane at the same airport over and over again or if others uploaded the same plane, regi, and date. Otherwise if its a good photo then it should be accepted

Tommy here is anets reason for common.

COMMON
The aircraft depicted in your photos was very common in the Airliners.net database, with many photos of this aircraft already present on the website.

In this case the standards for acceptance are higher than for aircraft of which we have fewer or no photographs on the database, and only photos of exceptional quality will be accepted.

Please understand that this is not a judgement on your abilities, as your picture may be of a technical quality which may be very decent. However, due to the common nature of the aircraft photographed, the highest standard is applied to avoid substantial duplication.

When uploading you should always check our database for the amount of photos we have of the particular aircraft you are uploading. If a particular aircraft or registration is common in our database, you may increase the likelihood your photos of it will be accepted by photographing it from an unusual angle, under exceptional lighting conditions, or with interesting scenery in the background.

The badcommon rejection is not a way to reject a photo. It is a way to keep the DB from getting saturated with a specific aircraft and or airline.

[T-Bird76]

Nick so tell me how two UAL 777s of mine got accepted to A.net and they aren't any better then Josh's pics and prob more common. A.net proclaims it is a database of planes. If so I think they'd like to record planes at different airports on different days. Josh's departure picture isn't all that common. Which btw you say saturate the database Nick? Common we both know people who upload the same plane over and over again. Bad Common is a bad reason to reject a good picture.

[SP-LPB]

I think that the reason is simply BS, nothing more frustrating than taking a shot that meets all the criteria in terms of quality and getting it rejected because there are numerous other shots of this plane. As Tommy said:


The only time common should be used if the same photog uploads the same plane at the same airport over and over again or if others uploaded the same plane, regi, and date. Otherwise if its a good photo then it should be accepted.

I had an LX A330 rejected for "Common"/ "Soft", so I wonder if I reupload it again with improved sharpness will they accept it?

BTW: Nice shots Josh!

[nwafan20]

If it was uploaded with Common/soft and you fixed the soft, that would still leave common wouldn't it? Lol :D

[SP-LPB]

If it was uploaded with Common/soft and you fixed the soft, that would still leave common wouldn't it? Lol :D

In this case the standards for acceptance are higher than for aircraft of which we have fewer or no photographs on the database, and only photos of exceptional quality will be accepted.

What if I improve the quality?

[NIKV69]

Nick so tell me how two UAL 777s of mine got accepted to A.net and they aren't any better then Josh's pics and prob more common

Well to be honest your shot of the UA 777 IMO is better quality that the pics Josh has posted here. First off are these the actual pics? They are 799 wide. Second there are some exposure issues. The nose of the last pic is overexposed. The depature shot is nice but in general I think your 777 is of higher quality which is why it was accepted. Nobody reads anything. It says

In this case the standards for acceptance are higher than for aircraft of which we have fewer or no photographs on the database, and only photos of exceptional quality will be accepted.

Though Josh's pics are nice but they are not exceptional which is why they were rejected. Remember badcommon means that your pic was rejected because the quality was not good enough, not solely because there are many pics of it in the DB. Tommy's 777 shot is a good example of this.


I think that the reason is simply BS, nothing more frustrating than taking a shot that meets all the criteria in terms of quality and getting it rejected because there are numerous other shots of this plane. As Tommy said:



Well it is this attitude that will keep you from understanding the rejection. I would think a post on anet asking for advice on why your pics lack in quality would be much more productive than a rant here. It's your call.

[G-BOAD]

COMMON!?!?!?
Come on!
Give me a break. I can go through pages and pages of the same contrail shots, but then a nice photo like your shows up, and NO. What a load of crap! I never go to A.net anymore.

[SP-LPB]

Well it is this attitude that will keep you from understanding the rejection. I would think a post on anet asking for advice on why your pics lack in quality would be much more productive than a rant here. It's your call.

I'm not talking about my rejection, I actually agree with it but Josh's do seem kinda off.