Jump to content

QC failure - excessive similars


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

You've ruled it out, but I wasn't referring to this^

but to this

 

 

 

It was this picture which I made into a silhouette to try and put attention on the storm clouds. The QC fail was for movement with the leaves bottom left corner of the tree.

 

The reply from QC said that they could understand why I would consider it harsh. 

 

I0000mrbdMi.Slss.jpg

 

But okay, take it on the chin and move on. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

In which case since this rule of 5 has been in place for nearly 20 years wouldn't it make more sense, and show some respect, to inform the experienced contributor that they have changed the rule rather than failing an entire upload batch including other images?

 

I can't speak for Alamy. However, owing to the agreements in place when signing up I would suggest their take on it is that rules can be changed at Alamy's discretion and that it is our responsibility as contributors to keep abreast of them.

 

It was my understanding that failing an entire upload batch because of one failure reason is the normal procedure no matter the failure reason or the contributor being new or old. Are you suggesting that based on a contributor's age (in a sense of their membership) that degrees of leniency outside the standard set of rules around QC should be applied?

Edited by Cal
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

I can't speak for Alamy. However, owing to the agreements in place when signing up I would suggest their take on it is that rules can be changed at Alamy's discretion and that it is our responsibility as contributors to keep abreast of them.

 

It was my understanding that failing an entire upload batch because of one failure reason is the normal procedure no matter the failure reason or the contributor being new or old. Are you suggesting that based on a contributor's age (in a sense of their membership) that degrees of leniency outside the standard set of rules around QC should be applied?

 

 

No Cal I am not suggesting anything of the sort. But it would aid efficiency if contributors are made aware of significant rule changes. And it would be wise to use common sense at QC rather than a sledgehammer. 

 

I don't see how contributors can keep abreast of unannounced rule changes.

 

Please could we just leave it there? Thanks

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

It was this picture which I made into a silhouette to try and put attention on the storm clouds. The QC fail was for movement with the leaves bottom left corner of the tree.

 

The reply from QC said that they could understand why I would consider it harsh. 

 

I0000mrbdMi.Slss.jpg

 

But okay, take it on the chin and move on. 

 

I also had one with a tree which was a silver birch if I remember right. Now the lightest of winds make their branches move and I was trying to show movement making sure that the trunk of the tree was pin sharp. It failed QC as "soft and lacking definition". I did point out that the trunk was sharp and in focus but no, "QC know what they are doing." I was told.

 

Deleted the image in total from my files in disgust.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Edited by Allan Bell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the Alamy live news uploads contain several similars.  Indeed some are so similar I struggle to see any difference between them, but, of course, they don't go via QC.  Maybe live news is a special case?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

No Cal I am not suggesting anything of the sort. But it would aid efficiency if contributors are made aware of significant rule changes. And it would be wise to use common sense at QC rather than a sledgehammer. 

 

How do you suggest contributors keep abreast of unannounced rule changes?

 

I'm not actually disagreeing with you, and whether or not I think you've been treated harshly is neither here nor there, either. 

 

I'm just covering the angle that I think Alamy is likely to take, and I don't think I'd even bother querying a QC fail for this reason. That's the deal the likes of you and I sign up to with these things - in a nutshell it is effectively "what Alamy says, goes".

 

Regarding unannounced rule changes the only thing I can say is when you posted the first thing I did was seek out the how to pass QC PDF I referred to. If it had been me in this situation with a fail for too many similars the first thing I'd have done is check the PDF. On seeing that there is no exact stipulation of what is too many I'd likely sigh and submit 2 or 3 of the images. Yes it's reactive but it's all you can do.

  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal said:

 

I'm not actually disagreeing with you, and whether or not I think you've been treated harshly is neither here nor there, either. 

 

I'm just covering the angle that I think Alamy is likely to take, and I don't think I'd even bother querying a QC fail for this reason. That's the deal the likes of you and I sign up to with these things - in a nutshell it is effectively "what Alamy says, goes".

 

Regarding unannounced rule changes the only thing I can say is when you posted the first thing I did was seek out the how to pass QC PDF I referred to. If it had been me in this situation with a fail for too many similars the first thing I'd have done is check the PDF. On seeing that there is no exact stipulation of what is too many I'd likely sigh and submit 2 or 3 of the images. Yes it's reactive but it's all you can do.

 

So you couldn't manage to just leave it there.....😶

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

So you couldn't manage to just leave it there.....😶

 

My apologies, I was typing most likely while you were editing. The last line wasn't there when I hit the quote, nor was the edit of the question.

Edited by Cal
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

My apologies, I was typing most likely while you were editing. The last line wasn't there when I hit the quote, nor was the edit of the question.

 

My apologies. We must have crossed. 

 

Many thanks for your comments and observations but I've had enough of this and have nothing else to say about what I should have known and didn't know, what you would have done, and what I should have done. 

 

Please can we leave it at that? 🙂

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

It was this picture which I made into a silhouette to try and put attention on the storm clouds. The QC fail was for movement with the leaves bottom left corner of the tree.

 

The reply from QC said that they could understand why I would consider it harsh. 

 

I0000mrbdMi.Slss.jpg

 

But okay, take it on the chin and move on. 

Never mind chin, that seems to be below the belt.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

i find this rejection, in line with some recent we see of "this is the rule" but it doesn't apply to everyone (see the montage rule) and "we won't actually tell you what the rule is" even more frustrating this week with the upload mess and images disappearing on no information back.  I'm lucky i didn't hit QC i guess, as not only do i have similars, I had same image a couple of times....

 

i am sorry you are going through this....

 

 

Thank you. That is appreciated. 🍺

Edited by geogphotos
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also received this today.

 

Nice. 

 

 

 
Dear ian,

ddfggddfgs (dfgdf@gmail.com) has sent you an inquiry.

Message:
"Yes, I am starting to think that I am the target of something here".

I know the feeling, you evil nasty cruel excuse for a human!!!

Phone: 5161561816

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Max of five similars sticks in my mind as well, although I've never dared submit that many at one time.

 

 I would probably have narrowed that selection down to three images -- one of the top three plus the two bottom ones.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

Max of five similars sticks in my mind as well, although I've never dared submit that many at one time.

 

 I would probably have narrowed that selection down to three images -- one of the top three plus the two bottom ones.

 

 

That makes sense.  I shot five because I knew ( I thought) that was what I could submit, and processed five because they all offered something slightly different. I shot five to provide coverage of that specific subject at that time and a variety of options. Just five, no more or less, because rules is rules.

 

Of course I could have shot more and split the submission. QC wouldn't have picked it up. But once again an example of being honest and straight with Alamy just doesn't work. 

 

One thing for sure is that none of them will end up on Alamy now.  

 

I am not an editor.  When I submit elsewhere the editor just quietly selects what she wants and finds something nice to say about the submission often along with an astute, helpful comment on what could be better ( does your wife have a red jacket for those outdoor walking shots?). Compare that with Alamy and the daft response I posted above from an anonymous QC person. 🤬

 

And before somebody says it I do know where the door is and am looking at it quite a lot. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Beer in the proper amount is our friend. Too many beers? That might be a problem. A problem we might called excessive similars. 

 

 

You are talking about excessive moderation. The worst thing of all! 😄🍺

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

That makes sense.  I shot five because I knew ( I thought) that was what I could submit, and processed five because they all offered something slightly different. I shot five to provide coverage of that specific subject at that time and a variety of options. Just five, no more or less, because rules is rules.

 

Of course I could have shot more and split the submission. QC wouldn't have picked it up. But once again an example of being honest and straight with Alamy just doesn't work. 

 

One thing for sure is that none of them will end up on Alamy now.  

 

I am not an editor.  When I submit elsewhere the editor just quietly selects what she wants and finds something nice to say about the submission. Compare that with Alamy and the daft response I posted above from an anonymous QC person. 🤬

 

And before somebody says it I do know where the door is and am looking at it quite a lot. 

 

You're the second forum member this week to tell me that something I said made sense. I had better run out and buy a lottery ticket. 🤑

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

You're the second forum member this week to tell me that something I said made sense. I had better run out and buy a lottery ticket. 🤑

 

 

You did notice how many beers Imageplotter was giving me? 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/12/2020 at 15:39, Bryan said:

Some of the Alamy live news uploads contain several similars.  Indeed some are so similar I struggle to see any difference between them, but, of course, they don't go via QC.  Maybe live news is a special case?

 

 

Not necessarily, but for different reasons. I did once have an email from the Live News team suggesting not to submit several similar images so that they can send them out quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian, I think the problem is at some point recently you failed QC. Most likely when you went from 5 stars to three. Speaking from experience, once you get on QC’s radar, they stare at the radar blip for some time. There was a time I had so many failures I about gave up. It seemed nothing I did was right. Yes, I felt picked on.

I did begin to start making small subs, went over them multiple times, no more than two or three similars. My similars were like this. A distant shot with sky copy space, a frame-filling shot, and a vertical.
With this constant for-what-seemed-like-forever attention, I finally got enough passes to fall off QC’s radar.

Keep your chin up. Maybe QC has been told to watch similars to hold down the numbers explosion with little variety. Who knows. Maybe QC each have their own criteria re: similars, and a few aren’t using the best judgment.

Keep your chin up. Develop a plan, (a new one) follow it meticulously and hope for the best. You won’t be able to work the numbers as you’re used to, but....

Edited by Betty LaRue
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.