The old 'accepted / not accepted'. Again.

[Desmond Riordan]

I have, over the past six and a half years, posted just short of twelve hundred photos on Panoramio. Like everyone else I have had my share of acceptable pictures rejected after a second review but have taken this as part of Panoramio life. I have told myself that it all balances out in the end as, like (nearly) everyone else, I have had pictures accepted that, strictly speaking, don't meet with the site's criteria for inclusion on Google Earth.

After a year of not having posted anything (a long, not very interesting story) I have once again started to upload pictures but I'm experiencing great difficulty getting anything accepted. Of the fourteen recent pictures there are six which I can understand being rejected, and, of the remaining eight, not one was accepted either first go or after a second review. They have all been deleted and the process repeated until they finally made the grade. There remains a number that have still not been accepted after TEN reviews. Here's an example:  http://www.panoramio.com/photo/124161834

I would be grateful if someone could enlighten me on the review process. Has something changed in my absence? Is it still done by humans or is image recognition software now used? If it's the former, how could photos that comply with all the conditions for acceptance be rejected on ten consecutive occasions. If it's the latter am I the only one suggesting that there might be a faulty algorithm somewhere.

I've always enjoyed being part of the Panoramio community but it's now become such a frustrating experience that I have a good mind to delete my account and call it a day.

[c0l0gne1]

Lose the frame and try again, you'll probably find your photos accepted without problems. Only very unobtrusive frames are accepted at all, anything reviewers do recognize as a frame usually is not. Even narrow white frames are rejected because photos are reviewed on a black background (as far as I know).

[hvbemmel]

missed that one. Yes that most certainly is the reason it has been rejected. 

[Wim Constant]

And, please, Desmond Riordan, change your offending title!! 

A title like: "Rejected TEN BLOODY TIMES by Google Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

shows more of your nature, than it does of the reviewers!!!

Op vrijdag 16 oktober 2015 10:54:43 UTC+2 schreef c0l0gne1:

[Desmond Riordan]

Wim, I fail to see what is so offensive about the title that I have chosen. 

I assume that you're referring to the word 'bloody', which may not be a word that we would encourage children to use but is, nonetheless, in common usage. If you were to listen to BBC Radio 4 (considered by many to be where British middle-class radio listeners go when they die) you will hear the word quite often in day-time and early evening comedies and dramas, and even used in conversation in discussion programmes. You are unlikely to have someone give you the old stink-eye if you were to step up to the bar and ask the barman to prepare you, with all due alacrity, a Bloody Mary in order that you might slake your, no doubt, well-earned thirst. Nor yet are historians likely to be censured or leave themselves open to disapprobation from the great and the good for referring to the elder sister of England's Elizabeth I by the same name. Further - and it would be remiss of me to let the fact go without comment - I see that you don't find the word so very offensive that you had to forebear from including the it in your reply. Have you no shame, Wim? There maybe ladies reading this thread!

No, Wim, it's been a very long time since the word bloody was considered offensive in Britain (try seeing how often the Australians use it!). Aside from it's use as a sanguinary adjective the word has become nothing more than a vaguely vulgar intensifier used across all social divides.

The problem that I have is that you presume to deduce my nature from my use of the word bloody. In addition to such a deduction being presumptuous I would venture to say that it's judgemental, given that you don't know me from Adam. It would be like me deducing from your comment that you are an uptight, self-righteous prig, which I'm sure couldn't be further from the truth.

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:25:22 AM UTC+1, Wim Constant wrote:

And, please, change your offending title!! 

"Rejected TEN BLOODY TIMES by Google Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

shows more of your nature, than it does of the reviewers!!!

Op vrijdag 16 oktober 2015 10:54:43 UTC+2 schreef c0l0gne1:

Lose the frame and try again, you'll probably find your photos accepted without problems. Only very unobtrusive frames are accepted at all, anything reviewers do recognize as a frame usually is not. Even narrow white frames are rejected because photos are reviewed on a black background (as far as I know).

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 11:25:22 AM UTC+1, Wim Constant wrote:

And, please, change your offending title!! 

[Desmond Riordan]

Thanks for the suggestion, c010gne1 (and you hvbemmel). I'll give it a go but the thing is that I have had 830 pictures accepted for Google Earth and each and every one of them has a white border of the same width as those recently posted. I always understood that plain borders were acceptable. Has there been a change in policy whereby NO borders are allowed? Does anyone know?

[hvbemmel]

@ all Please let´s not discuss semantics.

@ Desmond. Since some years now the reviewers see the medium photos on a black background. since then the reviewers will see white (or other color) borders. If they blend in with the photo they will not see it. Black border they will not see either.

So the practical instructions for the reviewers are: when you see a border the photo is not eligible for GE. What you don´t see you can not reject.

When I saw your photo on the photopage I also wondered why the photo was rejected ( it was late and on a tablet) because on the white background you can not see the border. Only when Gudrun posted that there was a border and I went to the explorer, the rejection was clear then. In any case the "only single black borders" rule was communicated with us by Gerard Sanz, so before Panoramio left Zürich early 2013. 

[Desmond Riordan]

Many thanks for looking into this for me, HvB. When I joined and even up until around a year ago I had very little trouble having pictures accepted as the policy then - if I recall correctly - was that thin, plain borders were acceptable. Having looked at the policy again this afternoon it seems that this has now been amended to something along the lines of 'a thin black or white line'. If this is the case then I have no problem with that and will try resubmitting the recently rejected pictures with a ten pixel line by way of a border.

Again, my thanks for your time and trouble.

[hvbemmel]

This section of the help file hasn´t been updated since the start of Panoramio. In the years until 2011 the reviewers saw a sheet with 40 thumbnails on a page to review for GE.. If they saw a border they had to reject, when a border is visible on a thumbnail it is humongous. In October 2011 the users, mainly moderators from Europe, who visited the EMEA (Europe,Middle East, Africa) GEO meeting in Barcelona (Spain) were introduced to the new way of reviewing. medium photo on a black screen. space is reject, double space is delete (porn), mouseclick is select/next. From that moment on the instructions were "only black" is selected, so forget about the small white. As the numbers of photos for GE grew the rules have been implemented more strictly, so what was accepted 2 years ago can be rejected now.

From the beginning the main rule for borders on GE were, if you don´t want your photo rejected because of a border, don´t use one. 

[Wim Constant]

As I said: "It shows more of YOUR nature, than it does of the reviewers!!!"

Op vrijdag 16 oktober 2015 15:58:01 UTC+2 schreef Desmond Riordan:

Wim, I fail to see what is so offensive about the title that I have chosen. 

I assume that you're referring to the word 'bloody', which may not be a word that we would encourage children to use but is, nonetheless, in common usage. If you were to listen to BBC Radio 4 (considered by many to be the spiritual home of the British middle-class radio listener) you will hear the word quite often in day-time and early evening comedies and dramas, and even used in conversation in discussion programmes. You are unlikely to have someone give you the old stink-eye if you were to step up to the bar and ask the barman to prepare you, with all due alacrity, a Bloody Mary in order that you might slake your, no doubt, well-earned thirst. Nor yet are historians likely to be censured or leave themselves open to disapprobation from the great and the good for referring to the elder sister of England's Elizabeth I by the same name. Further - and it would be remiss of me to let the fact go without comment - I see that you don't find the word so very offensive that you had to forebear from including the it in your reply. Have you no shame, Wim? There maybe ladies reading this thread!

[Desmond Riordan]

I shall continue to try and use some kind of border as I believe it contains and finishes a picture. I have had some success, even recently, with a 2 cm border but will attempt something more discreet in future.

Again, my thanks for your time and patience.