Quote from: Zero Talent on December 13, 2015, 13:36

This is the attitude I see from classic taxi drivers, asking governments to ban Uber, because their drivers are not certified, when every Uber customer systematically certifies every driver. And they do it much better than any government inspector.

We don't have uber here, but I see a lot of problems reported due to their GPS, and I can understand that because our GPS systems often let us down. A driver who has done the knowledge might have a breakdown or get stuck in traffic, but they won't have problems with GPS. And certified drivers (here) are police checked and incidents with them (here) are very rare. I've read of attacks by uber drivers, e.g. http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents
Also of interest: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/uber-drivers-reveal-what-its-really-like-to-work-for-the-low-cost-taxi-company-a6769071.html

When you'll get Uber, you will notice the difference, both in costs and quality.

What you don't read about or remember are the smelly cars and fully certified, but rude classic taxi drivers.
Somehow even those rude taxi drivers feel entitled to something, because they passed years ago, some certification.
I can understand they want job protection, but their job protection goes against consumers interrests.
Real competition drives quality up and costs down, not certifications.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

We don't have uber here, but I see a lot of problems reported due to their GPS, and I can understand that because our GPS systems often let us down. A driver who has done the knowledge might have a breakdown or get stuck in traffic, but they won't have problems with GPS. And certified drivers (here) are police checked and incidents with them (here) are very rare. I've read of attacks by uber drivers, e.g. http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents
Also of interest: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/uber-drivers-reveal-what-its-really-like-to-work-for-the-low-cost-taxi-company-a6769071.html

One more thing: you are relying on biased information from a website sponsored by TLPA.

We are an initiative of the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association (TLPA)

They don't like Uber's competition, and they spend lots of money lobbying against it.

Anyway, I have a different proposal. Let's go with what you want, and ask SS to re-instate that 7/10 admission criteria.
In the name of fairness, it should be identically applied to ALL uploads, including to those from previously "certified" SS  contributors.

So, if, by all actual standards, any "certified" contributor fails to get 7 out of the last 10 uploads accepted, a 3 weeks uploading ban should be automatically applied.

I can guarantee you that all "certified contributors" will think twice before trying their luck with borderline quality.
It will have a positive impact on the collection quality, addressing the main concern raised by this topic.

How does it sound?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I can't see how anyone could spin a dropping of standards for new photographers, and the acceptance of tons of repetitious junk, as positives for a photo agency.  If you're thinking your photos will then look better by comparison, well, a needle looks nice and shiny compared to a haystack too.   

I so agree!  Totally baffled anyone thinks this is a good idea for current contributors.   My money is on the quarterly report motive.

This is a cost cutting maneuver pure and simple. Years ago they had to have human reviewers, that needed to be paid, to inspect each image for technical (and aesthetic) quality so they use the application test as a pre-screener to ensure that the submissions were at a certain standard.

By removing that test they know just as we all do that the flood gates will open for millions more images. They can't cut costs by hiring thousands of new reviewers but as has been stated, by me and many others in several threads, the technology exists, and is feasible, to pre-screen for the most common errors: focus, exposure, noise, white balance etc. using software. Software doesn't need to go on the payroll nor does it burn out from looking at crap all day.

Great cost cutting measure and great for people who own cameras and think they can make easy money. However as the old saying goes "you have to know the rules before you can break them" anyone trying to do anything other than the Yuri style of bright, generic stocky style of images may be in trouble.

Want to try some selective focus?
   Bot: [less than 41.42356% of image in acceptable focus: reject]

How about playing with the white balance for effect?
   Bot: [white balance is not at optimal: reject]

Maybe try to shoot something dark and moody?
   Bot: [histogram falls outside acceptable parameters: reject]

Time will tell but allowing so many images to be submitted by people who can't get more than 1 out of 10 past a human reviewer in the application will cost them a fortune in staffing unless they use pre-screening software which has no eye for aesthetics. Course I could be wrong

This is a cost cutting maneuver pure and simple. Years ago they had to have human reviewers, that needed to be paid, to inspect each image for technical (and aesthetic) quality so they use the application test as a pre-screener to ensure that the submissions were at a certain standard.

By removing that test they know just as we all do that the flood gates will open for millions more images. They can't cut costs by hiring thousands of new reviewers but as has been stated, by me and many others in several threads, the technology exists, and is feasible, to pre-screen for the most common errors: focus, exposure, noise, white balance etc. using software. Software doesn't need to go on the payroll nor does it burn out from looking at crap all day.

Great cost cutting measure and great for people who own cameras and think they can make easy money. However as the old saying goes "you have to know the rules before you can break them" anyone trying to do anything other than the Yuri style of bright, generic stocky style of images may be in trouble.

Want to try some selective focus?
   Bot: [less than 41.42356% of image in acceptable focus: reject]

How about playing with the white balance for effect?
   Bot: [white balance is not at optimal: reject]

Maybe try to shoot something dark and moody?
   Bot: [histogram falls outside acceptable parameters: reject]

Time will tell but allowing so many images to be submitted by people who can't get more than 1 out of 10 past a human reviewer in the application will cost them a fortune in staffing unless they use pre-screening software which has no eye for aesthetics. Course I could be wrong

Valid points.

Nevertheless, it is hard to believe in a "flood" coming from people only able to pass 1/10 photos. I said it before, this is an endurance competition and many will give-up pretty soon, unable to cope with frustrations and low sales.

The "flood" is coming those "certified contributors" who uploaded 1 million tomato shots, 50.000 marijuana shots,  400.000 cloudscapes, 1.000.000 coffee shots, etc

But it is easier to blame others, to look down on beginners and call them "wannabes", than to acknowledge your own flaws.