Oh I apologise upfront for bringing this up again.
But after yet another DQ request for this image: I was requested to post an original because someone thinks it is suspicious in some way - fair enough but why can we not see the reason? It doesn't have to be at the same time as the request - just a courtesy note afterwards saying "Hi member, thanks for submitting your original - the reason it was questioned was due to xxxxx, however we are happy to say that this turns out to be unfounded"
It must intrigue others that there is obviously something so glaringly obvious that 1 voter and half the site council see reason for a proof.
And whilst were at it - the above note also actually lets the photographer know their image isn't going to be removed - a fact DPC seems to forget to mention to the photographer.
A lot of DQ requests are from people who think they've seen the shot on a different website and would like to verify the date. Most of the time it is just a similar photo, not even by the same photographer, but since the SC can't tell without looking at the EXIF we need to request the original. This was the case in this instance.
yeah i dunno what is 'questionable' in this photo.
i agree with the others though.. perhaps someone thought they saw the photo before.
or perhaps someone doesn't know that is what a horse's eye looks like. it DOES look odd, if you think a horse's eye should look like a human eye
If I'm not mistaken, jonpinks request wasn't for a list of 'possible' reasons for the DQ request, it was for 'thee' reason given for said DQ request.
I believe Konador answered that question quite clearly when he said "This was the case in this instance." The DQ was for dates, and the SC needs to look at the EXIF, just like Konador said.
If I'm not mistaken, jonpinks request wasn't for a list of 'possible' reasons for the DQ request, it was for 'thee' reason given for said DQ request.
I believe Konador answered that question quite clearly when he said "This was the case in this instance." The DQ was for dates, and the SC needs to look at the EXIF, just like Konador said.
As a courtesy, it might be a good idea for the SC to forward the reason for the DQ request (upon verifying the original) to said photographer, rather than having to solicit for it (after the fact) in this forum or via email.
I was asking why we can't be told a) why it is/was being looked into, and b) to be informed when it's 'passed'
My guess as to the answers to these are
a) so you don't have time to tamper with the "evidence"
b) the SC is a (very) loose collection of volunteers and it's not anyone's job to reply to the photographers. A notification message should now appear on your home page when your submission has been verified/validated -- we did that so people would know ASAP without it being dependent on someone sending out an email (which other members complained they never got anyway). You should consider the Home Page notifications as the primary means of communications regarding your photo's DQ status.
