They don’t. I am not asking for something, I am making a suggestion. At least for me this is a difference. If it is not, then sorry, my English is obviously not good enough for this discussion.
I – again – suggest that people could invest a couple of minutes extra to save probably more time later by having way less uploads that have to be rejected. Net this could be less work, it of course depends on the actual number of submissions, number of rejections, and effort that goes into one rejection.
I assume that analyzing a submission may take 15 minutes. Posting a rejection may take 30 seconds. If only every 100th submission is rejected, the extra work stays extra work, but is overall negligible. If every 5th submission is rejected currently, but after some feedback of rejection reasons only every 10th submission is rejected, the saving is real, 15 minutes saved for 30 seconds invested per 5 pictures, and even a reduced effort of 15 seconds per 15 minutes because less rejections have to be documented.
I understand that it hardly makes sense to do such calculations, as life is never as straight and there’s a lot of gut feeling involved as well. However, the vehemency with which you are reacting to my suggestion – not asking for something but maybe desiring something because of the impression that it would make sense – made me feel to have a need for a more practical example.
This is among the responses that I was looking for. Simply saying: “I am the one who does the job and it would be tremendously more effort to put the rejection reason somewhere” is totally OK. As I am not sure if you are the one who does this job still, as said, Roman Lebedev was mentioned before, but as more people might be involved I did not want to ask directly but add this to the running discussion.
In some thread I am after all this fruitless discussion too lazy to look up, there was mentioned that a color target is not required but beneficial. Furthermore, it makes a good subject (it is no person) and it increases likelihood of proper exposure.
I had to revive a camera that I was not using for several years. It took quite some time to install CHDK on it (or find the old SD card where the suitable CHDK version was already installed) and make it ready. It was probably more than an hour. Still, even with a camera that I regularly use, I would expect this task to take more than 5 minutes. But maybe I am doing it too perfectionist.
You (I mean those that do the job) are investing a little bit of work to the benefit of saving a lot of work themselves later, as explained above. As said, judgement is by those that actually do the work, I might be wrong by my assumptions, but I thought this is a proper reason to discuss these things. However, I still do not understand what is so difficult to understand about this.
As I submitted 2 cameras, at least for one there is now a proper raw sample in place. I am still willing to contribute the other missing sample, but as already stated, I need to know what was wrong with my first submission. I don’t care about the time I wasted, I care more about my inability to provide a better sample for the camera that is in the list of missing cameras.
