Thanks for the response. That's good news. Paul On Apr 5, 2007, at 6:26 PM, Carlson, John___PAIC_SO wrote:
> > This is actually being worked on now by the web design company > since it > is a headache to the site administrators. We don't have some of the > lenses listed because we haven't been able to compile a complete list > that were sold. Additionally, the *ist D and *ist DS were added > shortly > after the artist interface when live. It is actually fairly easy to > have a camera added, but much more difficult to add an entire > series of > lenses. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 4:10 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: pentax Gallery: Interesting correspondence > > Hi John, > I understand the gallery's position and decision making process. > However, it would be nice if there were a way of correcting > information > without risking rejection. For example, when we first began the > submission process, the range of camera choices didn't even include > the > *istD or the *istDS. M lens choices were added only recently and SMC > Pentax (K series lenses) are still not listed. Thus, the info is wrong > for some pictures. But since correcting the information initiates the > review process all over again, some of us may be hesitant to make > those > corrections. > Thanks, > Paul Stenquist > On Apr 5, 2007, at 6:04 PM, Carlson, John___PAIC_SO wrote: > >> >> Mark, >> >> Sorry for the shorter reply to your second e-mail. To break it down >> to basics, the site administrators are being more critical now than >> when they first started reviewing images. This is due to the very >> large number of images being submitted (we actually thought we would >> have a hard time getting enough images and artists - imagine our >> surprise). >> Since we are getting quite a few submissions, it is difficult to give >> an explanation for every image that is declined, and sometimes a >> revised image isn't accepted again (if better work has been submitted >> by the artist). >> >> Again, sorry for the short reply to your direct e-mail. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:02 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: pentax Gallery: Interesting correspondence >> >> A while back I noticed some errors in the data I had included with >> photos I'd had accepted into the Pentax Gallery. I edited the data to >> correct it and the photos went into the "awaiting approval" queue >> again. >> >> >> And as has happened to others, one of my previously approved images >> was rejected. So, just for the heck of it, I sent an email to ask why >> the images needed to be reviewed again if only the text associated >> with them was changed. It seems to me to be actively discouraging >> people from correcting mistakes (or just misspellings, in my >> case), as > >> well as making unnecessary work for the judges. >> >> Anyway, I got a reply which did discuss some of the qualities they >> are > >> looking for and how they look, not only at the overall contents of >> the > >> Pentax Gallery, but at the individual submitter's body of work. (I >> hadn't considered that and it seems like a very sensible idea.) As >> far > >> as why an photo would need to be reviewed again when the image data >> hasn't changed, I got only: >> >>> If you change any data on an image, it will need to be re-accepted. >>> Unlike the artist approval, even though an image was accepted >>> before, > >>> it may not be accepted again. >> >> Which of course we already knew. >> >> So I wrote back saying I was interested in knowing why this was the >> case, since it didn't seem to make sense to discourage photographers >> from correcting errors. >> >> Perhaps it's my imagination, but the reply seemed slightly peeved and >> commented that the question had been answered in the first email.. >> which it quoted exactly as above. I didn't write back to point out >> that the above most certainly not answer the question of *why* >> this is > >> the case. I didn't want to be rude and heck, it's their gallery; >> they're entitled to run it any way they like. I was just curious. I >> like to know how things work! >> >> The first email mentioned that the Gallery has been *far* more >> successful (interms of interest and submissions) than they expected >> and is generating a large volume of submissions. So personally, I >> think the "re-review upon data change" is something that started out >> as a database bug and is now being used to thin the herd, so to speak >> :) >> >> Needless to say, any further errors I find in my submissions will >> remain uncorrected! >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
