Rejection??

[wildherbalian85]

Why does my decent, in focus, properly named photo keep getting rejected from the gallery??



these were also rejected...



this i suspected might have been rejected but i tried anyway..

[DavyG]

I may be wrong, but I suspect they're being rejected because you are not meeting the Gallery criteria.

Try entering the title as "Common Name - Scientific Name" and ensure you are complying with the Gallery guidelines shown here:

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/pi...ploadphoto.php

I hope this helps.

Dave

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by wildherbalian85

Why does my decent, in focus, properly named photo keep getting rejected from the gallery??

You may wish to look here, where you will find that your images have not been properly named as you state.

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...galleries.html

Please also note that we can't really comment on why individual images are rejected, but it is usually for a good reason.

John

[wildherbalian85]

Like i said in the OP they were correctly named in the same way as is advised in the gallery advice.
These are in the forum image section and for that reason i havn't bothered to lable them in the same way i did when uploading to the gallery.

[DavyG]

I was obviously wrong, I didn't realise you had used the correct naming format.

I'm sure the Gallery Mod(s) would have a good reason for not posting your pics.

I've done a search and there are some examples of ragwort pics in the Gallery, so they do accept plant photos, here's an example.

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/pi...hp?photo=44301

I hope this helps.

Dave

[Kayleigh]

Maybe they are not up to gallery standard.

[ron1863]

I think they were rejected because they are not quiete sharp enough and have distracting elements in the shots, such as a fence. You should try to get a bit closer to the flower then take the shot. But I might be wrong.

[wildherbalian85]

Originally Posted by ron1863

I think they were rejected because they are not quiete sharp enough and have distracting elements in the shots, such as a fence. You should try to get a bit closer to the flower then take the shot. But I might be wrong.

I dont think sharpness has anything to do with it as i spotted at least one failry blur example already uploaded to the gallery.



Maybe the fence is the reason, but the fence is only in the one photo.

[wildherbalian85]

Originally Posted by Kayleigh

Maybe they are not up to gallery standard.

Seriously though i have done everything that is advised. If it is because of the picture quality (which i doubt it is) then there is some serious double standards going on within the gallery.

The reality is though i cant see much wrong perticualy with the first picture, and as i'v done it by the book i can't see why it being rejected. If there is a genuine problem i need to know what it is so as i can avoid doing it in the future. With regards to the fence mentioned i dont see why this is a problem as ragwort is a weed and grows in many places, the fence in the picture gives the viewer a genuine sense of this herb growing as a weed outside of the normaly describe medow/ grassland/ scrubland that is mentioned in books.

[Bub-les]

Can you give us the name you've called it, as there are several ragworts.
I think yours may be Hoary ragwort Senecio erucifolius
Barbara

[Kayleigh]

Originally Posted by wildherbalian85

Seriously though i have done everything that is advised. If it is because of the picture quality (which i doubt it is) then there is some serious double standards going on within the gallery.

The reality is though i cant see much wrong perticualy with the first picture, and as i'v done it by the book i can't see why it being rejected. If there is a genuine problem i need to know what it is so as i can avoid doing it in the future. With regards to the fence mentioned i dont see why this is a problem as ragwort is a weed and grows in many places, the fence in the picture gives the viewer a genuine sense of this herb growing as a weed outside of the normaly describe medow/ grassland/ scrubland that is mentioned in books.

I have had pics rejected..The problem is you have to work out for yourself where you went wrong. They don't tell you why. But I go with Ron on this, try to get a close up of the flower make it something nice to look at and keep trying..

[wildherbalian85]

Originally Posted by Bub-les

Can you give us the name you've called it, as there are several ragworts.
I think yours may be Hoary ragwort Senecio erucifolius
Barbara

Common ragwort, ragwort - Senecio jacobaea

These ragworts were hairless.

[wildherbalian85]

Originally Posted by Kayleigh

I have had pics rejected..The problem is you have to work out for yourself where you went wrong. They don't tell you why. But I go with Ron on this, try to get a close up of the flower make it something nice to look at and keep trying..

Seriously other then the mod that viewed them just being fussy i cant see the problem.

Prohaps the second two photo's might have been rejected because the ragwort was intwined with other plants.

[Bub-les]

The flower head is wrong for Senecio jacobaea
It could perhaps be a hybrid (sorry here we go again) 'cause there are hybrids about especially on roadsides.
Hoary not hairy.
Barbara

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by wildherbalian85

Like i said in the OP they were correctly named in the same way as is advised in the gallery advice.
These are in the forum image section and for that reason i havn't bothered to lable them in the same way i did when uploading to the gallery.

wildherbalian, your images were rejected because you used a comma seperator and not the space hyphen space seperator as required.
John

[wildherbalian85]

Originally Posted by Bub-les

The flower head is wrong for Senecio jacobaea
It could perhaps be a hybrid (sorry here we go again) 'cause there are hybrids about especially on roadsides.
Hoary not hairy.
Barbara

Pictures 2 & 3 were near the sea - though admitadly there was a road near by.

I said hairy because as far as im aware one of the key differences between the two species of ragwort mentioned is one is hairy and the other is not.
Hoary ragwort is hairy.

[wildherbalian85]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

wildherbalian, your images were rejected because you used a comma seperator and not the space hyphen space seperator as required.
John

Thanks john I have tried again to upload and made sure i did it that way, now im just waiting.

[Kayleigh]

Originally Posted by wildherbalian85

Thanks john I have tried again to upload and made sure i did it that way, now im just waiting.

There you are something as simple as that.
Fingers x

[glsammy]

As a general rule we don't allow any postings on reasons why images are rejected.
Claiming there's double standards and bias is no way to influence editors. Yes we are fussy, that's the whole point of being gallery editors.
We want images that are clear, in focus, exposed correctly and that show the subject matter accurately.
Just ask yourself if your images fit the criteria.

[Bub-les]

OK my book doesnt mention either being hairy! Need a better book I think!
I must admit I didn't think something would be rejected for something as simple as that!
Will take extra care in future to make sure I label things correctly!
I still don't think its a typical Senecio jacobaea
They're not in flower here yet but I'll take some photos when they are.
Barbara

[wildherbalian85]

Originally Posted by Kayleigh

There you are something as simple as that.
Fingers x

Nahh just as i thought i did do it that way originaly. It was rejected again

[glsammy]

Let me make it quite clear why the image was rejected, then I'm closing this thread.

Despite all that has been said above, and all the claims of bias and "fussy" editors, when this image was loaded again only the Common name was given. No scientific name. That's an instant rejection.

That's the end of the matter. No further discussion of reasons for non acceptance.