Full Membership Requirements

Hey guys, I have just been reading the full membership qualifications and just wanted to voice my opinions.

Currently you need an acceptance ratio of at least 0.65, at least 5000 photo views, and 3 eyecatchers in the past 3 months.

Firstly, I'm abit surprised that only 0.65 acceptance ratio is adequate. I would've have thought to be allowed screening free uploads, an acceptance ratio of around 0.9 on average would be required to ensure sub standard pictures are not uploaded.

Regarding the 5000 photo views, I can understand and agree with this, the site want members to upload pictures which in turn will attract hits. Fair enough.

However regarding the requirement of THREE eyecatchers within 3 months, I think that's abit too demanding. Without trying to offend any members, how many current full membership photographers have been able to maintain an eyecatcher picture a month when uploading?

It seems a bit pointless requiring 3 Eyecatchers for full membership and not expecting them to maintain that same level of Eyecatchers upon gaining membership.

And given that the Eyecatchers are only given out by Senior Admin's, it's a bit subjective as to who gets the Eyecatchers and thus the full membership. It all falls down to the decision of one or two people, whom are the Admins.

Any other thoughts or opinions?

I agree with you, I thinks 0.65 is a bit too low.

Emanuel

Looking at this I think it's a bit low. What I would like to know is what makes an "Eye-catcher" I am far from being a Full Member but I would just like to know

Jarod

Jarod, I am a full member and even I'm not really sure what makes an eyecatcher! I guess in essence it's something different that stands out, I think the difficulty a lot of people have is that's a bit vague but the problem is there's no real way of making it any less vague. Certain elements of photography are unequivocal and opinion plays no real part, like for example dust spots and overexposure, but there will always be other aspects that are largely subjective (and personally I wouldn't want it any other way - that's what makes photography so varied). From a photographer's point of view I can see how this vagueness might be a little frustrating, but as a website owner and screener myself I know there are certain things you simply can't put into words. I think the best way to approach it is don't even try figure out what you have to do to get an eyecatcher because the chances are you probably never will (it's also worth noting screeners themselves will all have slightly different ideas on what they would and wouldn't 'eyecatch'). If you don't 'try' get an eyecatcher and don't expect it then it's more enjoyable when you do. :)

Moving onto Dave's point about it being a bit harsh needing three eyecatchers to get full membership, I'm not too sure. The team here put a monumental amount of trust in full members to upload without screening and I think it's absolutely right that the full membership privileges shouldn't be easy to earn, mostly because if you're going to allow screening-free uploading you want to be absolutely certain those uploading aren't going to screw the site up! Again I think the difficulty is that the main requirement to gain full membership is based on rather a vague principle but I can't realistically see any other way of doing it. It just isn't possible to make a definitive list of the criteria needed to get an eyecatcher in the same way as it isn't possible for a photographer to write a definitive list of what would make their perfect photo; it's too wide and there are too many variables (although I know all Dave needs is sunshine and he's happy :P). I do entirely agree a 0.65 acceptance seems low though, as Dave says I'd have expected it to be more like 0.90+, although perhaps the relative ease of achieving 0.65 is balanced by needing 3 eyecatchers.

I've had my fair share of being frustrated by certain elements of how this site works but in time I've come to really appreciate it, and overall to be honest I think the requirements for full membership are reasonably fair. If an idiot like me can meet those requirements then anyone can!

I'll have to disagree with you Paul regarding the eyecatcher photos. Especially if they have to be obtained over a three month period.

I fail to see the point of asking a photographer to achieve three eyecatcher photographs within three months in order to gain full membership and then allowing the photographer screening free uploads without ever having to produce another eyecatcher photograph again.

And whats the difference between achieving 3 eyecatcher pictures over the period of a year, and achieving 3 eyecatchers within a three month period and then not achieving anymore there after?

The site wants photographers to upload images which will attract views and ratings for the site, however eyecatcher photographs do not always guarentee top ratings and viewings. For example, three out of my four top rated images are not even eyecatchers. Likewise regarding my most viewed images.

Why not reward photographers with a high enough average rating.

What do you suggest as an alternative, Dave?

if you browse through Full Member photos, you will see that they gain eyecatchers even after getting Full Membership, so I see no point here in your opinion

Seems some photographers get some eyecatchers through their photoshop and manipulation skills and not just by using the camera, thats ok if your a photo shop wizard, some people are blessed with fantastic locations and that helps towards getting an EC aswell, but not all people have these skills or locations to hand and simply have to wait fo the right moment for that one off shot to get an eye catcher. Gotta be tough to get one if you have none of these factors going for you :-)

I hear you Dave, it could be hard to get to full member status with these criteria. Darryl makes a good point, that if you don't have the location, you may not get an EC. I haven't made up my mind exactly yet actually on this topic. I have thought about this briefly off an on during the day. On one hand, I can say...maybe it is unduly hard to get to Full Member status. That perhaps thought should be given to having two avenues to reach Full Member status. One, the way it is, and two something along the lines of Rating and Acceptance ratio. But here's the deal, nothing is ever going to be perfect. Ratings, are VERY subjective, and I tend to only click on the best thumbnails, so normally I give out all 5's. Also, Acceptance Ratio is not actually a great goal to have. Meaning, on another site, my acceptance ratio fluctuates between 50%-65%, and sometimes around 40%. If I was overly concerned by getting to a 90% acceptance rate, I would only shoot, edit and upload easy shots, without any degree of difficulty, so that I can be assured they would get accepted. That only hurts the site, and your photography development. Since I don't care about acceptance ratio, I go out and try stuff that may or may not have a chance to make it, without worrying about it.

I would lean for keeping it the way it is, and making sure that site management understands to look at all different types of aviation photography and locations, and keeps an "eye" out for photos from a variety of genres. I think they do this now, but it is a good reminder I guess. As it is, screening is only a couple of days if you haven't reached full member status, so it's really not going to hurt to bad for now.

As it stands, it's a nice goal, and goals can only help everyone's photography.

A fairer way for FM in my opinion is a higher acceptance rate of say 75% or more over a longer period of say 6 months, this makes it more achievable and improves someones self screening, Photoshopping and making an EC, doesnt make you a better photographer and wont improve the quality of your images you upload, for instance you maybe a PS wizard and submit 3 EC`s over a 3 month period and make the grade but only just make the acceptance rate but this also makes you have a greater chance of uploading an image which isnt great in quality once you have made the grade, its just a thought

Firstly, I'd like to point out I never ment to offend any Full Members by claiming current members do not maintain the three eye catchers every three months, it was just poor wording on my behalf, so I apologise for my choice of words there.

Why 3 eyecatchers over a 3 month period. Why not 6 months, 12 months, 2 years.. etc Why specificially over a 3 month period?

The whole point of this site is to attract viewers, and to ensure the photos that are uploaded 'screening free' attract views and ratings, of course there should be strict guidelines. Hence the reasons for tough guidelines for obtaining Full Membership.

However the current system does not fully work in my eyes. There are photographers on the site uploading high quality interesting images which attract both views and ratings, etc, which is what the site wants. However as they didn't 'tickle the fancy' of the head screeners, they were not tagged as an Eyecatcher, which excludes the photographers from Full Membership. Is that not a slap in the face to the photographers who upload to the site, attract the views and ratings, maintain a decent acceptance rate yet are still told they're not good enough for the site membership, purely because either of the head screeners didn't like the image enough to be an eyecatcher. :/

Along with those that have already done so (Cheers Paul, Darryl and Ronald) I should probably share my opinions of other alternates to basing Full Membership upon Eyecatchers.

Perhaps an acceptance ratio of 0.8 and perhaps averaged over 6 months as Darryl suggested above, just to ensure the photographer is capable enough to maintain a good acceptance rate upon gaining Full membership.

Retaining the 5,000 photograph views over 3 months, or maybe 10,000 views over 6 months, just to tie in with the above.

Maybe also factoring in average views per photo, obtaining on average around 4.7 instead of the Eyecatcher requirement.

The above suggestions in my eyes still ensures that photographers are selective with their uploads, uploading only photographs that will benefit the site which attract views and ratings, etc.

I'm just tossing ideas around, although I should be clear, I just do not agree with the current Eyecatcher rule as it stands, although not that it'll match much whether I agree or not with it. :/

I thought some background regarding why we even have this qualifying criteria might be of interest.

Right from it's inception the desire was for A-P to be a site with no screening so initially we contacted photographers who had impressed in other places and invited them to join. Some did, some didn't. There were issues with quality so screening had to be introduced. The existing Full Members and screeners then elected new Full Members based on the uploads they had submitted to the site and the screeners perception of their performance in screening. This worked to a certain extent but was not very scientific. As the site grew and new servers were purchased to allow bigger images to be uploaded and to give space for futher development, it became clear that action would have to be taken to maintain the quality of images uploaded. After a lot of discussion and trial and error the current qualifying criteria were decided upon.

Getting back to the topic in hand, remember these are "qualifying" criteria. Also bear in mind that we aspire to "Creative Aviation Photography" although at the when the qualifying requirements were devised we used the phrase "thinking different". For that reason we needed evidence that potential Full Members were able to upload images that fit into the website ethos so eyecatchers had to be taken into account. Because we encourage photgraphers to take risks and try things that might not get accepted we recognised that a higher percentage of rejections was possible so the acceptance rate is a bit lower than might be expected.

Whilst this might not actually answer any of the points raised earlier, hopefully you can now see where we are coming from. I'd just like to add that there are lots of photographers here that regularly upload good quality "standard" images but who are unlikely to achieve Full Membership. As has been already discussed what makes an eyecatcher is subjective but you can increase your chances by getting away from the side of the taxiway, looking for unique angles and getting up early or staying out late!

Dave, fistly thank you for opening this topic, Full Membership is the main 'selling point' for the site so it should be set up well.

I agree the system is not perfect, but it is probably the best we can put together. Before we introduced the criteria for Full Membership we tested different parameters for few months and came up with figures that i) are feasible for photographers and ii) will ensure the quality of Full Member's uploads in future. I admint that since then AP has grown one or two criteria may be out of date.

FM criteria in detail:

1) Screening acceptance ratio above 0.65 over last 3 months - The logic we used to develop this rule was the same as Ronald mentioned above. We could set it much higher, but we would probably force people to play safe, which is actually opposite to what AP ethos is about.

2) At least 5000 photo views of photos uploaded over last 3 months - I agree, this figure seems quite low and does not reflect AP growth.

3) At least 3 Eyecatchers photos over last 3 months. Eyecatchers is Senior Admins' selection of the very best photos. - This is the key point. Ability to produce Eyecatchers is the main 'skill' that should keep up the photographic quality of the whole website.

The 3 months period over which the statistics are calculated seems too short and it forces you to push harder as far as Eyecatchers and number of views are concerned, but it also helps you when you want to get rid of unfavourable screening acceptance ratio and improve it.

Using the average rating is a very tempting way to assess the quality of photographer as the logic says that better ratings mean more popular photos. The reality is different - most of the ratings are fives anyway and anything that has average of less than 5.0 is suspicious. I do not complain about how the rating system is used, as it still produces quality data to rank most popular photos, but an average is too uncertain to be relied upon. Imagine that if anybody rated all your photos with one-star rating your chance of becoming a Full Member would be gone.

We can also use current data to learn whether the criteria are reasonable. At the moment there are 18 photographers that are more or less 'close' to becoming a Full Member. 4 of them are still waiting to reach the screening acceptance ratio, 5 do not yet have enough photo views and all of them have less than three Eyecatchers. Regarding the screening acceptance ratio only few are above 0.8.

To conclude my post I think it would be reasonable to adjust the criteria as follows to reflect the growth of AP without doing much harm to photographers:

- Increase the screening acceptance ratio limit to 0.70

- Increase the minimum required number of photo views to 10 000

Does that sound reasonable?

This post has been edited by Martin Krupka on 31st January 2012 - 21:55

Sounds Good to me

Thanks for the replies guys, it's nice that the site creators can listen and take on board whats said. It's refreshing or an aviation site.

That said, I still disagree regarding the harshness of requiring Eyecatchers within a short space of time and two recent photos uploaded to the site in my opinion lament my point.

There are two photographs uploaded to the site of Singapore Airlines, Airbus A380, 9V-SKN, departing from Zurich during humid conditions, both photographs uploaded are fantastic, and almost identical. However only one was tagged as an Eyecatcher, which is fine as a reward for being uploaded first, but when it comes to meeting the Full Memberhsip criterea, in my eyes it's not exactly fair to the other photographer who didn't get an Eyecatcher tag (for producing literally the same stunning photograph).

I can see now that the site is not looking for photographers like me who fail to think 'outside the box', nether the less, I'll still be uploading my below par boring photographs as despite my disagreeing with the Full Membership, I still think it's a cracking site.

Dave, the fact that your photos do not qualify for Eyecatcher does not mean that they do not belong to AP.

As a result of this discussion the Full Membership qualification criteria will be changed on the 1st of April 2012 in the way that is proposed above.

Yes, the 3 Eyecatchers per 3 months remains unchanged. There are quite a few people that are not far from reaching the criteria.

Fyodor Borisov was promoted this week.

Is there any posibility to get a Full membership? I've achieved all required parametres:)

I will send you an email soon Artyom.

Thank You very much, Tony!

I kinda like the 2 avenues process. 70% plus 3 eyecatchers or 85% ratio for example, but to get 85% will be mostly playing safe. I know of photographers with very high ratio, some eyecatchers and a zillion page views but is not a full member because there was no stream of 3 EC in 3 months.

Like Darryl wisely said, I do not have a location nor the access to get eyecatchers. The light and pollution in Rio could not be worse for photographing airplanes and I am not in the Air Force nor can get anywhere close to an Air Force base. That makes things harder and almost hopeless.

The EC pressure factor makes you dare and create much more, but also leads to editing mistakes and there will always be subjective interpretations, specially if the location doesn't help.

At least the screening process here at APnet is quite fast and normally we have photos screened in less than 24hs (most sites take over 10 days), so I can easily wait for the photos to be screened and learn from my mistakes.

I enjoy sharing my images with the site but like many struggle with the eye catchers. Oh and my one and only eye catcher has just dropped off my stats so back to square one.

I personally feel, as im sure others do, thats there are 3 eye catchers within the images i've posted so far and am sometimes surprised that certain images gain eye catcher status.

Oh well, i'll just have to keep plugging away.

Personally I don't think composite photoshopped images should be eye catchers ,that in my opinion isn't fair on the majority of true photographers trying to get an EC the correct way. Composite photos are just huge efforts at digital manipulation and not true photography. Creative photography should be what you can do with an idea using a camera and not doing it virtually all with the help of a PC.

This post has been edited by Darryl Morrell on 19th March 2012 - 13:35

I agree 110% Darryl.

What I understand from this discussion is that I need to be less critical on my pictures and post a lot more frequently, even when it does not meet my own standards, just to meet the full membership?

Edited; numbers created the wrong message and where removed.

This post has been edited by tripleb on 21st March 2012 - 09:50

To be honest I think members are getting far to hung up on the Full Membership status. The only difference between a FM and a regular member is that their images don't get screened, on upload. They will be looked at after that, be it an hour, a day or a week later, they do get looked at and any that don't come up to scratch are be removed. They are also required to abide by the '5 images a day' rule.

The FM status is unique to this site, as far as I know, and I'm wondering if it wasn't available would it make the site any less appealing? Personally I don't think so. What other site can offer short screening times, acceptance of images other than those that are centred and friendly staff :)

May I start off by saying thank you to all staff who run this Website on a voluntary basis. Your task is a noble one worthy of much gratitude!

I have been a member for only a month now and have 15 photos on the database. However, I have found AP a good few steps above the rest in terms of picture quality, what is accepted, and what criteria should be met before even submitting a photo for screening.

The picture acceptance criteria is tough, but this is how I found it when I joined so the 'easy' days are unknown to me. Perhaps better so! It certainly forces you to do your best when shooting out there. Much has been said about 'photoshopped' pictures and my views are in concurrence with those of Darryl Morrell, as expressed above. The camera is and should remain the tool with which you succeed or fail as regards acceptance on AP. Heavily photoshopped images should receive the same treatment as Skyshots; the one is too surreal and the other can be too bland. Remember the golden middleway.

Keep up the good work - and thank you!

Personally I think some members become Full Members far too quickly. I tend to agree with Michael, don't get too hung up on FM status.

Being a FM means that we have to set examples and we do get asked to remove sub-standard images from the db should we post any.

Don't let the desire of becoming a FM spoil your enjoyment of taking pictures.

@Tripleb ... impressive statistics ..but again very few of us have the chance to fly as much with Invicta Aviation's Skyvan and make air to air shots which quite easy become eye catchers as they are rare shots.

On this one I fully agree with Wallace, and I publish my photos here firstly for my enjoyment and not to become a FM.

@ RCijntje: I reread my post and it might transfer indeed the wrong message. I am not advocating to have criteria lowered.

I am aware that I am in a fortunate position as member of the Aviation Photocrew, that is why I publish my pictures so that everybody can enjoy them, , but it also means I ow it to those people to set high criteria to myself and that migh tindeed mean that I do not post enough to meet the 3 month timeframe.

I rather have nice statistics and not be FM, than become FM with shots that I like less myself.

It means people like seeing my pictures as much as I enjoy taking them.

I do not mind waiting 1-2 days for my pictures to get screened, I know that the screeners are experienced photographers and that their feedback will provide me the chance to get better.

So a rejection for me is a learning opportunity not something negative.

So the point I was trying to make is that having FM acceptance criteria based only on statistics might create the wrong behavior from photographers, leading to more rejections, and as a result even more disappointment of not meeting criteria.

On the other hand it also provides a clear measurement and should avoid discussions.

I am sure that the staff has evaluated the options, and have chosen a system is the most workable. It is not easy to find the right balance.

P.S.: Air to Air shots do not create an eye-catcher nor are accepted by default;)

I appreciate your comment Tripleb. Having lived in Belgium over the last 4 years I am well informed of the work of the aviation photocrew. I do hope you will agree with me that chances of having an 'eyecatcher' with Air to Air shots are much bigger than a side on image over the beach @ TNCM if I check the selection of 'eye catchers'. I do think that the confusion with the 'eye catcher' is in the name .... I actually look at it as a screeners/editors choice as other sites call it. To me that gives more the indication to what it exactly is which is a choice by an editor/screener based on his individual perception which does not have anything to do with the way the photo is received and or appreciated by other viewers and/or photographers. To me every photo published is an eye catcher but not necessarily an extra ordinary photo. I do understand the need for this site to distinguish itself from others and I think that the name 'eye catcher' was introduced in that context.

fully agree indeed.

Also as other posters stated contributors on A-P.net, should not be to much hang-up on the Full Member status. The only advantage it has is that your picture is published without initial screening.

Hmmm......very interesting discussion here. I am a member here for just one day and will not be uploading large numbers of images, choosing instead to upload my more interesting shots here rather than pure 'database fillers' ! The images I intend to upload would very possibly be rejected at another site that I upload to and am a screener with because they don't seem to be so artistically minded. I can't be that bad a photographer though with over 4,000 images on that site and an acceptance ratio in excess of 95% !!

It remains to be seen what will happen here but the one feature I was certainly not expecting was screening free uploads once one has become a full member !! I can only imagine the uproar if that was to be suggested at that site !!!!

Looking forward to a pleasant interaction here.

... but think of the reduction in screener workloads?

One could say why not give the users of that database something to aspire to, this is one of the things that makes AP different from all the rest.

You can find that some Members become Full Members very quickly a small number of good images will tick all the boxes for Full Membership.

As for database fillers, ours is a new db and there are still a lot of gaps still to be filled, one that surprised me was the total lack of Norwegian Hercules pictures, so fill away.

Brian, welcome to Airplane Pictures family. Here is definetly the place for the creative photos, different things, unimaginable things for the regular database sites. Good Luck on achieveing FM. =D

Well, i need to say something about this as I am reading this since I started uploading a month ago.. Full Membership, what does that mean anyway? I am not uploading here to become a full member.. Hell no! Why would I want that? Everyone seems to be aiming for one thing only and that is getting an Eyecatcher. I see loads of pictures that are worth 10 Eyecatchers and they don't get the EC status, so the system really does not work. Or does it?

It's a matter of taste.. I see non Eyecatcher shots getting a few hundred more views than the chosen EC that day or period. What does that mean?

Out of curiosity I checked certain EC's and I agree with the fact that a lot of people got EC status too quickly, it's just that simple...

Upload here for your own pleasure, get some exposure and forget about the full membership status, it doesn't mean anything or gives any credit. A certain member became Full member in a few weeks and now he's nowhere to be seen. It's like a contest, get Full membership and carry on elsewhere.. I can't imagine having a good time here when I only want to get EC..

So, upload if you feel like it, share you stuff with others and enjoy the pics.. The rest is not important...:)

Regards

Hi,

Maybe I'm probably out of the picture so I have a question. The full membership is permanent or the possibility of loss? There is also a variant to gain full membership, and then no longer have the EC. It must be new EC to maintain a full membership? Or has obtained full membership is permanent?

Thank you and greet!

This post has been edited by Zdenek Adamec on 23rd April 2012 - 23:01

Somebody here mentioned an eyecatcher as being akin to the screeners choice/photographers choice on other sites. You need 3 here in a 3 month period to gain Full Member status if I read it correctly ?

On one of the other sites that I screen for it's called Screeners Choice. I screen maybe 2,000 - 3,000 images per month there. Out of that number I might give one...maybe two screeners choice votes. On one or two occasions I have given that accolade to a photographer who just happened to get it right for once out of an otherwise rather poor average quality and low acceptance rate.

Then I move on to my own statistics. 4,000+ images in their database, >95% acceptance rate......but I've never had a screeners choice !!

Why ?

Simple reason, the images are all well processed but none of them had an Eyecatcher WOW factor.

None of that bothers me in the slightest and if all I ever get here is the right to upload a maximum 5 images per day then so be it. I upload for two reasons. One...for my pleasure and Two...for the pleasure of the viewers. Selling the occasional picture is a bonus.

What I'm trying to say is that this site has it's own rules for how an FM is granted. That's it. Full stop. Them's the rules. Like them or leave. For God's sake....it's a HOBBY ! ..... not life threatening !

( PS> while I'm here...is there any problem naming other sites in these forums within the context of the post ? )

Sir Brian Whitelegg.

I look forward to your photos.

Welcome to AP among enthusiasts of flying machines.

best greetings

Zdenek

Thanks for the welcome. "Sir" Brian Whitelegg.....Blimey, I thought I'd been promoted for a moment there !!!

Then I realised that it was a language understanding issue...so it looks like I won't be meeting Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in the near future ! :-)

Dear Brian,

really the "Sir" is about a comic approach. In my "perfect" English, I did not realize this. Now I know it would be preferable Mr.. Who knows how it will in the future with the "Sir". :-) Life brings different surprises;-)

Brian,

Sorry (for omitting mr or sir ...) just a correction .. the comparison of the eyecatcher was made with a screener / editor choice ... the photographers choice would be the famous star rating which was rightfully put in place by the designers / owners of this site in all their wisdom.

I'm not knocking the presence of the star rating at all, please don't think that. It's just that it's a shame that some people use it as a perceived "weapon" !!

By the way, just in case someone asks, the medals in my avatar image are not military ones, they are ambulance service.One for 30 years undetected crime....(er !!... good conduct and long service ) and one for the Queens Jubilee.

Points on your medals well taken Sir !

I have reached the FM requirements a week ago.

Does any one knows how it work to become FM now? Do the admins contact you?

Yes one of the senior admins will contact you in due course. Can't give you a time as some are on holiday etc.

The FM policy should be changed, as it makes easier to new top-notch photographers to become FM, as they arrive uploading their best photos and easily get the ratio and 3 eyecatchers. But, for photographers still learning and loyal to the site, it gets much harder.

I don't agree fully with a high acceptance ratio (over 0.75) as some screeners believe they are on Airliners, worried more about quality than with the photo itself. At least we don't get rejections for wrong categories like JetPhotos.

I feel it's important for FM to keep having eyecatchers, but some FM doesn't even upload anymore! I became aware of this fact once I decided to look the photos of one of these quality-freak screener/FM. 3 photos uploaded in 2 years!! Seriously, should this person be a screener, let a alone a full member?

To complicate things more, sometimes we stay 2 weeks with no new eyecatcher at all. Let's be honest: It's extremely subjective and the one(s) that have they eye caught won't be seeing 3 pages of Top photos of the week looking for them. So I don't agree that FM must keep eyecatcher ratio.

I'd suggest the following requirements for FM:

3 EC in 6 months or 5 EC in a year;

Acceptance Ratio: 0.75;

5000 visits in 3 months or 10000 along the year;

FM status valid for a year, renewed for another year once member get at least 3 EC *or* 25k visits after becoming FM.

(I found it necessary to correct a spelling mistake that may have caused offence - Wallace.)

This post has been edited by Wallace Shackleton on 28th October 2012 - 17:33

I unfortunately have to agree with the last comment; I have been here for more than 4 years and managed to upload some pictures ... that was when the screeners were patient, were taking their time to comment and to provide advises and especially when they took the time to check correctly the pictures ... this is no more true, unfortunately.

Achieving the FM status is for a few something easy as they are pilots, member of some privileged associations, have access to special zones etc ... this is the choice made by the site to give priority to those ones and to authorize them to upload what they want, without any control ... this is the rule and we have to accept it or to leave.

There is no perfect rule ... of course if it had been 6 months or even 4 instead of 3 I would have gained access to the club last year but ...

Once again, this is my point of view.

Sam.

I've reached all required parametres of FM. What is next step?

Szabo - check 3-4 replies up. Someone will contact you soon..