@whosear wrote:
@French Farmer wrote:
As they have always been, they are very, very strict about their photos. If the photo of the pump shows an infraction (missing POP, missing credit cards, etc), there must be a separate photo of each infraction. Meaning, of course, each photo must only be used once. Therefore, if a pump has several infractions, there must be a distinct photo, not used previously.
Be prepared for the editor(s) to question something and requiring another photo.
Best advice - take 2 or 3 photos of each pump and any other required photo.
IMO, the photo requirement is silly and redundant.
IOW, a PITA!
The MSC has a photo id system like the former MSC. It detects if a photo has been used before and rejects the report.
I wonder how that is determined.
For instance, some of my reports have been submitted with the warning that I have used the same photo for 2 different answers.
The first time I received the warning I went through the photos and did not find that to be so. I knew that to be so as I do as I advised - take multiple phots of the same item.
Hence, I submitted the reports without changing anything (the warning popping up again, btw).
They were accepted.
I'm guessing a Bot looks at the photos and not the metadata and issues the warning while the editor, sees the warning and reviews the photo's metadata and subsequently, sees know misuse.
What a PITA!
Edited to add: IMO, (and this applies to all shops) - if an editor finds an error in the report and sends it back for revision, they should base that error on a specific part of the published guidelines and cite it specifically and not base it on their opinion or interpretation.
Too often in BP editing, there is that and due to the distinct photo requirement, it can lead to all sorts of issues.
Although I often do not challenge an editor request, I'll do so when I find the editor using opinion rather than clearly printed requirements.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2024 04:09PM by French Farmer.