I am still wondering what for we are advised to keep our rejected photos in the profile when hardly anybody sees them!!!!! Anyways, after my comment I don't receive email answers anymore and my messaging service is till today not active. At least my rejected ladybug photo (1.5 hours, 41% voting, 213 views) received such great feedback that I still believe it's a special one ( blush :))

But this was the original idea of 1x: only the best photos to be vissible! Until march '13, only curated photos were vissible and that was the whole point and difference between 1x and 100+ other galleries. Now with private portfolios it's becoming just another googe+ or facebook, just another place to store all Your photos... Different thing is what is mentioned in the post, that rejected photo is rejected "at this time" and could be published later. This is not true! I have an email conversation with Ralf (one of the founders) where he claims himself that this is "very unlikely to happen". So for sure there is no point to keep the photo in hopes to be published later. Anyway, I do delete my photos when rejected. I like it this way. That was original idea and I liked that idea. I guess many members feel the same. As for quick rejections, the site just claims that curation "can take up to two weeks", so I guess with new system it might have been greatly speeded up and 1-2h is possible in case of poor user voting (happens to me all the time recently :-P)

I really like the idea of a photo-sharing site being more selective, insofar as only publishing work that most people will agree is of very high quality. But it's such a shame to think there is likely to be so many more photos of equally high quality here on 1x I'll never get to see simply because only a small number have been selected by a process of curation through personal taste. While it's all very well saying “not being published doesn't mean it's a bad photo”, I think it's safe to say the broadest perception of 1x is that this site only shows the very best work submitted, which means that by default everything else falls short of the very best. I came onto 1x looking to find a wider audience for my work, and in all honesty it wouldn't bother me if your select group of curators never published my work as long as my pictures have a chance of being seen by the much larger group comprised of other members and visitors to 1x. I appreciate that 1x wishes to be seen unique – something that is perhaps not so easy now that other sites have copied this curation concept – and is far less inclined to follow the route of others, but I really think there should be a new gallery set up in which all photos that scored at least 70% and 200 votes in popularity, over the course of a few days, in the initial curation by members stage would automatically be placed into, so that others may enjoy them as well. As things are now, you have two published galleries as well as a Curator's Choice gallery, one of which seems at least a little redundant: seeing as all photos have been published on the basis of personal preference by a small select group, why is there a need then to have another gallery in which these same people get to pick their particular favourites from what they've already chosen? By adding the new galley I suggested above 1x would still remain as a curated site, and then from those that met the high standard mark the curator's could select what they consider to be the very best work for the Curator's Choice gallery.

You make it seem with this blog not to appear on the front page is no big deal. I think for photographers it is. First of all every photo published is a great photo, nobody dares to say anything else. A not published photo must have negative points, so everybody starts looking for something.. I don't know what it means to be rejected within 1.5 hours, but of course to put a photo on the side for 2 days to make it appear more professional, afterwards rejecting it, is not any better. I don't know either what "similar" means? Does it mean 2 or more photographers at the same time infront of the same building? Or two photographers booking at the same time a conservation day to make same photo at the same time of the same trained bird? I know if a photo if not published must not be a bad photo, but good photos not being published makes us feel bad. Especially when photos we really believe that they are good, and makes it sound like such photographers are only good if curators say so. Besides, who visits a portfolio when not knowing that it even exists? Everyone looks at the portfolio of published photos. Do you keep visiting a group when hardly anyone pays attention to you?

I understand why I should leave unpublished photos in the gallery, but I am very tempted to delete a few that seem to be rejected quickly. For example, I've submitted a photo to curators and noticed noticed a yellow tagline under the curation info status line that says " in curation". After checking this status line after a few hours, I noticed that it said not published. I have read that it takes 1-2 weeks for a decision to be made. When it seems that an image is rejected after a few hours, it make me think that there must be something technically wrong, issues with the image file, well below the exceptional standards of the site, and therefore no possibility of it being published. With an image being that out of place I sometimes feel the urge to delete it ( however, I still haven't deleted it). Just curious to here some of your thoughts on the issue.

Sorry, but i dont have a portfolio here. I have a list of pictures which i sent to the curators, between there are published pictures. A 'portfolio' needs more posibilities to sort and configure the presentation of my pictures.

It would be very important that the photographer could sort photos in the gallery as in the lists (except Favorites) By editing and ordering gallery pictures as the photographer prefers. Greetings.

Ok guys, I understand, but just a couple of observations: - You write "many times it just means that we already have similar photos published and we want to have a big diversity in the gallery"... Well, ok, it depends on what you mean by 'similar', but it does not sound very pleasant. For young amateurs photographers (like me) to have a photo published here is a great satisfaction. The thought that a picture is not chosen just because there is a valuation like, I don't know, 'we have accepted fifteen pictures of African wildlife in the last week, so for some days let's not accept very good pictures of African wildlife (that normally we would accept), just the astonishing ones...', well, does not sound so nice... - If a picture is not published and I believe in it and I realise that it could be improved in post, since the website does not allow to re-submit to curators a re-uploaded picture, I delete the previous version and I upload the new version as a new photo. It looks like it is the only thing to do to have a second evaluation about a modified picture, right?

... just happened to me - even nicer surprise to see it published. There are quite some photos in the "Photos -Following" gallery I liked to see but had been deleted before I had a chance to open.