"professional

Viewing 1 image every 3 seconds would be 1200 images per hour, but with the inevitable break to keep your eyes from glazing over and your mind from wondering, it's probably 1,000 per hour on a practical basis.  Somebody yesterday (Mexico?) gave some numbers that suggested more like 100 per hour, a factor of 10 difference.

Given that there is some computer/connection dependent time involved in displaying a photo and recording the result, I just don't see how viewing a photo for 3 seconds gives any real basis for screening.

There are quite obviously some photos that can be screened out very quickly.  I'd say 10% or maybe even 20% of the photos I saw last year, I wouldn't consider putting in Wikipedia, e.g. highly over-exposed, or very dark, or my pet peeve - signs - "This way to the Statue of Liberty". These can be screened out quickly, but others will take some time.  I'd also say that about 20% of the photos in the US last year were quite good, maybe even "approaching professional quality." Running by these in 3 seconds or less, it would be impossible to do a quality job of screening.  Maybe you could identify a certain type of lighting, or an obvious wow factor on many, but I'd think that at least half of deserving photos would be left behind.

For those countries with more than 10,000 photos to screen the difference is huge.  10 hours of screening (should be pretty easy to handle) vs. 100 hours (a real organizing challenge and time commitment).

BTW, I don't think the jury tool has been designed to process over 10,000 photos.

Pete

User:Smallbones