Tonimr From Spain, joined Jan 2001, 325 posts, RR: 20 Posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1987 times:
I don't want to start another bashing thread but...
I wonder why some contributors are so careless about the info they put while uploading their photos. I thought the new Auto complete feature will improve the situation, but even with it, there are certain individuals that keep using the fields as they want.
I'm not talking about occasional mistakes that everyone commits (myself)
Some days ago I was amazed to see that someone uploaded thirty or forty photos in a batch, and while he put every cn, he did it in the remarks field. Others simply put the generic aircraft type when there have been previous uploaders that have done it properly with the subtype for the same aircraft others rename the airline or the location to match their tastes...
I think the screeners should take a tougher line on this, or perhaps the uploading scripts should force to fill the fields in a proper way.
I know some of you would say that you don't want to "waste" your time with the info, but A.net is not simply loads of unsorted photos... And the database standardization staff time is as important as yours.
Just my humble opinion...
There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
Lindy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1962 times:
We have been asking photographers to use autocomplete for a long time.
Most of them use it, but we still get new photographers every day and they are not that familiar with the procedure.
Here is another topic regarding this issue:
Kereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1875 times:
Hmmm Would make life of a screener and data base editor a lot easier!
About half of our job is to check details for accuracy and I have at times spent quite some time filling in manuf, model and cn details. Where a photographer continually uploads with missing info we usually let them know and most of these are newbies. If a photo is rejected for some other reason and there is a missing model or cn that is readily available in the DB we mark the info reason as well and I generally include a message with the details to correct, and live in hope that the next time the photographer uploads they will include all the info or use the auto complete.
Keep in mind when uploading the more we (the crew) do for you to correct info the longer it will take to get your photos to the database. Some time spent reading and following the thread listed above will help us all immensely.
Sabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1836 times:
During the past days, there were indeed quite a lot of corrections submitted about pictures with totally wrong information due to the filename being overwritten.
Put your birthday date in front of every picture you upload or the name of your dog, but make them UNIQUE!
For the rest: I include the c/n of every correction I handle, looking up the c/n is done in 10 seconds. A pitty that there are still photographers out there that even don't look up the correct aircraft type (MD80...., B737-..., B737-2..., A330-2...).
It must be extremely frustrating for the database standardisators when they standardize for example all Concorde picturers (which is a big effort), and see after 3 weeks that the new uploaded Concorders are again full of mistakes.
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5089 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1827 times:
I agree too. People spend much time shooting these photos, editing them, and uploading them and should at least make a good effort to get all the info right. I dont just mean auto complete but some people put in the MSN but not CN or wrong format, incomplete aircraft model, etc etc.
There are many accurate places online to get this info from and its very quick.
The MSN/CN field is such a good search tool now because many planes have had numerous owners & changes of reg#.
People should take as much pride in making sure they have all the right info as they do in editing the photo to upload standards. Of course then there are those who simply work as fast as possible to batch-upload 30 or 40 at a time to get into the "top uploader" spot.....
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1797 times:
Trouble with the standard drop down lists is that we screeners don't know when a standard value has been used, and when the photographer has made something up. Take the Concordes for example. Seems to me like some of them should be BAe/Aerospaciale, some should be BAC/Aero... blah, blah or whatever. Likewise, 146s - BAe, AIR, Avro... When we screen a picture of a Concorde, we have no idea whether the photographer has picked a standardised value, or whether they've picked the right standardised value. Do we screeners check every single upload? Honestly, no. Does it look right is the crucial question, and if its a 146 BAe, AIR, Avro could all "look right". Even "London Heathrow (LHR/EGLL)" looks OK during that first quick glance when we see it whilst screening. Some are easier than others though - a common 737 which is just showing 737-3.. rather than having a customer code is obvious laziness on the part of the photographer, but mostly we just don't have time for the minute detail.
It would make things a lot easier to achieve standardisation in the screening process if our scripts showed us whether a photographer had picked from a standardised list, or just entered stuff for themselves.
As for the file names thing - we've said this until we're blue in the face, but some folks either don't read this forum or don't read the instructions. I for one have no sympathy any more for those who get rejections because they've used a common file name - they deserve the rejection, and if they get a sarcastic reply back from the screeners when they complain too, well then they they deserve that too. Some people just won't help themselves, and it reaches the point where we shouldn't have to spend time helping them either.
ExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1722 times: