TZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 57 Posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15193 times:
All
Please could I urge you to ALWAYS try to complete the "construction number" field when uploading in future?
I you use the "I Fell Lucky!" button (which everybody should, and may soon become mandatory), then you will be presented with an option of construction numbers to choose from.
If you don't know the number, then please may I ask that you spend a moment visiting the excellent (and regularly updated) http://www.airlinerlist.com ?
Always list Boeing and McD construction numbers in full (eg 26310/2680).
The information may be irrelevant or superfluous to you, but it is extremely valuable information for the airliners.net database. It takes only 10-20 seconds to look the information up each time, so it's not too onerous.
If you do not complete the info, then one of two things will happen:
1. We (the screeners) have to look the information up for you. Not only is that tedious for us, but it also means the screening slows down to a crawling pace.
2. Your photos are accepted without complete info, compromising the completeness of our database. Our correction editors will then have to spend countless hours adding the information in.
So, please, please spend a few seconds per upload to get the information entered.
Thanks very much!
Tamsin
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
1 Timdegroot: Thanks Tamsin! Indeed, lack of c/n is no reason for rejection but it adds to the completeness of the database. What is a reason for rejection is lack
2 EGGD: No thanks, I like to give people things to do. In return, you reject my photos
3 Granite: Hi all Even have a pre-check on Airliners to see if the same aircraft has been uploaded already. Me.........I don't care for construction numbers at a
4 QF747: During my early days of uploading I was one of the people who use to do 747-4... or 767-2... However, in recent times I believe that using the "I Feel
5 Bronko: QF: Do remember there are many photographers on here who primarily shoot at Boeing Field, or Toulouse. As such, data such as the full (737-QYZ) type a
6 TZ: Bronko: We do, of course, consider the availability of the full-version information before rejecting for badinfo. For example, I screened the new "Air
7 Mirage: I agree but I have a request too: Is it possible to auto fill the CN field when we press the "I feel lucky" button? Luis
8 Mia777: Another request....Could a link to the photos currently in the database of the same registration be added to the page after the "I feel lucky" button
9 Paulianer: I already do this to all my uploads Tobi
10 Sleekjet: I use google at lot when getting data on an a/c by simply entering the reg number. But that leads to a question: is the "Serial Number" that they list
11 Bronko: Mia77: That is a great idea, something I would find very useful. I will usually do a search for the aircraft after the autocomplete fills in the data,
12 Karlok: I always try to fill in all fields when uploading a photo. But sometimes I discovered when I press the "I feel lucky" button now c/n is available whil
13 Bronko: I have been browsing through the spreadsheets at http://airlinerlist.com, that site provides a tremendous amount of information. Thanks for pointing i
14 Jakbar: I just visited airlinerlist.com for the first time after Tamsin suggested it....and it is a terrific source of information! It took me about 1 minute
15 Lindy field: As a corrections editor, I would like to second Tamsin's request that you supply complete c/n info when you upload photos. If you have been unable to
16 Patroni: @ Tamsin: I screened the new "AirBridgeCargo (Volga-Dnepr) Boeing 747-2..." this morning, and I was unable to identify exactly what the version should
17 707cmf: As much as I personnally have no use whatsoever for the C/n, I make a point of honour filling it. However, as Karlok said, sometimes, the "I feel luck
18 Jaspike: It's great when photographers submit loads of corrections for things like the cn, each single entry improves the quality of the database and makes you
RG828 From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 580 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14778 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I always enjoyed filling in the extra data, its educating and fascinating to find out the history of a particular aircraft. I do it for sheer pleasure actually, and Airlinerlist.com has always been a permanent fixture in my favourites list.
sometimes I get stuck though, take this one for example:
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 54 Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 14753 times:
Cpn360 From Belgium, joined Mar 2004, 200 posts, RR: 59 Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 14700 times:
Hi all,
Just updated all my photo's in the database.
With www.airlinerlist.com and www.scramble.nl as mentioned above, you will find back all info needed for 99% of the aircraft.
But be aware when blindly taking over info that already exists in the DB: I discovered a lot of errors on CN, ln and aircraft versions...
What I suggest when uploading/updating, is that you check out other photo's and see most of them have for example the same CN/ln and if this is not the case, you can and must refer to airlinerslist/scramble.
Just my input of working...
Serge
[Edited 2004-04-25 10:12:36]
[Edited 2004-04-25 10:13:46]
There is more in life then Airliners.net... Belgae Gallorum Fortissimi
Bronko From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 804 posts, RR: 15 Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 14647 times:
"What I suggest when uploading/updating, is that you check out other photo's and see most of them have for example the same CN/ln and if this is not the case, you can and must refer to airlinerslist/scramble.
Just my input of working..."
That is why several are asking for a link to other photos of the same aircraft on the upload page, after you enter the registration number. Would be helpful, as many people do this to cross check data.
FemaleFan From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 82 posts, RR: 15 Reply 25, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 14623 times:
Another great site that provides lots of information is http://www.aerotransport.org!
It's better to subscribe for 35€/year, but it works for free too, but limited.
Olympus69 From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, RR: 10 Reply 26, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14465 times:
I have to confess that I have been very casual about entering the c/n - usually not doing it. I promise to do better in the future. I use an Excel spreadsheet to keep track of my photos so it will just mean adding an extra column so that I have the information in front of me when I upload.
Benyhone From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 206 posts, RR: 4 Reply 27, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 14462 times:
A few of my favorites:
Civil
* RZJets - http://www.rzjets.net ... This is quickly becoming an online JP Airline Fleets. Loads of records added daily, and any user can make their own updates. Not limited to airliner types, either.
Kereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 52 Reply 28, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 14422 times:
Thanks Tamsin for bringing this up.
I spend a fair percentage of my time filling out this info and you would be surprised at the number of regulars that miss it out. It has been known that some screeners even leave them out? It is alright I have mended my ways and now meticulously search and find wherever possible.
When using Google and the type is known like Boeing then I type Boeing and then the reg and a better refined search is the result. Same goes for Airbus or McDonnell Douglas.
If a photo is rejected for another reason and the cn is missing too I always tick the badinfo as well for the photog to add when they remedy the fault and reupload with ALL the details.
Aviator100 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2000, 243 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 14306 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Paulc,
Why is it that you make a connection between the category "private" and not filling in construction numbers? Those are totally unrelated to each other.
It is indeed still possible to use the "Private" category on the upload page as long as it's not removed, but your selection will surely be changed at some later moment by a database editor to "Untitled" (in case no titles are visible). The term "Private" is incorrect, because an aircraft without titles is not necessarily a private aircraft.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 275 posts, RR: 19 Reply 34, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 14298 times:
The term "Private" is incorrect, because an aircraft without titles is not necessarily a private aircraft
I think this is exactly Paul's point - he want's to use "private" when he is uploading what he knows to be a private aircraft and thus distinguish these from a range of other possible "untitled" candidates.
Paulc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14272 times:
Well said Colin.
Ad,
the vast majority of light aircraft I upload are private, just because they do not have titles does not mean they are not private. Owner info is available on various web sites but are you suggesting that is included on the upload page.
Executive jet owners can get very touchy when information is published.
My definition of a 'private' aircraft is one which is not operated by a recognised airline hence its use for GA/Warbirds/Executive jets.
At the time this was changed several photographers did query the decision but were ignored.
As for the c/n issue - it is/was a protest at having the private category removed - reinstate it (or at least allow private to be selected under 'others') and normal service will be resumed.
You now have a situation where untitled covers a vast range of aircraft making any searches far more difficult. How would you classify the all white / untitled 747 that operates for EL-AL - by your rules it should be untitled.
Lindy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 36, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 14257 times:
Hi All,
Yesterday I corrected around 200 pictures, big chunk of those pictures had wrong customer number (or no customer number at all),and wrong aircraft version. I have no idea how it is possible to upload picture of Boeing 737-500 and then add customer number with different aircraft version. I think that most of the poeple still don't use "I feel lucky" button.
Sample:
Fieldname Photo id XXXXXX ( 0 )
aircraft Boeing 737-5...
aircraft_generic Boeing 737-300
or
Photo id XXXXXX ( 0 )
Boeing 737-76Q
Boeing 737-800 (BBJ2/C-40)
My point is, that if photographer doesn't have extra 30 seconds to find out what is the correct version of the aircraft he took picture of, then why screeners should accept his picture? In my opinion it should be rejected as badinfo. This thing is common not only with new photographers but also with people that are uploading to this site for a long time. And judging by the names of those photographers, screeners don't check their pictures throughly as they do with new photographers. Because he is one of the top photographers on this site he gets minumum screening. And I'm not making this up (I wont meantion any names because I don't want to blame anyone, I would like all photographers to selfscreen their pictures twice before uploading them here).
Another thing with the construction number is that some photographers still create their own format for entering the data. Here is few samples from just ONE photographer. This is how he enters the data:
Cathay112 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 37, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14204 times:
Some people can't even manage to use this website correctly - the Auto Complete function obviously wasn't used for this upload. Uploading this as a Boeing 747-438/ER and it's in actual fact a 747-4H6.
Karlok From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 838 posts, RR: 5 Reply 38, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 14117 times:
Well, In my opinion the Auto Complete function needs a lot of fine tuning.
Sometimes it gives 3 to 4 aircraft models. 2 different c/n numbers and sometimes it won't and sometimes no ln is in the auto complete.
maybe we should create a kind of buffer. A screener can except reject the photo, reject the photo for baddate of incomplete data.
So, If three screeners gives the photo for ok to be added to the database, but one of the screeners marked it for data errors. The Photo should move to a hold. The photo is then not added till the corrections are made.
Paulc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14023 times:
am correcting loads of my pictures adding 'PRIVATELY OWNED' in the remarks column as getting nowhere in getting 'private' category reinstated.
ps - over 44000 a/c are now listed as untitled (over 3000 as unknow) - hate to think how many of those were 'private' before the change and are now together with genuine 'untitled' aircraft as opposed to private GA aircraft.
Please please reconsider bringing private back in some form!
Paulc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13954 times:
Have also found several where an operator has been added yet no sign of titles on the aircraft - very inconsistant and frustrating having to correct data added by others which is wrong.
Bring back the PRIVATE category asap !!!!!! and clearly state that it is to be used for 'light' aircraft only
60 corrections made today - hundreds more to follow
Delta777-XXX From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1017 posts, RR: 9 Reply 43, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13875 times:
I'm surprised that so many photographers are so supportive of filling in the CN. I think it's totally ridiculous.
If someone wants such specific information, then that individual should do the research on their own, and spare all the photographers and the screeners. Even with the "I feel lucky" button, there is still sooo much information that we must fill out. Often times, I fill everything out and forget to add a filename... which means going back and doing it all over again. Now, I have CN to worry about!
So after hours of editing, researching CNs, and uploading... a huge percentage of the pictures are rejected and all that time has gone down the drain!
Glennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 60 Reply 44, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13857 times:
Hi All,
Thanks Tasmin for starting this thread. As a screener, I know that quality is often the focus. Information is just as important.
While screening, I'll often correct small errors (i.e. As Craig pointed out, the Qantas VH-OED is a 747-4H6 not the typical 747-438).
Any other error may warrent a rejection. A missed cn is not a rejection reason, but points the finger at one being far too lazy. It doesn't take long to find a correct msn/cn.
Airports not on the normal drop down list should be found and formulated in the correct way. For that I refer all of you to: http://www.wapf.com/world
Glenn Stewart
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 580 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Mar 2004, 200 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 82 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, 
It has been known that some screeners even leave them out? It is alright I have mended my ways and now meticulously search and find wherever possible. 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2000, 243 posts, 
From France, joined Mar 2002, 4885 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 275 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
