A346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1286 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3722 times:
I have a question though, eventually nearly every aircraft will be common and then the database will grow excrutiatingly slowly. Wouldn't it be better to have many photos of every aircraft than say "OK, that's enough"?
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
Aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7209 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3708 times:
The problem is there are very good photos and there are older scans and poorer quality photos from when the acceptance criteria wasn't as high that have deemed the aircraft too 'common.' Perhaps if some of the older ones could be reassessed on today's standards you would stand more of a chance of acceptance if your photo is up to the correct standard.
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3655 times:
No reason to freak out over this.
Two factors play a role in this situation.
2. High Quality
1. is applicable, and therefore 2. should be present as well. You fail to meet that requirement. It is dull, 3/4 rear angle, there are dustspots etc etc. The shot is not good enough for a common plane.
if they reject that for badcommon what about the endless number of BA A319s/A320s??
Those are different registrations, and therefore a lot of different planes. I cannot even remotely begin to understand why that would be a good ground for badcommon. Eh?
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1925 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3504 times:
I have a question regarding badcommon.
If there are too many photos of the same plane but if it was captured at a new location or airport, will it still be badcommon?
In other words, if the plane has lots of photos, let's say at LHR and if turns out at CDG for the first time, will it still be badcommon?
If new locations were allowed in the database for the same plane, I think it would be nice. It will show some history to where it has flown to. Researchers might benefit from it or something.
Cpn360 From Belgium, joined Mar 2004, 200 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3479 times:
Well, we have a lot of things to check on each photo.
But most important factor is the quality of the photo...
For me, the mentioned photo is/was badquality and the supplementary reason is/was badcommon.
So if you have an excellent quality shot, disregarding the location and quantity in the DB, it will get in for sure.
But location will not get priority on quality for common things unless the location is VERY very rare....
But as said, each photo is judged on a lot of factors and the combination of those will gives a result of acceptation or not.
Hoping this answers your question,
There is more in life then Airliners.net... Belgae Gallorum Fortissimi
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3454 times:
We do not have time to go through every existing photo of a subject to see whether the one just uploaded is at a new location. Besides, its the subject and image quality that matter. Once we have a representative selection of pictures of a specific subject (I'm talking registration, NOT generic type) then further uploads need to be of better than normal quality to be accepted except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. if it was shown crashed, or something like that), or if the picture is something different to what we already have (e.g. a flight deck pic of a common subject may get in if all the other pics are externals). A picture of a common subject may be rejected badcommon even if it is of an "acceptable" standard - the same quality as a subject we have less pictures of.