Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"category" : A Rejection That Is Unnecssary?  
User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3078 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

I feel this is an editorial change that can be accomplished by the screeners!

Look ,if the screeners know a catergory is wrong then by default they should most likely know what the right catergory is! So why cant that "new" category get ticked by THEM? These pictures have to be thrown back in the queque and go through the screening process. The image quality hasnt changed! One more or less box has been ticked! Actually it is more work for screeners as an image that had made it into the queue and may have got some screening starts the process all over again.

If some information is blatantly fishy about the image,please send it back

Look...i have got this a few time and a lot of the times i feel it is due to some confusion. For example:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ctions/big/20051202_DSC00069a2.JPG

I selected:
"Categories: CABIN,WARBIRD"

which apparently were not good enough or wrong

The fact is I dont what else or if I should even not click any of the above.

and i did not get a hint or clue from the screener(s).

Here is my logic.. this is NOT a cockpit but a "cabin". The B-17 Cockpit is located on a higher leval. This a civilian registration but carries Military markings so it is "WARBIRD".

I wonder if they want me to tick "Window view"...but i am not really shooting thru a window.

 Confused


World Wide Aerospace Photography
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 45
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Quoting Eksath (Thread starter):
So why cant that "new" category get ticked by THEM?

First off we don't tick categories you do that on the upload. If we had to change it we have to type it in in upper case manually and that takes far too long.

Have you appealed the shot with your explanation of why you put CABIN, WARBIRD?

Regards,

Colin



Good things take Time.
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

Quoting Eksath (Thread starter):
If some information is blatantly fishy about the image,please send it back

Semi related to this...

The remarks... Some remarks for photos include BADinfo... There is one photo I took interest in helping the individual get the correct info. I emailed the photog, respectfully, letting him know of the error and I didnt recieve a reply. I emailed the db guys to notify them of this so they could fix it or remove the comment altogether and the remark is still there, no reply from them either. If you are going to make a point to reject a photo for badinfo, it should be extended to the remarks area when info is placed in that section.

With all due respect to the screeners, they probably don't know the details of the aircraft, especially military aircraft. If the shot gets in, the DB editors should take an interest in making the corrections as necessary, especially when emailed and notified of the error.

Cheers,
Chad


User currently offlineJhribar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

Quoting Eksath (Thread starter):
The image quality hasnt changed! One more or less box has been ticked! Actually it is more work for screeners as an image that had made it into the queue and may have got some screening starts the process all over again.

I think you've got a point here.
This would be a good idea.

If not possible to do so, perhaps at least a hint for what boxes should/shouldn't be ticked could be in the rejection mail.


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3018 times:

A while back, I made a suggestion that we be able to edit certain details on our own pics that are in the Q.

As we have all made mistakes in uploading before, for us to check our details before they go into screening, and make adjustments where needed, maybe more of us will suffer less rejections and waste less screening time. Given that, in the time that we have between uploading, and screening, we could find out if we have the proper categories ticked, and if not, make the change, without having to wait another week for it to be screened a second time.


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2996 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not saying that you haven't Eksath, but few people seem to actually read the "help" sections that are linked to the categories, or spend any time whatsoever in figuring out what categories need to be added to their photo.

It doesn't seem all that difficult to tick "helicopter" when you are uploading one, yet these and many other mistakes get made by regular uploaders. Just remember that the info you supply is just as important as the quality of your photo when it comes to screening!

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2933 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 5):
Just remember that the info you supply is just as important as the quality of your photo when it comes to screening!

Tim, so what if the remark has wrong info? This is misleading as well.


User currently offlineJoness0154 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

Quoting Kereru (Reply 1):
If we had to change it we have to type it in in upper case manually and that takes far too long.

Last time I typed CABIN,WARBIRD

It took me less than 2 seconds. Is it really that difficult? Come on, that is not an excuse as you are making the work tougher on you in the long run.



I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2877 times:

Quoting Joness0154 (Reply 7):
Is it really that difficult?

As difficult as it is to get right the first time.


And, they would have to do it over, and over, and over, and over.......

It's not broke, don't try to fix it.


User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2867 times:

In all fairness, it can be a little ambiguous at times when uploading.

I have a shot in the queue at the minute, which is a new reg. for the database, and was unsure as to what I should upload it as being.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/gawla2307brei1200.jpg

When asked about the airline, I've ticked 'Private', but also put 'Bagby Aviation' instead of leaving it 'Untitled', as there is small titling on the tail. Whether or not I'll get a 'NOA_Info' rejection, I don't know, but I just accept I'll have to wait and see.

Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineJoness0154 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2858 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 8):
As difficult as it is to get right the first time.

Why don't you use your infinite wonderful wisdom and tell us all the correct categories that the above mentioned photo would fit under, then?  sarcastic 



I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem
User currently offlineSoBe From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 256 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2818 times:

Is this photo from NL93012?

Mine got in under WARBIRD
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Lowing



I found this one in the dbase under CABIN,WARBIRD
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ralph Duenas - Airplanespotters



I had a wing shot rejected until it was changed to include WINDOW_VIEW. Though it was not shot through a window it is a "window view" type of shot
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Lowing



I know I haven't offered a solution just trying to give you some background.


User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2783 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Michael, Thanks for the pointers (good shots,too). Yes this is N93012.

Screeners..can you give me some help here?...is it NO to "Cabin"? and/or YES to "Window view"?.....or something else I missed?

I am assuming "Warbird" is right!



World Wide Aerospace Photography
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"Baddirty" ... But It's The Aircraft That Is Dirty posted Mon Jan 10 2005 19:53:37 by Guido
"The One That Got Away..." posted Wed Sep 11 2002 20:24:29 by NonRevKing
Info Rejection - What Is Wrong? posted Fri Sep 1 2006 08:47:12 by Singel09
Another Category Question/rejection posted Sun Aug 27 2006 17:11:58 by DYflyer
Crop Or Not To Crop....that Is The Question. posted Wed Oct 8 2003 02:22:20 by JFKTOWERFAN
I Smell A Rejection...But Is It Rare Enough? posted Sun Sep 21 2003 08:18:41 by Aaron747
To Upload Or Not To Upload - That Is The Question! posted Mon May 19 2003 22:53:25 by Manzoori
To Charge Or Not To Charge, That Is The Question. posted Mon Jan 29 2001 15:27:50 by Tappan
What Is The Meaning Of "motive" Rejection? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 09:35:44 by Walter2222
Will It Get The Dreaded "Motive" Rejection? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 07:43:59 by Cosec59