Eksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1323 posts, RR: 24 Posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3135 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:
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5112 posts, RR: 49
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3112 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.
Jhribar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3090 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.
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3075 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.
TimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3053 times:
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!
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.