Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1667 posts, RR: 62 Posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1413 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
I find the harshest rejection to be the common one, where a photo is rejected only for the subject being over represented on the database. The level seems to be fairly arbitrary with the photographer having no way of knowing whether his image will be rejected as the 101st or 201st on the db.
As we all use the auto fill (don't we?) what I suggest is that a warning can be instigated on the auto-fill so that when a photographer tries to upload another on a common, a warning comes up with wording such as....
There are already a considerable number of photographs of this aircraft on the database. Please reconsider before submission as the risks of rejection are higher than normal. The quality and aesthetics will need to be exceptional or the photograph depicting a substantial change or incident.
I would not suggest an automatic bar, but a level set by Headscreeners as some aircraft (currently A380s perhaps) would warrant far higher levels than others. It would make all screeners aware when that level had been reached and thus assist a consistent approach to common. It might go some small way to reducing rejections and if the photographer proceeds after the warning, they can have little complaint at a subsequent rejection.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 23 hours ago) and read 1365 times:
It sounds like a good idea Mick, but the one possible problem I can think is regards motive. What would be the 150th shot of a particular BA A320 landing at LHR would likely get the 'common' rejection immediately, yet if you were sat on the jumpseat of that aircraft shooting through the cockpit window, as you came in to land on 27L, regardless of the number of the reg. already in the database, 'common' isn't likely to be applied as a rejection reason, due to the unusual motive.
Just a thought, but I imagine there is a big variation in the likelihood of getting a common rejection on the basis of motive.
Q330 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1460 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 23 hours ago) and read 1358 times:
Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 2): Just a thought, but I imagine there is a big variation in the likelihood of getting a common rejection on the basis of motive.
The motive and type of shot definitely does matter, but if this proposed feature is only a warning to give photographers the heads up then there should be no problem with getting unusual motives accepted.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2069 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 1355 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
This warning exists already under another form. When you use the auto-fill function with the registration you get a link to see all other photos of this registration (aircraft) on A.net.
Now if your shot pictures an aircraft you see to already be on A.net x times I think you should be capable of judging yourself if it's worth uploading your shot with the given quality or not (self-screening! ).
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1667 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 1338 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 4): This warning exists already under another form. When you use the auto-fill function with the registration you get a link to see all other photos of this registration (aircraft) on A.net.
I totally agree. However, it is the variable limit aspect that makes this difficult.
What I suggested serves as a warning, an indication that there have already been common rejections.
Motive is obviously relevant and the warning would not prevent the upload continuing. It would however cause a re-think by the photographer.
Paparadzi From Malaysia, joined Jan 2005, 202 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 1283 times:
I wonder if a very common registration, for example a BA 744, at an uncommon airport like KUL, which BA does not operate to at this time, but the picture is against the sky with nothing to differentiate the airport. Will it be considered common as well?
Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.