Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rejected For 'Info' - Your Help Please  
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5538 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi All.

I would be grateful for any help, as I have just had that 'A.net' feeling, after coming home from a great day out.

I see that I have had the following two photos rejected for 'info'.

Photo One

Photo Two

They were uploaded using the Auto Complete function, and have exactly the same information as a previous set of 7 photos of Hawks from this trip, that all successfully passed through screening some weeks ago.

So as far as I can see I have done nothing differently, or nothing wrong. Am I missing something? They are uploaded as 'British Aerospace Hawk...' and 'UK - Air Force' and have the correct registration and c/n. They are also correctly categorised as 'Military'.

Cheers.

Paul

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4001 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5525 times:

Hi Paul,

Uploaded as 'Hawk...'?

I guess the screener reckoned it isn't difficult to find out that they're both Hawk T1A versions (according to scramble.nl).

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineJat74l From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 618 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5513 times:

I think the point here is that the previous uploads were accepted with the same info and the photographer now has a rejection for no reason apparent to himself.

When I upload I check to see the previous versions accepted and copy that info if multiple choices are available.

Frustrating.

Regards

John



I like trains just as much as planes but trains don't like the Atlantic!
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5486 times:

Maybe it was an error and the wrong rejection box was ticked. Both look like they need some CW to me.

User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5481 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks so far.

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 1):
Uploaded as 'Hawk...'?

Peter - In the absence of anything else I think you may be right. But the fact of the matter is that this is the format that the database has indicated is the 'standardised' way to upload these aircraft. As such I have not uploaded any incorrect information. It would be completely wrong to penalise an uploader for using standardised information that the site itself provides, unless it is clearly incorrect.

Ian - I used the surface of the runway/taxiway as a horizontal reference, and both these are dead straight.

Any more thoughts? I am loathed to use an appeal only to further increase my rejection rate unless I am pretty sure of my situation.

Paul


User currently offlineMalandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5458 times:

Paul,

I have a feeling that should a screener have responded to your thread, almost certainly the phrase " as a long term uploader ......" would probably have been applied.
The A.net database contains a considerable number of errors and disparity's and I always treat the auto load function with a degree of mistrust. This, by the way, is not a criticism of our undoubtedly hard working and dedicated screeners, but a reflection of how complex is the total world of aviation, resulting in problems for both screeners and uploaders. I view it indicatively rather than definitively!
A recent thread of mine related to the question as to whether one should use the manufacturers or the builders name when uploading home built kit aircraft. The official response was indeed definitive stating that the kit manufacturer took precedence, but within days another Europa appeared in the database listing the plane by it's assemblers name! Unfortunate to my mind but maybe understandable in terms of the human condition!
Maybe I have too much time on my hands, but I seldom upload an image without checking one or more of the independent references, G-INFO, Scramble, etc, particularly on occasions where the auto load function offers more than one recommendation, and certainly in such a case as yours where "Hawk ..." clearly indicates incomplete info.
I have a Bulldog in the queue just now and the only image in the database lists it as "Bulldog" but to me it is clearly a "Bulldog T.1". How do I know, well I checked it out.
My advice to you Paul is to identify the correct designation and re-upload accordingly.
As you say yourself

Quoting Psych (Reply 4):
But the fact of the matter is that this is the format that the database has indicated is the 'standardised' way to upload these aircraft.

and I note the word "indicated.
It clearly is a problem and I sympathise particularly over the question of other similar images having been accepted.

Malcolm.



My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
User currently offlineAirMalta From Malta, joined Mar 2006, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5425 times:

Very nice shots Paul
Malcolm


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5406 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Update:

I decided to appeal one of the shots, as I was still feeling rather flummoxed about what was wrong. I have just had the appeal rejected, again for 'info', but have not been left with any clarification what the problem is.

So I am none the wiser, I have an extra rejection against my name and am thinking a little lot about issues such as 'customer relations'.

Paul


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4001 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5404 times:

Quoting Psych (Reply 7):
I have just had the appeal rejected, again for 'info', but have not been left with any clarification what the problem is.

That sucks, and I don't know how aircraft designations with ... can be listed as STANDARDIZED.

However, the three dots clearly indicate that the aircraft version is unknown, and in this case, it obviously isn't.

You're better off not relying too much on the Auto Complete information.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5397 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Peter.

What really upsets me here Peter is the lack of clarification - I feel as though there is a test that I am failing and the examiner is sitting back amused at my lack of success. Maybe a bit harsh, but it would have been so easy to help me out here.

The issue for me - as someone not very familiar with military aircraft - is that the Auto Complete provides three alternatives:

British Aerospace Hawk T1
BAe Hawk T1
British Aerospace Hawk...

Now I know that the Hawk is a T1, but the only standardised version of the information above is the last one - the others have not been seen to be fit by the database editors - for whatever reason - to be considered 'standardised'. Although I agree that the Auto Complete function is not foolproof, it looks for all the world that someone properly involved with the site information has decided to standardise this information using the last category as indicated above. Given a choice, I am sure I would not be the only one feeling that it would be the 'right' thing to do in such a complex database to upload using the information indicated to be 'standardised'.

To add to this impression, previously the database had lots of Hawk photos in various versions and names, but decided to lump all the shots together under the title 'British Aerospace Hawk', without model type.

I am just sad that something like this can feel so unpleasant............

Paul


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Psych (Reply 9):
British Aerospace Hawk T1

This would have been the correct one I think, in any case this British Aerospace Hawk... is not, just like 747-4.. is not correct.

Cheers
Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5373 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 10):
This would have been the correct one I think, in any case this British Aerospace Hawk... is not

Thanks Tim - so why is this the standardised entry and the others not?

Paul


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5372 times:

Based on simple observation, it should be...

British Aerospace Hawk T.1, as it does not have the AIM 9 pylons which would make it a T.1A. The Red Arrows now fly the T.1A version which is Sidewinder capable.

As shown clearly in this photo....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alistair Bridges



The aircraft you photographed do not have them.

Quoting Psych (Reply 9):
What really upsets me here Peter is the lack of clarification

Think how the screener's feel having to reject the image when you could have properly identified the aircraft.

Quoting Psych (Reply 9):
I am just sad that something like this can feel so unpleasant............

I can't believe something like this upsets a grown man. Come on Paul, a little research on your part would have avoided the rejections.

[Edited 2006-06-11 19:43:12]

User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5347 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JeffM (Reply 12):
I can't believe something like this upsets a grown man. Come on Paul, a little research on your part would have avoided the rejections.

You make a valid point Jeff, but it does, all the same.

I had done my research, and accept it if I was in error, but the fact of the matter is that the 'correct' version of the information, as demanded by the screeners, is not deemed to be standard, according to the database editors - it is the incorrect information that has been labelled as 'standardised'. Given how things are here, it would be harsh to blame someone for going with what has been labelled 'standardised' by the crew, as this implies that the editors have actively decided that this should be the correct information. Also, the fact that the database has been changed such that all Hawk models are now in the category of 'Hawk...', irrespective of model, only further adds to this incorrect assumption.

The fact that recent uploads labelled using the exact same logic got through no problem also further tends to lull one in to a false sense of security, as this reinforces the belief that you are doing what is required of you.

But in the end your point is valid - things like this should not bother me. Too much time on A.net!

Paul


User currently offlineMarkyMc From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 30 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5333 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Paul,

Just to clarify, XX220 is a Hawk T1A, whilst XX307 is a standard T1. I always check either an online reference such as the Scramble database, or a spotters serial book such as Military Aircraft Markings, which is updated every year.

Regards
Mark


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4001 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5313 times:

Quoting MarkyMc (Reply 14):
Just to clarify, XX220 is a Hawk T1A, whilst XX307 is a standard T1.

XX307 is indeed a standard T1, sorry, my mistake.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 12):
Based on simple observation, it should be... British Aerospace Hawk T.1, as it does not have the AIM 9 pylons which would make it a T.1A.

The T1A's pylons are not neccesarily fitted I suppose.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5294 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MarkyMc (Reply 14):
Just to clarify, XX220 is a Hawk T1A, whilst XX307 is a standard T1.

Thanks for that clarification Mark, and welcome to the Forum.

Maybe you will pass on to the database editors this problem with Hawk aircraft, as most of the registrations have the 'Hawk...' as the only standardised entry - the two aircraft versions you mention above are not considered 'standardised' and I could quote many more examples for RAF aircraft.

I say again - for all the world an uploader would be forgiven for thinking that the database editors are actively looking for uploaders to use the 'British Aerospace Hawk...' aircraft version, but maybe this has not been communicated to screeners.

On a related issue, if uploaders have photos rejected when using validated database information, is this then passed back to the database editors, or will these potential errors be allowed to continue?

Paul


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5283 times:

Quoting Psych (Reply 16):
will these potential errors be allowed to continue?

Just put the proper information in in the first place Paul, you're blaming your rejection on someone else's laziness when you didn't do the research on your own image, which makes you....well.....lazy too.  Smile


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JeffM (Reply 17):
Just put the proper information in in the first place Paul, you're blaming your rejection on someone else's laziness when you didn't do the research on your own image, which makes you....well.....lazy too.

Jeff - I can't let a comment like that go - you are missing the point here again.

I was not lazy, in that I knew full well that the Hawk was a T1. My mistake was to trust the database and I allowed myself to be misled by the fact that the information I provided was the only option the database editors had seen fit to make standardised. This is not just the case with the photo(s) in question, but ALL Hawk registrations I have looked at. Thus, the database presents a list of all the versions that have been uploaded - for XX231 there are 6 possibilities - but the ONLY one marked as standardised for the purposes of uploading is 'British Aerospace Hawk...'

Though I haven't checked, my hunch is that in other areas this would not be the case - e.g. in Tim's quoted example, I would know not to upload a 747 - 436 as 7474-4.., because I bet the 747-436 aircraft version has also been deemed to be standardised.

It is wrong to trust the database - a shame, but understandable given the workload involved - but here it looks for all the world that an ACTIVE decision has been taken to encourage uploaders to use this specific information - hence why not also have the correct versions standardised. They are there. I guess the answer is time and resources, and I have sympathy with this. My mistake was to develop a coherent reasoning in my mind - relating to an attempt to pull together masses of different possibilities, some incorrect - that allowed me, yes, incorrectly, to think that I was doing the right thing. We have a name for this normal way of thinking in psychology. Those of us interested in aviation and human factors involved in incidents are very familiar with this. To then have the experience of previous uploads have been deemed acceptable only further reinforced this view.

I try not to get involved in making derogatory statements about people on a public Forum - I prefer not to have this done about me too.

Paul


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5213 times:

Quoting Psych (Reply 18):
I try not to get involved in making derogatory statements about people on a public Forum - I prefer not to have this done about me too.

Hardly derogatory Paul, just an observation. If you knew for sure what it was, then upload it as such, any thing else is a weak excuse.


User currently offlineBrianW999 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 312 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5182 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 15):
I always check either an online reference such as the Scramble database,

Afraid I have to agree. It took me less than 2 minutes to check the two reg's as being a T1A and a T1 on "scramble".


User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 975 posts, RR: 31
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5159 times:

I think one of the points Paul is trying to make is the lack of constancy. Paul may have got a rejection for slightly incorrect information which he believed had been added correctly by the auto fill. Next thing he looks at his local airport and sees an A321 added with no C/N and no version and yet there it is accepted! It took me 30 seconds to find the missing info for this aircraft, which would not of been added by the auto fill as it is a recently re-registered aircraft.

Jid.



G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4001 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5135 times:

Quoting Jid (Reply 21):
lack of constancy

Yes there is. But on one hand, it's important for the database for the information provided to be as complete and correct as possible. And on the other hand, with an upload queue of two weeks, I'm kind of glad that screeners don't check the data for each photo completely thorougly.

It's quite simple really. If you don't provide complete and correct data, you may get away with it, but you do run the risk of a rejection.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5044 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello All.

For the sake of completeness, here are the photos complete with full and correct information:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Markman
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Markman


Thanks to the screeners for not finding anything else to fault this time around  wink - I shall not be making that error again (I hope). Thanks also to everyone for your feedback with this item.

Take care.

Paul


User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2465 posts, RR: 44
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4990 times:

Lovely shots Paul and great to see them in the DB .
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineMalandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 25, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4965 times:

I have been contacted by a fellow Anetter who has asked me to correct an error in my previous response where I listed the aircraft type for a recent upload.

He makes the point that ........

UK military aircraft uploaded to Airliners.net should not have the dot that appears between type and numerical sequence. So in your example:
Bulldog T.1 is incorrect.
Bulldog T1 is correct.

However, on examining the database I am clearly not alone as numerous examples exist among many aircraft types. The effect of this is to create a "false" variant for what is clearly the identical aircraft type.

As he points out .......

"As well as risking possible rejection, it will also have to be corrected some day by an editor, increasing their workload."

I would suggest that sceeners should consider a little less leniency in the interests of us all.

Malcolm.



My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
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...
Rejected Photo - Your Help Please! posted Sun Nov 21 2004 15:14:17 by Ianatstn
For ZRH Inhabitants - Need Your Help Please! posted Tue Jun 24 2003 17:54:28 by Spotterboy
Rejected For Bad Camera Angle, Please Help. posted Sun Jan 12 2003 07:33:38 by Alphazulu
Red Arrows/Airshow Photographs. Your Help Please. posted Tue Jul 11 2006 11:08:53 by EGTESkyGod
Rejected For Colour Any Help Pls? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 20:51:52 by AirMalta
Info Reject Help Please... posted Mon Apr 3 2006 01:50:39 by Fiveholer
Two Times Rejected For Badangle. Need Help To Fix. posted Thu Jun 30 2005 08:18:42 by AKau
Bad Info Rejection, Help Please posted Tue May 10 2005 23:24:27 by Dendrobatid
I Need Your Help, Please! posted Tue May 3 2005 08:59:16 by WILCO737
Your Help Please With RAW posted Mon Mar 28 2005 18:09:30 by Psych