Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 960 posts, RR: 35 Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1230 times:
So if Derek was to appeal would the head screeners know if the 'tail' category applies to Mil jets or not? There certainly seems to be some uncertainty with the screeners. It would be nice to have some clarity on the subject.
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
DerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1219 times:
To be honest there should be no uncertainty. It says airliners only. I had a A-26 nose close-up rejected for category a few months ago as I had selected NOSE and was told in the rejcetion e-mail that this was for airliners only. No uncertainty there.
If as Clickhappy says there are photos with NOSE or TAIL selected that are non-airliners then those should have been rejected as mine was.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1203 times:
I am sure that you are right. The help menu does say airliners only but I am equally sure that there are plenty on the database that are not airliners. I have probably accepted them myself too - few complain about wrong acceptances, only wrong rejections !
I have forwarded this thread to editors and screeners for some discussion and a definitive answer.
DerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1146 times:
Well, I appealed the photo and big surprise it has been rejected for something else. INFO this time - no clues, no personal message, nothing, so I don't know what is wrong. Why was it not rejected for INFO the first time???
And I still don't know if it should be TAIL or not.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1132 times:
With appalling timing, I have an answer to the tails business.
It was not straightforward and the opinions of Editors and Screeners had to be sought, with the final say going to the Editors.
There was however total unanimity in the end and the help texts will shortly be changed to remove reference to airliners ie any tails or noses will now be accepted in those categories.
As to appeals, we screeners get to see all of them and, yes, quite a few are accepted.
Without seeing the information for your shot, I have no idea what might be wrong.
DerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1129 times:
So my photo was rejected for a rule that hadn't been changed yet? Hmm.
It was the head screener who rejected it for INFO on appeal. It wouldn't hurt to help a little bit would it?
As it was appealed the photo does not appear in my rejected photos list anymore ( bit of a drop-off there I feel).
As far as I can recall I did not put any serial numbers in the field as I couldn't be certain which aircraft it was. The aircraft had no "Thunderbird" number on it. I may have put F-16C rather than F-16D (not that you can tell from the photo). I guess it will remain one of life's mysteries.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1126 times:
The rejection would have been for category if the tail had been wrong and the Heads are well aware of the discussions and are not so unreasonable as to reject for that when they aware of this thread.
In view of what you have just said about not knowing which example it was, can I hazard a guess (and that is all it is) that you left the serial blank when it should have been **-**** (the first two digits are probably known actually)
It is a bit of a flaw in the system that an appealed photo disappears completely. I can't remember what I put myself now so I am in danger of repeating the mistake (should I bother to reupload - I probably won't)