Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rejection "happy" Screeners?  
User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4385 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

hmmm....

Since we are "exhorted" to live up to the "HIGH standards" of A.net, I think it is only fair we expect the same from some screeners ( I say some because I know there is a majority of diligent ones). Pictures sit in the queue for far too long to be summarily kicked out by sloppy screening.

Here are my two recent examples. If I am wrong,please show it to me and I will humbly apologize to the ALL the screeners.

#1

REJECTION REASON: "INFO" (<-----Note the aircraft already exist in database, the squadron info is painted on side)



http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejp...in?filename=20070730_DSC01870a.jpg

my comment and reg:
"USA - Navy
Grumman E-2C-II Hawkeye "
"Galveston - Scholes Field International (GLS / KGLS)
USA - Texas, April 29, 2007 "
"165304 A52-177 AA-601 From VAW-121 'Bluetails' NAS Norfolk, VA "


#2:

REJECTION REASON: "SIZE" (<------Portrait photo is 1000pixel by 667 pixel in PS)

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejp...in?filename=20070801_M9P2515a2.jpg

"USA - Air Force
General Dynamics F-16C Fighting Falcon (401) "
"Off-Airport - Fort Lauderdale
USA - Florida, May 6, 2007 "
"87-0319 5C-580 1 The Thunderbird stack above my head. Smoke on. Power on. "


World Wide Aerospace Photography
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1672 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4379 times:

my comment and reg:
"USA - Navy
Grumman E-2C-II Hawkeye "
"Galveston - Scholes Field International (GLS / KGLS)
USA - Texas, April 29, 2007 "
"165304 A52-177 AA-601 From VAW-121 'Bluetails' NAS Norfolk, VA "

Code should be AA-600.


User currently offlineEK20 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4373 times:

The second one also has a few dirty blemishes. One in the top right hand corner and one in the bottom left. I'm not sure about the info on the first one but I would have rejected it for being too tightly cropped towords the nose.

User currently offlineOlegShv From Sweden, joined Mar 2006, 683 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4371 times:

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 1):
Code should be AA-600.

So basically, all other photos of the same aircraft have wrong info?

http://airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=165304


User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4359 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Quoting OlegShv (Reply 3):
So basically, all other photos of the same aircraft have wrong info?

http://airliners.net/search/photo.se...65304

Agreed. And I have been told before NOT to change the AUTOFILL fields.



World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4359 times:

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 1):
Code should be AA-600.



Quoting OlegShv (Reply 3):
So basically, all other photos of the same aircraft have wrong info?

Yes, they do. 601 as a code and 600 painted on the aircraft doesn't make sense.

Quoting Eksath (Reply 4):
And I have been told before NOT to change the AUTOFILL fields.

If you know better, and you see it's wrong in the autofill, then, why not change it? I do it all the time!

[Edited 2007-08-01 22:44:18]

User currently offlineEK20 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4338 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 5):
If you know better, and you see it's wrong in the autofill, then, why not change it? I do it all the time!

www.scramble.nl is the best place to check.  Smile


User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4333 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 5):
If you know better, and you see it's wrong in the autofill, then, why not change it? I do it all the time!

[Edited 2007-08-01 22:44:18]

CASE AND POINT


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Suresh A. Atapattu



Though serial shows 42-38050, she is actually 44-85718.

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=900RW

Note the info put in by the AUTOFILL fields. I changed this info on submission and had the picture rejected. I can probably find the screener email but i got a message in effect saying "not to mess with the fields".



World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1682 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4333 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

I will only comment on the Hawkeye which I rejected for info - the Code you eneterd was 601 whilst painted on the aircraft is 600.
Now, unless you know better, but that to me is simply wrong so I will accept your apologies.
If the information is wrong on other photos, I do not know as I simply screened yours not the previous X that were on the database. Information does change on aircraft and can be changed when it is evidently wrong as it was with yours !
The info rejection was valid

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineOlegShv From Sweden, joined Mar 2006, 683 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4324 times:

Quoting EK20 (Reply 6):
www.scramble.nl is the best place to check.

Thanks for the link! Recently I had tough time figuring out info for some military planes that I tried to upload.

Regards,

Oleg.


User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4320 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 8):
I will only comment on the Hawkeye which I rejected for info - the Code you eneterd was 601 whilst painted on the aircraft is 600.
Now, unless you know better, but that to me is simply wrong so I will accept your apologies.
If the information is wrong on other photos, I do not know as I simply screened yours not the previous X that were on the database. Information does change on aircraft and can be changed when it is evidently wrong as it was with yours !
The info rejection was valid

Mick Bajcar

Mick,

My apologies for being harsh but i can assure you that 1. I did not enter 601 2. I have been found at fault for previously changing auto info as stated above in my post hence I no longer mess with AUTO FILL fields. What is the current policy with all your screeners?

Suresh

[Edited 2007-08-01 23:01:48]


World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4307 times:

I don't understand the confusion.
This one is clearly 600 as yours so it also has wrong info.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rod Dermo



Idem

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Shull



There is nothing wrong as far as I can see with thos one as it clearly shows 601.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Radomir Zaric



Guess there are 2 of those HawkEye's.

Quoting Eksath (Thread starter):
REJECTION REASON: "SIZE" (<------Portrait photo is 1000pixel by 667 pixel in PS)

Isn't 1024 the minimum upload size ?



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4298 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 11):
Isn't 1024 the minimum upload size ?


1000 pixels wide is allowed as long as the ratio is maintained. My picture IS WITHIN the specs hence my post.

"We have had to reject the following photos:

The size of these photo(s) is too small or they have a very unusual
width/height ratio.
Uploaded images should be at least 1000 pixels wide and at least 667
pixels high for landscape format photos, or 1000 pixels high (the longer
side) for portrait format photos. The width/height ratio should be in the
region of 3:2 or 4:3. To read more about the required size of the images,
please go to
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#size"

[Edited 2007-08-01 23:08:24]


World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1682 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4298 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Suresh,
Let me put it like this, if you entered an Airliner that had been owned by airline A but had been sold to airline B and you had the first photograph so that airline B was not listed, would you leave it as airline A because that is what the autofill said ?
Of course not because that would clearly be wrong.
The same applies with yours as the info is wrong on the autofill (or the Code has changed)
All screeners have the same guidelines, the same policy as it has always been - the information has to be right. We do not have access to the autofill when we screen, we check the image against the information given for it. If it is wrong we usually reject. We sometimes miss incorrect information though I did not with yours.
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1317 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4273 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Mick,

In the future I will change the fields as needed. My apologies to you.

The email below is after my last episode of changing the B-17s AUTOFILL fields. Refreshing my memory the screener did not say dont mess with the fields but effectively, i read this as bging told that if you don't have any more info please don't input it. I did not have the CN number though i had the USAF serial number (which i corrected). I ended up uploading the picture with the AUTOFILL fields and GUESS WHAT, it is in the database now.   Along with all the other wrong ones.


This mail is sent to you to confirm that some or all of the photos you
recently uploaded to Airliners.Net have been through the screening
process.

This is the status of your photos that have undergone screening so far:

-----------------------------------------------------------

We have had to reject the following photos:

- DSC01791a.jpg (Untitled Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress (299P))
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...in?filename=20070512_DSC01791a.jpg

Some of the info you submitted together with these photo(s) was either
missing, incorrect, irrelevant or in the wrong format. A common reason for
this message is a missing registration or an airport name or location in
the wrong format. This problem may also be due to the info being written
in a non-English language or grossly misspelled, or to a significant
incorrect use of upper and lower case letters.
This problem is usually easy to correct, and if this was the only
rejection reason for these images, we would certainly appreciate a
re-upload with the correct information filled in. If you want to read more
about this problem, please go to
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#info

The screener(s) decided to include a personal message to you about these
photo(s). Please scroll down to read this message.

-----------------------------------------------------------

A total of 1 photos processed.

A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"Where's the CN like the others in the database? Need to be more consistant."

[Edited 2007-08-01 23:25:58]


World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9654 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4259 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting Eksath (Reply 14):
I ended up uploading the picture with the AUTOFILL fields and GUESS WHAT, it is in the database now. Along with all the other wrong ones.

Some screeners are more lenient than others, or are not as familiar with military serials, regs, codes, and the like. Future plans call for better tools to cross reference supplied info as well as screeners who know the mil stuff screening the mil stuff.

On a personal note I know I need to get tougher on info rejections, I tend to let them slide, which is why I have one of the lowest rejection rates (I can't bring myself to reject a great photo for a missing c/n, as an example) but the downside is it does create some inconsistencies.

But we need to be firm at the same time, or it wouldn't be long before all the hard work the database team puts in to go completely sideways.


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4247 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 15):
On a personal note I know I need to get tougher on info rejections, I tend to let them slide, which is why I have one of the lowest rejection rates (I can't bring myself to reject a great photo for a missing c/n, as an example) but the downside is it does create some inconsistencies.

Royal,

I personally find very disappointing (and very counter-productive for all involved) to get info rejections. I had proposed some time ago that photos with info rejections to basically be accepted but somehow be put "on ice" until the info on them is corrected. I think this will be a great improvement to the submission and acceptance processes and everyone will be happy: we won't get info rejections and you will not shed tears when rejecting a great shot for info.  Smile Maybe, you (i.e., the site) might want to look into this?

Eksath, Sorry for hijacking the thread for this!

Regards,

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2077 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4220 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting SNATH (Reply 16):
I had proposed some time ago that photos with info rejections to basically be accepted but somehow be put "on ice" until the info on them is corrected.

And who would correct it? The screeners? The database editors? I don't think it's the A.net crew's job to get OUR info right. There are enough sources on the internet to get all the data that you need and if you really don't find some required data, a short note to the screeners during uploading will most probably solve the issue.

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 11):
Isn't 1024 the minimum upload size ?

Nope! Look here: http://planecatcher.com/IGRR/Size.htm  Wink

Thierry

[Edited 2007-08-02 00:26:48]


"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4208 times:

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 17):
There are enough sources on the internet to get all the data that you need and if you really don't find some required data

 checkmark 
and if I am informed correctly the database editors have some 30.000 corrections to go Big grin

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 17):
Nope! Look here:

Yeah...Yeah...... I got the message Thierry  knockout 



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4191 times:

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 17):
And who would correct it? The screeners? The database editors? I don't think it's the A.net crew's job to get OUR info right.

The photographers themselves. Until the info is corrected, the picture will not get "unfrozen". And if it's not corrected within, say 2 weeks or whatever, the picture disappears.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11496 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4186 times:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 16):
I personally find very disappointing (and very counter-productive for all involved) to get info rejections. I had proposed some time ago that photos with info rejections to basically be accepted but somehow be put "on ice" until the info on them is corrected

I completely agree! (Although I'm getting a whole lot more color rejections than info rejections these days.) It would seem to me that info has very little to do with the quality of the photograph, which I would hope the screeners (who are photographers) would spend nearly all their effort judging.

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 17):
And who would correct it? The screeners? The database editors? I don't think it's the A.net crew's job to get OUR info right.

I thought that was why we have database editors. Is that wrong?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4169 times:

It's not unusual to change an a/c's modex. It is only AA-600 when it's designated as the CAG's (Airwing Commander's) bird. In each Navy squadron, a/c x00 is designated the CAG bird.

In May of 2003 it probably was not the CAG bird, and was correctly identified by the modex 601. Probably the Skipper's bird. Usually a/c x01.

In March 2007, probably due to the loss of the previous CAG bird either by accident, retirement, or any of many other possibilites, the a/c was designated to become the CAG bird, and repainted to become what we affectionately call "Double Nuts" in Navy Slang.

What is painted on the plane when the photo is taken is what should be reflected in the remarks.


User currently offlineLennymuir From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2002, 434 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4139 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 15):
Future plans call for better tools to cross reference supplied info as well as screeners who know the mil stuff screening the mil stuff

Wow! How many mil screeners does a.net have?
I reckon two ... (maybe more?)..... such a burden!


Good luck!

 

[Edited 2007-08-02 02:49:12]

User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2077 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4043 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting SNATH (Reply 19):
The photographers themselves. Until the info is corrected, the picture will not get "unfrozen". And if it's not corrected within, say 2 weeks or whatever, the picture disappears.

Well, if you'd be able to correct the info yourself why not get it right during uploading!?

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 17):
And who would correct it? The screeners? The database editors? I don't think it's the A.net crew's job to get OUR info right.

I thought that was why we have database editors. Is that wrong?

I hope you're just kidding here. If what you imply here became reality no uploader (or at least a very big part of them) would not care anymore about getting the correct info and the database editors would have to "clean up" after us, meaning getting right a few hundred photos per day!
As I said before, there are enough sources available to get all the necessary info; all you have to do is invest some time into it.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 21):
It is only AA-600 when it's designated as the CAG's (Airwing Commander's) bird. In each Navy squadron, a/c x00 is designated the CAG bird.

Very interesting info, Jeff! Thanks for that!  thumbsup 

Thierry

[Edited 2007-08-02 11:18:58]


"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlineTonyosborne From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 62 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4029 times:

I am intrigued how you know that Thunderbird 1 is "87-0319" seeing as the numbers on the sides of the jet are interchangable and the only way to check which jet is which at that moment is by looking in the cockpit.

But of course we screeners are 'sloppy'  Yeah sure



Intentionally Left Blank
25 Post contains images Ljungdahl : One of the reasons this problem occur, is these words on the photo upload page: "NEVER erase info added by the Auto-complete function." As said before
26 JeffM : All I've ever had to do at any airshow was ask a crew chief, they know everything about their jets and love to tell you about them. I've also seen th
27 D L X : I'm not kidding at all. Look, it doesn't take much to tell the difference between someone who made an effort, and someone who is abusing the system.
28 JohnJ : I like to think of the primary focus of this site being a database of high-quality aviation photos. A database isn't much good with inaccurate inform
29 Post contains links JohnJ : Here's another site I use a lot for military reg info: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/
30 Clickhappy : The problem with allowing bad info shots to be accepted is it rewards someone for not playing by the rules. A good example is the refinment we did to
31 Post contains images Granite : Regards Gary
32 D L X : Royal, I agree with that of course, but we both know you can tell the difference between an abuser and someone that makes an effort. That guy that li
33 Post contains images SNATH : ...because, as it's already been discussed, sometimes it's just not easy to get it right the first time. Especially in situations, like the one descr
34 Dlednicer : I posted this on May 16th and it slid off the forum with few comments. Please read it: In cleaning up the database, I have been coming across a lot of
35 113312 : While we are taking shots at the screeners, I'm going to throw a couple of bombs too. First, I have had shots rejected on the grounds that the screene
36 Clickhappy : If there are shots with window reflections they should have never been accepted. Please send an email to screeners@airliners.net If the images do hav
37 Jajo : That doesn't work very good. I have done this and never got a reply. / Jacob
38 Clickhappy : Ah. Well, that happens, too. We try to respond to everyone, but some fall through the cracks.
39 KFLLCFII : So what about the size rejection?
40 D L X : It would take some extra programming, but I think that if the photo does not meet the size requirement, there should be a warning on the confirmation
41 Post contains links Dlednicer : Begin Rant Here is an example of what gives me fits as a db editor. A picture of an Italian F-16 was submitted and accepted (I've fixed the entry alre
42 KFLLCFII : It would take some extra programming, but I think that if the photo does not meet the size requirement, there should be a warning on the confirmation
43 Eksath : yep..still not answered. However, one screener did take a pot shot on me for this registration (as JeffM correctly pointed out in how to get a reg fo
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...
Rejection For "Editing" posted Tue Feb 20 2007 00:23:03 by WERNAIR
Risk Of Rejection For "motiv"? posted Sat Dec 30 2006 16:31:53 by Viv
Rejection - "Soft" posted Sun Jun 4 2006 21:51:51 by LukasMako
Rejection "Badinfo" posted Fri May 13 2005 23:04:25 by Werner729
Motive Rejection - Any Comments From Screeners? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 15:10:40 by Acontador
Is This Asking For A "People" Rejection? posted Tue Jun 26 2007 23:25:55 by MarkusB
"Quality" Rejection Category posted Tue May 22 2007 18:53:46 by Bruce
Problem With "info Personal" Rejection! posted Fri Mar 2 2007 23:19:19 by Tycho34
Rejection And Pre-Screening Advice/"Soft"? posted Mon Dec 25 2006 16:15:06 by Flyingaway
Puzzled About "Double" Rejection posted Tue Dec 12 2006 07:00:40 by Walter2222