JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3928 times:
Well let me say neither caption was intended to get more hits - and even if they were, where's the 'cheating' in enticing people to open your image? It's not like you're forcing them or abusing the system in order to up views.
Because I shot the whole aircraft and didn't particularly highlight the waving co-pilot I thought I'd point it out as to me it doesn't seem that obvious, especially from a thumbnail. I think a waving crew member makes for a different and interesting shot and that's why I included the caption. Take it as you will. I'm sure if someone shot an airliner with an engine on fire they'd point it out, as from a thumbnail it may not be obvious. In my case I assure you that I never had number of views in mind. Most of us have seen a waving pilot before and in my opinion it's not something that would make me open an image.
As for the biz-jet, I've seen many images here with such comments. "New to the DB", "First photo on A.net", etc. etc.
I really don't care much about views. If you look at my images in the database it's obvious to see that, normally, I only put up images I think others will find interesting. I don't get back from an airport visit and upload every single shot from the day, because much of it will have been seen before and will get repetitious. I understand that some people like to do this, but it's not for me.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3886 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Please note following extract from the Upload FAQ:
Quote: We reserve the right to make changes as we see fit.
The thing with the 'waving' comments is that they are deemed to be only hit-seeking and not relevant at all to the picture (you can see them anyway).
The 'first in DB' remark should also not be used, as the registration might be new when you upload but not necessarily when it gets accepted (others might have uploaded before you). Additionally, it is also deemed to be only hit-seeking and not relevant at all to the picture.
And yes, you will find some pics accepted with these comments, the same way you are going to find some soft/dark/dirty/etc...
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Caption: "Look VERY carefully in the former bomb aimers window under the nose!"
Given that the Shackleton at that time was about to replaced by the Sentry the cheeky estate agent's 'For Sale' board in the window was both humourous and relevant, and definitely worth a comment. Personally, these days I could not care less how many hits the photo gets however what I want to do is try to convey to the viewer what I experienced at the time which, in this case, was definitely a wry laugh at the Shack crew's sense of humour
This Finnish MiG-21 took off and performed a complete practice air demo routine at Kuopio-Rissala in May 1988. I was literally the sole spectator standing in the observation area and when the MiG landed and taxied past the pilot saw me and snapped a sharp salute, a memory I will cherish to my final day. Had I photographed that salute and highlighted it in my 'photographers comments' would that now be deemed as 'hit seeking'? Feedback above suggests that it would be regarded that way.
Many of the photos that I have posted on A.Net are very personal to me and mark when I have seen a type of plane for the first time, or perhaps are associated with an event or have particular memories attached to them. My photo comments are made to reflect these and are not intended to attract attention to generate hits.
I think that the contributing photographer should have the right to make comments as he/she decides and if A.Net disagrees with those comments then the photo should be rejected (badcomment??) and the photographer should have the right to appeal the photo with a reason for the comment or re-submit with a changed photographer comment. It should not be subject to arbitrary censorship. My attitude is that the comment has an equal footing with the photo and if the comment is 'rejected' then A.Net does not have the right to carry the photo. An unusual attitude I admit but that is me
Quoting 9VSPO (Reply 1): If it was up to me, I'd ban people from making any comments whatsoever unless it was vital. Wink
I note your 'wink' but if it *was* up to you this would be a seriously boring database!
Jetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2850 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3801 times:
There's been many times where I load up a pic, and then 3 or 4 days later, stumble across it again and see in the remarks where the photographer makes note of something interesting, that I completely missed before.
I just don't like that attitude, just because something is visible in the photo, does not mean it will be seen. In fact, A.net might be losing ad clicks by encouraging photographers to not note anything which may attract page views. Even if it is not intended by the photographer.
One of my photos, I included in the remark "Interesting Reg Number Colors..." Not to entice hits, but to point out, that having multi-colored reg numbers is in fact rare, and thought it was noteworthy.