Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Removal Of Captions On My Latest Uploads  
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3972 times:

Hi all,

Can someone in the know please explain something to me? A couple of my latest uploads have been accepted but the captions with which I supplied the images have been removed; and I've no idea why.

The photo's in question (and underneath I have included the removed captions for you to scrutinise) are (sorry, I can't get the proper image links to work)...

http://www.airliners.net/photo/CSA---Czech/Boeing-737-55S/1409252/M/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Centr.../Cessna-525-CitationJet/1409251/M/

CSA caption - "Rolling past the AVP (which remains). Notice the first officer's arm waving out of the open cockpit window (this sentence removed)"

Biz-jet caption - " New registration to A.net"

Now were these captions considered inappropriate or politically incorrect or something? I'm baffled by this one I'm afraid - there seems no need for anyone to have messed around with these.

Let me just point out that I'm not particularly bothered by this - I'm just curious as to why this has happened and for what reasons (if any); if only to assist me with future uploads.

Thanks.

Karl

[Edited 2008-10-13 07:44:52]

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

Notice the first officer's arm waving out of the open cockpit

This is pointing out the obvious. People who view the photo can already see this. Adding comments like that IMO is a blatant attempt at getting more hits.

If it was up to me, I'd ban people from making any comments whatsoever unless it was vital.  Wink

[Edited 2008-10-13 08:00:09]

User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3953 times:



Quoting JakTrax (Thread starter):
CSA caption - "Rolling past the AVP (which remains). Notice the first officer's arm waving out of the open cockpit window (this sentence removed)"

A.net takes this as a hit seeking comment...
Not sure about the second one Karl.

Ivan


User currently offlineWhappeh From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1563 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3936 times:

Is there really a problem with a "hit seeking" comment? There are several hundred, if not thousand, photos in the database with irrelevant comments designed to seek attention.


-Travel now, journey infinitely.
User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3936 times:

Unfortunately also the "first one on Anet" remarks are not allowed...also are words which "make" the viewer opening the big version of the pic (waving pilot).

georg


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3906 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.

Regards,

Karl


User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3864 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Karl,

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!
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3847 times:

OK Andres, thank you.

I was only seeking an explanation - one I don't necessarily agree with but I've now had that explanation.

I'll obviously try and avoid such captions in future, however it seems too fine a line - what is classed as hit-seeking and what isn't?

To highlight my plight, below are a few captions from recently-accepted shots which, according to Andres' reply above, I feel are not too indifferent from those removed from my images.

"You have to have a steady hand to capture these images - especially with a lens without IS!"

Doesn't this caption suggest that the image is different to a standard shot (the props are blurred) and therefore is more likely to be opened?

"Odd-ball nose-cone and also non-standard grey winglets."

Again, despite being obvious - even in thunmbnail - doesn't this suggest a difference from the norm and therefore is more likely to be opened?

"Looks like the birds in the grass have selected the prime spotting spot....."

Not obvious from thumbnail but again inviting the viewer to look at the birds in the grass staring at the aircraft. Is this not more likely to be viewed because of that statement?

I don't want to open a can of worms here but sometimes the discretion applied is far too broad-ranged. It all seems a bit odd to me but I suppose rules are rules.....

Karl


User currently offlineGhostbase From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 354 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3793 times:

So just how far does A.Net go with removing 'hit seeking' comments? For example would this be acceptable today?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Baldock



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  Smile

This photo could have been another example:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Baldock



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  Wink

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!

 ghost 



"I chase my dreams but I never seem to arrive"
User currently offlineJetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2832 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3779 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.

Just my  twocents 

-Matt



No info
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...
Help/criticism Required On One Of My First Uploads posted Fri Apr 14 2006 01:47:24 by Aviamil
Dust On My CCD Of My D30 posted Tue Jun 18 2002 22:49:19 by LGW
Questions About The Quality Of My Latest Few posted Mon Aug 6 2001 09:49:38 by Aer Lingus
Feedback On My First A.net Attempt posted Fri Aug 8 2008 22:34:42 by Danorris
Aperture Out Of Limit On Shutter Priority Mode posted Sat Jul 19 2008 15:00:40 by Misterdsdan
Question On My Used Photo In Two Websites! posted Thu Jan 24 2008 06:57:03 by Mnazarinia
Problem With Grain/noise On My Panasonic FZ18 posted Thu Jan 24 2008 02:52:37 by Thom@s
My Latest Trip To Vegas posted Sat Nov 24 2007 23:02:10 by Brianb10
Comments On My Photo I Am Wanting To Upload. posted Wed Oct 31 2007 13:40:43 by Whales
My First Uploads To Airliners.net posted Sun Aug 5 2007 22:29:04 by Sajmon