Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, RR: 14 Posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2180 times:
Hello. I have noticed that several of my photos were uploaded with the original comment I wrote but later after they were accepted they have been edited with part of the comment removed. This concerns several photos of aircraft new to the database. I would sometimes write "new to a.net" since I have seen it done countless times on other photos and since the site is also sort of a database which "tailchasers" use to keep records of tail numbers and such. I guess I thought it helped people to know it is a new plane for a.net but all the comments that mention that were subsequently deleted. May I ask why? I really don't care that much, just curious....
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2151 times:
This case has nothing to do with "attracting hits." A while back there was discussion that saying "First in the database" was not necessary and they asked photographers not to add that type of comment any more. The editors are just following that rule.
-Matt
Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2108 times:
I'm not trying to draw hits with it. I just thought it would be helpful for people tracking tail numbers.
Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 2): This case has nothing to do with "attracting hits." A while back there was discussion that saying "First in the database" was not necessary and they asked photographers not to add that type of comment any more. The editors are just following that rule.
I did not know about this. Thanks for the explanation, I guess I won't write it anymore.
Vishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2069 times:
I had this part "Flying supersonic & refueling in-flight, arrived from Moscow to Bangalore in less than 3 hours, when it was unveiled to the world right here at Aero India 2007." deleted from the remark on my MiG 35 photo which was just added to the db a few days ago , i'd like to enquire on the reason
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1803 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 2): A while back there was discussion that saying "First in the database" was not necessary and they asked photographers not to add that type of comment any more. The editors are just following that rule.
Yes, that's exactly right. We don't actively go out on "first in the database" patrols, seeking out remarks that need to be corrected (though I often feel like going on a crusade to change all occurrences of "finals" to the correct term, "final"). But if we see an opportunity to clean up a remark while attending to other duties, we will do so. For example, when I spot opportunities to correct simple errors related to grammar, spelling, etc, I like to make those changes.
Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 3): I just thought it would be helpful for people tracking tail numbers.
I wasn't involved in the creation of the rule, but I believe the reasoning was that although some people tracking tail numbers might find the information useful, those individuals are a very small minority. I think it was decided that such information unnecessarily fills up the comment field for everyone else.
Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 5): I had this part "Flying supersonic & refueling in-flight, arrived from Moscow to Bangalore in less than 3 hours, when it was unveiled to the world right here at Aero India 2007." deleted from the remark on my MiG 35 photo which was just added to the db a few days ago Confused , i'd like to enquire on the reason
I'm sorry, Vishal...I'm not sure why that remark would be removed. Hopefully, the person who removed it can explain his reasoning.
G-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1209 posts, RR: 11 Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1718 times:
2H4 - what gets me is the indiscriminate use of 'on short final'. Photos taken at LHR at riddled with this phrase but it is technically incorrect in ATC terms.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3766 posts, RR: 20 Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1599 times:
I don't mind when the comments with my photos are changed if there's something factually wrong with them or when they violate any rules. But in some cases, comments are apparently changed on the request of users who decided, for example, that an individual aircraft name should be added to my comment. I give some thought to the comments I write and I don't like to see them changed by others for no particular reason. Shouldn't such 'corrections' be refused by the editors?
Peter
[Edited 2009-04-15 03:06:15]
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
GPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 818 posts, RR: 27 Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1579 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 8): But in some cases, comments are apparently changed on the request of users who decided, for example, that an individual aircraft name should be added to my comment. I give some thought to the comments I write and I don't like to see them changed by others for no particular reason. Shouldn't such 'corrections' be refused by the editors?
Peter,
Mostly, yes, you are correct, we are very careful to prevent people other than the photographer altering the comment field. A factual error, offensive term (often used without any intent to cause offense, it's sometimes difficult in front of a global audience) or breaking of a rule are the usual reasons. If I saw a correction that someone wanted to add an aircraft name to one of your pictures I would take one of the following two positions.
a. If you had already put a name to the aircraft but had got it wrong, then I would accept the correction, (as long as it was itself correct!).
or
b. If you had not included the name of the aircraft in your comments, the person asking for the name to be added would be asked to contact you, the photographer. It's then up to them to contact you and then for you to contact us if you want to make the changes they suggest.
Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 5): I had this part "Flying supersonic & refueling in-flight, arrived from Moscow to Bangalore in less than 3 hours, when it was unveiled to the world right here at Aero India 2007." deleted from the remark on my MiG 35 photo which was just added to the db a few days ago , i'd like to enquire on the reason
I agree with 2H4, Vishal, I can see no reason why this text should have been removed. However, looking at your comment for this photo, it is very long. We have in the past had trouble with some very long remarks losing their ends during upload. Was your missing text the last sentence? If so it could be another instance of this happening.
UnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1553 times:
Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 7): 2H4 - what gets me is the indiscriminate use of 'on short final'.
Not even that, but the use of "On short finals". An aircraft can only be on one approach to a runway, not multiple. Would "On short finals" be correctable if suggested by someone other than the photographer?
Dlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 505 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1538 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 5): I had this part "Flying supersonic & refueling in-flight, arrived from Moscow to Bangalore in less than 3 hours, when it was unveiled to the world right here at Aero India 2007." deleted from the remark on my MiG 35 photo which was just added to the db a few days ago Confused , i'd like to enquire on the reason
I went to add this to your remark and discovered that your remark is already incredibly long. During upload, there is a limit on the number of characters in a remark and you probably ran into it. If you would e-mail me a revised remark (hopefully slightly shorter) I will add it for you.
Regarding editing remarks, I will do such if the remark is obviously wrong, has mangled grammar or is missing information that might be of use (such as previous registrations). My pet peeve is the use of "hanger" to describe the buildings that airplanes are kept in (hangars). I once tried to fix all such occurrences in the database, but found there were too many to deal with.
The use of "first in the database" does bug me. If someone clicks on the reg or cn they will quickly see if it is the first. In my case, I have a lot of pictures that are the only of a type in the database. Bragging about being first buys you little.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1537 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 7): 2H4 - what gets me is the indiscriminate use of 'on short final'. Photos taken at LHR at riddled with this phrase but it is technically incorrect in ATC terms.
It's also frustrating to see remarks making note of the pilot using "full reverse". I'd like to know how a photographer can judge the thrust setting so accurately from outside of the aircraft. Because I sure can't.
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 8): in some cases, comments are apparently changed on the request of users who decided, for example, that an individual aircraft name should be added to my comment. I give some thought to the comments I write and I don't like to see them changed by others for no particular reason. Shouldn't such 'corrections' be refused by the editors?
If the proposed remark additions are opinion-based (ie: "seen here against a beautiful sunset" or "dwarfed by the 747 following behind"), I would also have a problem with them being added to my own photos.
If, on the other hand, the proposed remark additions include factual information about the aircraft or surroundings (ie: "seen here on final for 27R", or "later became XA-SNW and flew for Aerolineas Internacionales in Mexico"), I would (personally) welcome the additional info. To me, it not only helps document the history of that airframe, but it also attracts interest from folks searching for that other registration.
I don't often deal with remark additions, but my personal inclination is to use this rule of thumb, erring in favor of adding more factual information unless requested to do otherwise by the photographer.
Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 10): Not even that, but the use of "On short finals". An aircraft can only be on one approach to a runway, not multiple. Would "On short finals" be correctable if suggested by someone other than the photographer?
Not only that....the word "finals" is not recognized by ICAO. ICAO only recognizes the word "final".
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3766 posts, RR: 20 Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1488 times:
Quoting GPHOTO (Reply 9): If I saw a correction that someone wanted to add an aircraft name to one of your pictures I would take one of the following two positions.
a. If you had already put a name to the aircraft but had got it wrong, then I would accept the correction, (as long as it was itself correct!).
or
b. If you had not included the name of the aircraft in your comments, the person asking for the name to be added would be asked to contact you, the photographer. It's then up to them to contact you and then for you to contact us if you want to make the changes they suggest.
Way to go, Jim
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 12): If, on the other hand, the proposed remark additions include factual information about the aircraft or surroundings (ie: "seen here on final for 27R", or "later became XA-SNW and flew for Aerolineas Internacionales in Mexico"), I would (personally) welcome the additional info. To me, it not only helps document the history of that airframe, but it also attracts interest from folks searching for that other registration.
And this I respectfully disagree with, Jason. There's no limit to the amount of factual and correct information that could be given in a remark - about the airframe, the aircraft type, the flight, the airline, the airport... However, a good comment should not be overly long. I think it's the photographer''s little privilege to choose what kind of remark is appropriate for his photo and which facts, while correct, he wishes to ignore.
So I feel the comment should be the photographer's domain as far as is practical, exceptions:
-Comment information is factually wrong, as mentioned above;
-Comment violates any rules, as mentioned above;
-Special cases, for example, the identity of a (vintage) aircraft is not all that clear and the editors feel the need to make clarifications.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1462 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 13): And this I respectfully disagree with, Jason. There's no limit to the amount of factual and correct information that could be given in a remark - about the airframe, the aircraft type, the flight, the airline, the airport... However, a good comment should not be overly long. I think it's the photographer''s little privilege to choose what kind of remark is appropriate for his photo and which facts, while correct, he wishes to ignore.
All good and fair points, indeed.
The only item that concerns me is the idea that a good comment should not be overly long. So long as the comment falls under the maximum allowable number of characters, I think "good" or "bad" is purely subjective.
Personally, I believe that a photo documents history...and that there can be a lot more to a photo than meets the eye. I believe many photos contain aspects that, without being called out, might otherwise remain forever untold and unknown.
I'm reminded of my last visit to the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. I was glancing at a motorcycle on display that I'd seen many times before. But for some reason, I took a bit of time to read the entire text on the small sign in front of it. And I learned that the motorcycle once belonged to Charles Lindbergh. Suddenly, the motorcycle had a lot more meaning and significance.
Certainly, not all remarks are this profound. But if a viewer can associate a photo of an aircraft with a place (ie: rwy 27R), event (ie: crashed in Buffalo 3/68), or origin (ie: "commandeered by the USAAF"), he or she can get a lot more out of the photo.
So, for me, I am of the opinion that more information...when appropriate and up to the maximum allowable number of characters...can absolutely complete the photo and enhance the overall viewing experience.
And I think the benefits to the people that enjoy additional info outweigh any negatives to those who do not. After all, those who do not can simply opt to not read the info!
That said.....my job as an editor is to follow procedure. Not to shape the database into a collection of my liking.
So I'm really glad we're having this conversation, because it made me go back and refer to our editing manual for clarification.
And here's the official word, straight out of our editor's manual:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remark: This is what the photographer wants to put in here, and normally we don’t change that, except when something is wrong, or when something has to be added, or transferred from another field. E.g. when a photographer has listed a museum name in the location name, the museum name should be transferred to the “Remarks” field. Or when a non-airliner aircraft has no titles but is nevertheless listed with an owner name, this name should be transferred too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it. It mainly refers to the addition of remarks to the remark field as opposed to their removal (the topic of this thread).....but it certainly reminds me to control my natural urge to document the living hell out of everything I see.
Thanks for your thoughts, Peter. It's always good to revisit these kinds of things, and I know I've gotten a lot out of this discussion.
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 14): Personally, I believe that a photo documents history...and that there can be a lot more to a photo than meets the eye. I believe many photos contain aspects that, without being called out, might otherwise remain forever untold and unknown.
I couldn't agree with you more... I'm fond of history. I'm often perplexed that unique photos are uploaded without a comment. But I feel it's up to the photographer to write one. Maybe it would help if we'd be allowed to change comments in our own photos ourselves, as has been discussed.
Also, some comments in not-so-historic photos are written to be funny, or maybe even a bit haiku-like, and there may no place in them to mention Rwy 18R.
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1383 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 16): Maybe it would help if we'd be allowed to change comments in our own photos ourselves, as has been discussed.
Actually, you can...in a way. Just submit a correction for your own photo with your desired remark.
When we're looking at the list of corrections, the corrections submitted by the photographer who shot that photo are flagged. This way, we know the person submitting the correction is also the photographer of that photo, and we can quickly and easily update your remark for you.
Sponsor Message: 
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Feb 2009, 285 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 552 posts, 
From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, 
, i'd like to enquire on the reason 
Thanks - Vishal
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1209 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3766 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
