TZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 54 Posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2349 times:
I ask this question just for discussion, I'm not complaining to/about anybody!
Lots of photos, including recent additions, do not include the full aircraft version (e.g. "737-3.." instead of "737-3Q8"). The overwhelming majority of recent uploads do include the full designation, but not all.
Do you think the ones without the full designation should not be accepted?
On the one hand, the designation is very easy to look up on the internet (apart from very new aircraft), and most people manage to do it, so it can't be hard!
On the other hand, this is a website for photographs, and does it really matter if people know these small details or not?!
What do you think?
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
Donder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2325 times:
On the other hand, this is a website for photographs, and does it really matter if people know these small details or not?!
I would say no as the sub-type is added in nearly every case and as you say,this is a site for photographs above all.
Any chance for the site to add a feature which automatically adds the sub code when a CN is added in?
NonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2308 times:
No, I don't believe they should. Granted only some of them are anal enough to worry about this. IMHO those screeners should concentrate on photo quality, not spell checking. In a way this could be seen as "finding reasons to reject a photo."
I think the screeners should trust us to know that we put in the information to the best of our abilities, but mistakes happen. Just like they screen to the best of their abilities, but as they say, mistakes happen. I think it's kind of a double standard.
Ljungdahl From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 900 posts, RR: 40 Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2270 times:
If the full aircraft version is not available (as a Boeing customer no.), I don't think that should be the reason for a rejection...
...but when a Canadair Challenger is called "Dassault Falcon 50", or a Grumman G-159 Gulfstream I is called "Rockwell Commander 690" (...yes, I've found such mistakes in the DB, and also submitted corrections for them...) than I think that a rejection is OK (...sure, it's a photo DB, but why have a note at all of what aircraft that's photographed, when the info is totally incorrect...???).
If you don't know what you've photographed, try to make some research, it's not impossible to find out...
Cicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2229 times:
One of the many good qualities about Airliners.net is that the people behind the scenes are relatively quick to make corrections to any errors in the database if it is brought to their attention - of the type Johan Ljungdahl referenced.
One of the competing sites is extremely reluctant to so ...and that sort of thing reflects on the integrity of an entire site in my opinion.
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2218 times:
I agree that as long as you have the generic type a/c down you should be okay. Perhaps with reg's that are easy to find, ie..US, you should put all the info you can get in. But I have yet to find a website that gives me the same info for Mexico registered a/c. (If anyone has one and can provide a like...much appreciated!!)
I know screeners are busy just looking at photos, but would it be possible to give an extra tick mark indicating what bad info was provided? ie...reg, type, whatever...For me bad info is the most frustrating reject because it is not always obvious...
Rsmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 192 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2204 times:
I agree with Johan that if someone submits information for a 737 and call it a Piper Seneca then yes is should be rejected but as stated in a earlier post not because the photographer doesnt know the difference between a 3QH and 3Q4 should not be a reason for rejection....
Tsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 16 Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2196 times:
I agree the things about the sub-type should not be rejected as badinfo.... but I mean IMHO its a more professional job to do a little bit of research to obtain the actual sub-type.... At least that way you provide a complete picture/info.
Just another thing, what about people who put flight numbers into the comments and they are wrong/incorrect (after subsequent information)? I had contacted a few photographers on information on their pictures where they said this aircraft was operating flight xxx this day, but was actually on other flights.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2191 times:
From my own point of view, I think its a shame if photographers can't be bothered to look up customer information for the majority of subjects - its not that difficult, because often you don't even have to go any further than the airliners.net database itself. Being blunt - its lazy not establishing the customer number. We all know that ultimately airliners.net wants this information on the database (standardisation etc), its not that difficult to establish in most cases, and for the most part I think people just can't be bothered and know that someone else like the standardisation editor will sort it out if they don't.
Having said that, I do not reject solely because a picture is uploaded as [say] 737-3.. - if there's other reasons to reject, I'd include "badinfo" too, but on its own not. However, lacking any absolute guidance on this specific matter from the boss, it is possible that other screeners may think differently.
Finally though, be aware that we do check previous accepted pictures of the same subject before accepting pictures in the queue. If all previous uploads were of a "737-3Y0" or if I just knew it was a "737-3Y0", and if the latest upload suggested it was a "737-36N", I'd reject the latest upload "badinfo"
Moral of story and my recommendation - do the research as its NOT that difficult.
BA777 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2138 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2156 times:
My personal recomendation would be that maybe when someone selects, say the airline as British Airways, the aircraft list gives the options of A319-xxx, A320-xxx, B737-xxx etc etc. - a bit ambitous, but would probably prove to be a superb extra feature.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2148 times:
Andy, I wouldn't for the life of me know WHERE to look up that info (except in the DB here or in my JP (which should not be a required item to have to post here...)).
What if I have a picture in which the registration isn't visible, should that be rejected for badinfo because I didn't enter a registration?
Or because I didn't enter the manufacturer code (which people just starting out here might not even know what it is...) when the airline in question operates several subtypes?
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2137 times:
Speaking personally, I have never rejected a picture for having an incomplete designation - though I can't say it never happens, I think it is unlikely for a rejection to occur for that reason alone. In fact, better that someone put 3.. rather than add an incorrect sub-type IMHO.
However, in our defence, it has to be said that certain uploaders have attempted to trick their way into acceptance by ommitting or altering information.
You can understand then, after coming up against deliberate (or maybe "accidental") deception, screeners may get a little pedantic about "badinfo".
Interesting the comment about this site being about photographs - how many threads have we seen which claim the exact opposite! The fact of the matter is that this is about photographs, but also about providing a comprehensive and accurate database. Its perhaps this attention to detail and the sterling work of the database crew that continues to set A.net apart from the increasing number of alternate sites. As anyone who works with data systems knows, the real work is not in collecting data it lies in quality control and maintenance.
TZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 54 Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2114 times:
As always Colin, well said.
I'm tempted to agree with Andy too - there are two things which all airliners.net contributors have in common: one is a camera, and the other is the internet!
Almost every subtype (especially those from Boeing/McDD/Airbus) are listed on authoritative sites. I apologise to those already in the know, but the real gem is here (the new location for the legendary Bill Harms lists): http://www.jetphotos.net/census/
It usually takes less than a couple of minutes to locate the right info, and like I said, everybody here by definition has internet access!
It also seems strange to me that somebody would upload a "737-..." when the past four pictures of that aircraft on a.net show as "737-8AS" (just an example!).
I would prefer that I waste 2 minutes of my time on getting the info right for each photo, rather than the database correction team spending weeks trying to retrospectively fix errors and omissions. However, that's just my opinion!
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
Cicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2102 times:
I admit that on some occasions I will not go further than A.net itself to get certain information like the Customer # etc.
But you still need to keep an open mind.
I came across an instance last year where several images of the same subject were incorrect. This was pointed out by someone who sent me the information privately... Several of us had added images and each of us in turn had copied the incorrect information from the "source" - an A.net image that was Bad Info.
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5025 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2049 times:
Sometimes you have no choice. i have had photos where I could not see the numbers on the plane and you simply cant assume that it is one type. for example, we all know that a southwest 737-3.. will be a 737-3H4. But southwest has a few planes in the fleet that are NOT ...3H4s. so I would simply put 3.. if i know it is that type.
Same for Delta. Not all Delta planes are ...-232 models. You've simply got to have a reg # or fleet # to look it up and be sure.
bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Benyhone From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 206 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1953 times:
As one who uses A.net for research purposes (on an almost daily basis) I can say that having data like c/n and exact type is very helpful.
Too lazy to open your JP, or click around a few known websites? Type ANY registration into Google, and you will likely find your answer in the links it finds. Extremely helpful for third-world country aircraft!
Granite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, RR: 67 Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1911 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Hi all
As Andy and Terry mentioned, it isn't that too difficult to look up an exact aircraft type before uploading, but I have never rejected because of the lack of designator in the aicraft type.
Myself, I try to get as much information on the aicraft before I attempt the upload. Good practice make perfect.
If no one has JP Fleets, either search Airliners or one of the search engines. Just type in the reg of a bizjet into Google and it is totally amazing what you can find.
If more people did this, the standardization guys on the site would be a lot happier
Je89_w From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 2327 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1809 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 900 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
