LGB Photos From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4536 times:
......with having a separate field for construction number if they don't even show up on the photo information? I usually type the construction info in the comments section and now you want me to use the construction box? Why can't I just type in the construction information in the comments box instead so that it will show up? The construction number is an important part of the airplane information and if someone takes the time to look that up for an airplane, then it should be displayed.
Also I notice several of my friends have been getting rejected photos because of "bad information" or "could not confirm information" according to who ever screened the photo. Why don't you explain which part of the information provided by the photographer is incorrect or could not be confirmed? Also both times this has happened, the screener was incorrect for saying that the information being provided by the photographer, is incorrect. This is disturbing to me considering the information for one of the photos came from the JP book, talking to somebody who was with the company who owned the plane and also older photos from THIS website.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9823 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4461 times:
my guess on the reason for the separate fields for the Construction Number is to try to standardize it in such a way that it IS useful for people to search. If everyone enters the data their own way you get incomplete search results.
I have noticed when people post "bad info" subjects in this forum it is for a legitimate reason. Not because of a misspelling or such, but because the model of the plane is wrong, or the reg number is there but listed as "unknown" etc.
Paulc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4420 times:
The construction number is a potentially useful search tool but only if a standard format is used for entry.
The big manufacturers construction numbers are easy to find and are usually just a string of number but what about light aircraft ??
for example - cessna's - the USA built ones have the type as part of the c/n but the reims built ones do not. Piper are probably ok as they have the type as part of it ie 28-xxxxxx for a pa28.
What about homebuilts ?? - here in the UK the Popular Flying Association issues c/n for types such as Europa, Lancairs and other popular types in the format PFA XXX-12345 with the first set of numbers being for a specific type ie a Europa c/c will be PFA 247-12345 (247 is the type number)
We also have the BMAA (British Microlight Aircraft Assocation) who issue c/n for ultralights / microlights in the format BMAA/HB/XXX.
Any change of Peter giving some guidelines on what is acceptable when completing the c/n field or even if the light a/c details are required/wanted/necessary.
Lgbguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4373 times:
The CN and LN are very, very, important pieces of information to me and should be showed with each aircraft.
Collecting data for future use does not help me now. If that's the point great so be it, it will be a nice tool in the future but it should be included (if Known) now for everyones use immediately.
As for the "bad information" or "could not confirm information" messages, these really anger me as well. If the screener claims one of the above, then back it up and indicate what data is bad so the photographer can correct the info and learn some valuable new information, these vague messages are of service to no one. If these type of rejections continue, then the rejected photo will automatically go to a competing website for avaition enthusiats to enjoy. I had a DC-8-54 (stage 3 rated engines) shot at MHV recently rejected for just such a problem, if the screener is Donald Douglas great he would know, but I grew up in Long Beach next to DAC and still liver here covering DAC aircraft (it will never be Boeing) and I know my DAC aircraft. So if the screener that rejected the photo reads this, let me know what information you feel was incorrect and we can dicuss it, don't reject a photo and hide behind vague messages.
When uploading photos, I put as much information as possible about the aircraft (CN/LN), Delivery Date and any names on the aircraft. Again very important info which should be inclued with the photo for use now, not collected for future use.
So I'm in agreement with Stephen about this and it should be corrected ASAP.
GOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4345 times:
The c/n and l/n is stored together but not yet shown, as stated by Johan. Hopefully this is so we can soon get an option to search by c/n. Starting to add c/n to the photos now means that there will be less updating for the crew when the function starts to work. Be patient, I hope, and think, that this will soon be implemented.
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!