Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!  
User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 24
Posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

I thought that some of these pics would be of wide interest as they show something never before seen.

Boy, was I wrong.

These were rejected as baddouble within seconds of being uploaded:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=300703_RADAR3anet.jpg

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=300703_RADAR2anet.jpg

One was not rejected but this showed the whole of the Southern UK airspace, rather than a detailed shot of the Heathrow area. These two shots are completely different from the shot that was HQ'ed or whatever it is now, which you can see here:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/300703_RADAR1anet.jpg

I honestly thought that these would be an interesting series of snapshots of a rarely seen side of the aviation World, an overview of the UK early morning, a detailed look at Heathrow holding, and a shot of simultaneous 27L/R approaches at a busy LHR.
However it seems that I would have been better off standing under the approach shooting side on views of BA A319s. I really just cannot see how this is baddouble, apart from the fact that they were shot in the same building on the same day !!!


AirTeamImages
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=300703_RADAR6.jpg

And this one too.........another baddouble !

I give up



AirTeamImages
User currently offlineBigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4076 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3159 times:

I don't think those kind of shots are very good for anet in terms of what they are of.

Nice pics, but maybe anet isn't the place for it. There's no category for it I dont think.



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 36
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3141 times:

I understand exactly where you are coming from, Garry, but I can see why the screener rejected them.

Yes, very interesting photos, but I think one is enough, even if you want to show everything, I don't think the average A.net user will find the four photos any more interesting then just one.

Just think of it as taking a picture out of the window, one or two is interesting, but any more starts to get boring, Or doing closeups on the same plane, one looks good but if you have 3 or 4 of the same plane, its baddouble.

Just my 0.02c

Regards

Dan


User currently offlineBA777 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2167 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

I can see where you're coming from Garry, you'd be amazed at the joy on my face when i saw those pics! A VERY welcome change!

Lets just hope this gets sorted...

Henry


User currently offlineDemoose From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1952 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3117 times:

Well they certainly were of interest to me, thanks for bringing them to our attention. I spent ages tracking down all the different airlines on that last photo! Great stuff

Regards
Mark



Take a ride...fly across the sky
User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3096 times:

So Dan, if I get what you are saying, there is room for 855 shots of BA A319s on the database but only room for 1 shot of an LTCC radar display?

I disagree totally on what the average anetter will find interesting, I think these shots are totally unique and certainly as relevant to this database as shots of the inside of airport terminals.

I understand baddouble, which is why I chose to upload shots showing different things going on. Also when I uploaded 3 shots of Astraeus 737 on its first flight and the first 3 shots of Jet2, all were accepted.......3 shots, same plane, same day. I assume that is because they were new to the database, not seen before.
To date there are 0 photos on the database from the LTCC, and hardly likely to be any more soon.
I take your point again on wing views, but there are 2,994 wing view shots here, my pics are showing something totally unique, and as such I thought they were likely to be of interest to aviation enthusiasts.

Cheers

Garry

[Edited 2003-07-30 17:54:28]


AirTeamImages
User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3111 times:

Sorry



Double post  Smile



[Edited 2003-07-30 17:58:34]


AirTeamImages
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3072 times:

When I read your post I thought you were talking about an aerial view of south England taken from a flying aircraft, not a radar scope. Were you really expecting to have 4 radar scopes accepted in a row?

Sorry but I don't think this is Airliners.net material, even if they are interesting photos.

Luis


User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3069 times:

I find it strange everyone agrees they are interesting shots yet not airliners.net material, kind of implies this site does not care for interesting shots.

I find it amazing how they are not a.net material, when the inside of a terminal building is, or the OUTSIDE of a tower is. What is the difference?

Again the three scope shots are different, one shows a large portion of UK airspace, a kind of overview if you will, the other two show different situations around LHR, including approaches to both runways.

Anyway, I have got the message loud and clear, these shots are not welcome here. I'll just have to see if I can add to the 855 BA A319's on the database instead.



AirTeamImages
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3064 times:

Luis is absolutely right.
We have feedback from the boss and all of them are badmotive until there might be a new section in the future for shots like this. Sorry Garry.


Peter



-
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3065 times:

"I find it amazing how they are not a.net material, when the inside of a terminal building is..."

For me it's not also, like many other photos here that in my opinion are not Airliners.net material but I'm not the boss.

If you post this in a public forum, you should expect some comments, my opinion is that radar scopes don't belong here. If there are people who think different I only have to respect but not necessarly agree with.

Luis


User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3044 times:

OK Peter,

I respect that, this isn't my site and Johan makes the rules.

I really fail to see how the inside of a terminal building or the outside of a tower is acceptable, but a radar screen full of aircraft isn't.
This was an opportunity to show the wider public something they are never likely to be able to see, I think it's a real shame that opportunity has been denied.
However we live and learn, my shots from the inside of the tower at Heathrow and London City will have to go elsewhere.

Thanks for the feedback

Garry



AirTeamImages
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3017 times:

Garry,

With greatest respect, and from a personal point of view I do find your pictures interesting, you're hardly comparing like-with-like when you say "I really fail to see how the inside of a terminal building or the outside of a tower is acceptable, but a radar screen full of aircraft isn't." If we included pictures that were solely of the TV monitors displaying details of departing flights, that were situated in terminals, then I think the comparison would be valid.

However, as you rightly point out we do include pictures of the inside of complete terminals, and if you check the database you'll find that interior pictures of towers have also been accepted in the past. I accept that it is clearly your choice where you upload your pictures, but to say you won't upload pictures of the interior of towers because we don't accept radar screens is like saying you won't upload pictures of airplanes because we don't accept pictures of individual airplane wheels.

Andy


User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2951 times:

Andy,

Thanks for your comments:

I have to say that while you feel comparing a terminal to a radar screen is not a valid comparison, I cannot accept either that a departures board can be compared to a radar showing live traffic.
Everyone in their life has seen a departures board when flying, how many people have seen a radar screen of the London TMA?

I also fail to see how the interior of a tower is not the same as a radar unit......it's the same job, using a different tool. The Tower is visual control, using flightstrips and mark 1 eyeball, the radar controllers eyes are the tube, his control utilises strips and radar.
By saying one type of ATC shot, of the tower is appropriate but a radar shot is not is like saying that one type of ATC is somehow different to the other. I don't get why one is acceptable and the other is not.
I still stand by my comparison, if the inside of a terminal building with no aircraft visible is acceptable, why is a radar photo actually showing aircraft not?

Surely the fact that everyone has stated they find the pictures interesting, must mean they at least have some value and may be appreciated by a wider audience?
I would have hoped that the unique nature and rarity of the shots would encourage them to be looked at in a slightly different way.

As I have said though, I'm happy to live by the rules here, I have respect for the site and the team, if you don't want these sort of pictures, I can 100% live with that, but at the end of the day, why spend time uploading tower interiors and risk getting a badmotiv or baddouble when the boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn't are so blurry?
It's more like saying you'll take pictures of an A330-200 but not an A330-300, they are essentially the same, but different  Smile

Anyway, I appreciate the situation and we'll move on, I also appreciate all the comments and feedback.

Cheers

Garry



AirTeamImages
User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5499 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2953 times:

I would have clicked on it! There are hundreds accepted each day, and you can bet that it'd be at the top! Doesn't a.net want to have good, interesting photos so they can maxmize the amount of hits on each shot? Well hell, there's a good example right there! I think the change'd be great, I say let one through, it's interested, and it IS related to AIRLINERS.

co


User currently offlineLennymuir From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2002, 434 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2911 times:

I find them very interesting Garry  Wow! but the first thought that came to my mind was "do you have your employers permission?"

If that was taken within my company premises (a very big telcom company) I would not post them on the public internet.

Be careful...

Gerry







User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2897 times:

Yes Gerry,

Already checked and confirmed, with my supervisor last night.
What is posted is already within the public domain, from photos already displayed by a previous watch member and from shots released by NATS in publications and on TV.

Not that anyone will see it here anyway Big grin



AirTeamImages
User currently offlineLennymuir From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2002, 434 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2892 times:

That's fine... I'm just looking after you...

Right click (is that okay?)  Wink/being sarcastic

Gerry


User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2836 times:

I'd love a screener to give me an explanation about this:

All my shots were now rejected as badmotiv:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=300703_RADAR5.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=300703_RADAR4.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=300703_RADAR1anet.jpg

So even interior shots of an ATC Centre are not acceptable, although Towers are?????????
Don't get that.

And this shot is in the database:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nicholas Osborne



Can someone tell me please what the difference is, because I really do not understand this.

So are radar screens acceptable or not? Why is the inside of an ATC Centre not acceptable but a tower is?



AirTeamImages
User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2825 times:

Garry,

The only explanation for the badMotiv rejections is that we were told by Johan to reject the shots as badMotiv. Yes, there is a shot in the database as you rightly point out and I suspect, if Johan had seen it when it was added, his response would have been no different. The only difference in your case is that the screener rejected it before it got in the database, we discussed it with the boss and he's made a rule which we're going to continue to follow from now on.

J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2796 times:

Fair enough Jason,

But what about say shot number 4, which is not a close up of a radar screen, and merely shows a controller at work?

Does this rule mean no pictures of operational ATC are allowed at all, and that applies to both Area ATCC's and Tower's?
I'd like to know, as there is no point uploading anything that is simply not wanted here.

Thanks

Garry



AirTeamImages
User currently offlineKereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 47
Reply 22, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2779 times:

Garry

I'd love a screener to give me an explanation about this:

All my shots were now rejected as badmotiv


Did you read the personal message that came with your rejection?

A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"No section for radar screens on A.net as yet. Sorry I have to reject them badmotiv."

You can always appeal?

Colin



Good things take Time.
User currently offlineBen From Switzerland, joined Aug 1999, 1391 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

Just to add my own comments:

Garry, I really appreciate seeing these shots - they are very interesting. Thanks for posting them!

Even to see them in the rejections section is good enough for me.

To the A.Net gods above: It would be great if we could have another category for these types of pictures.

They definitely have a place on a site like this, in my opinion (and yes, I do know this is not a democracy, but just saying what I think).


A bit off the subject, do you ever work Heathrow Director? Thames Radar? or London Information?

Cheers,
Ben


User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

So what about the shot of a PTV showing planes turning around mid-Atlantic on 11/9? Doesn't really qualify as "cabin shot" and constitutes "badmotiv" by the same standard as these radar screens, yet it is interesting (and has 10,000s of views).

Or what about the night shots where no plane is fully visible, just a streak of light?

Or what about the FlyBe advert shot where there is barely a little part of plane somewhere in the background, and 3 people holding up destination names in the foreground? Accepted just because one of them happened to wear a bikini?

Sometimes, I get the impression that there is not that much consistency w.r.t standards and criteria here - Either be totally rigid (i.e. take out that FlyBe shot) or be a bit flexible as to what constitutes an aviation photograph...


25 Mirage : That FlyBe photo is another one I don't understand. Luis
26 Post contains images Gerardo : Perhaps, if Garry would have added a nice Bikini girl, it would have been accepted? Cheers Gerardo
27 Post contains links and images Atco : To answer a couple of questions: Colin: Yes I did see that, but I was confused by the presence of the radar picture on the database, I think it was re
28 Post contains images Kereru : Garry, I did find your photos interesting, that is my personal view and I am sure if there is enough interest generated in the forum for this type of
29 Silverfox : Garry Nice shots, I like them. can you explain what the letters are afer the FL? D LL P etc Thanks hope the bosses change their views (no pun intended
30 Atco : Hi Ron, Glad you liked the pictures. The letters represent one of two things. If the flight is landing in UK airspace it carries the last two letters
31 Granite : Hi Garry Maybe off topic but since the new overflight routings came into force some months ago, traffic over ABZ seems to have dropped. Anyway you can
32 Post contains images Andyhunt : Gary, Probably a reaction to your photo of the two jet contrails too close to each other..............you only have yourself to blame Andrew
33 Post contains links Luchtzak : Atco, I would like to have one or two of those radar-pictures on my website www.luchtzak.be, please contact me. ciao, Bart
34 RayPettit : Perhaps there ought to be a special section for ''miscellaneous" subjects such as radar screens, airport buildings and so on. In fact anything that do
35 Post contains images Atco : Gary, Whilst your airspace is a little outside my area , It may be due to the resectorisation of the North Sea sector, where the airway and sector flo
36 Silverfox : Garry Thanks for the insight on those little details Much appreciated Ron
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...
Can You Believe This Email? posted Sun Sep 17 2006 20:48:02 by Raptors
Will This Be Baddouble? posted Mon Feb 7 2005 17:28:11 by AirKas1
Why Was This Not Baddouble? posted Tue Jan 11 2005 10:20:00 by Xpfg
What Can I Do About This Baddouble? posted Mon Dec 1 2003 05:20:02 by KC7MMI
This Baddouble Thing posted Mon Nov 24 2003 15:18:19 by Ckw
Landing Pattern At LHR This Week? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 16:07:50 by JakTrax
Madrid Info For Visit This Weekend. posted Wed Dec 6 2006 20:32:12 by Stu1978
Let's Get Clear On This Please! posted Mon Dec 4 2006 21:28:52 by ThierryD
Some Tips On This Bad Centered Pics posted Fri Dec 1 2006 01:30:14 by Lanas
Is This A Picture For The Database? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 18:18:20 by JetCrazy