Apparently people who visit this site also spend a lot of time on other websites such as Boeing, Aviation Safety network, But the site most frequented is one for a housing community down in Florida! . Wasn't expecting to see that.
Anyway, I noticed that Johan only has four stars for the site. These are based on rankings and reviews that are done by users who submit them, just like the Amazon.com product reviews (both sites are from the same people). Anyway it looks like an effort has been staged in the past month to intentionally lower the rating of this site. That just ain't right. A lot of people who have posted these negatives did and do have legitimate gripes with management, but I don't think that justifies tanking the score you give the site.
So I figure that we need to do something, and judging from the success I had in the past 18 hours with this topic I posted http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/397233/ So what I propose is that we counter attack. Put up our own mostly positive reviews. I don't think we should go and put five out of five stars in just to do it, like they have put 1 out of 5 to bring the site down, but the more realistic numbers we can put up the less effect that campaign will have.
So go on, do a review, put up a score, and lets see if we can nip this anti-airliners.net campaign in the bud.
Note:To mods, I know some of you may be tempted to move this over the site related forum, but in order to make this work people need to be able to see this topic, and I doubt the site related forum gets near the traffic that this one does.
Besides this is about rigging a pole on a different site right
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2666 times:
Oh by the way, I gave the site for stars and these where my comments.
This site has been around for a while and like the typical maturing site it is experiencing its shares of growing pains. One thing that needs to be said about the users is that they tend to be vary passionate about their chosen hobby, aviation. And they tend to be very protective of their site and such they do try and exert as much influence over the direction the site is taking as possible.
This sense of "ownership" is a grand thing for a website to have, it creates a long term relationship that may not exist otherwise.
The two features that I use on the site are mainly the photo database, which I have 99 photos listed with and the discussion forums which are ground with major discussions of aviation in general, the technical aspects, photography, military and a general purpose forum.
I have found the aircraft photo database an excellent resource in my college classes. Over the years the standards have tightened up. This is a decision that the site managers made that I personally don't agree with. It seems to be a carrot to those who wish to use the site as a market for their images rather then support for amateurs who wish to show what aviation is like in their part of the world.
The forums have expanded over the years from two to 9 (I think) now. Each forum tries to keep their discussion pretty much focused on their core target area, and sometimes the rules that attempt to do this are enforced to a fault. I personally have had one run in regarding a rule that was being enforced harder and less consistently then would be either needed or desired.
The General Discussion forum is a great resource that allows people with a similar interest, "Aviation" to post about items they find interesting but aren't related. Originally conceived to keep the civil aviation discussion from becoming clutter it has taken a life of it's own. But it is the source of the most tension since a lot of topics deal with social and judgment opinions that are based on one's culture, and people take offense if they are told if their culture wrong.
That is to be expected, and the moderators do a pretty good job of keeping that to a minimum but at times the sites lack of guidelines and ever expanding rule book lead to a heavy handedness that is unacceptable when keeping bloodshed to a minimum. That is where most of the negative comments of the last month have come from and it is unfortunate that it happens.
Hopefully a simplification and clarifying of the rules will help contradict that. I do feel a lot of the current tension comes from current world events, people making judgment calls about those world events and either party to that judgment call taking offense.
I am sure that is just a storm that needs to be rode out.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8681 posts, RR: 43
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2627 times:
a review from the second of L-188's links:
"The first aviation site on the web (everyone else steals our code), 5/26/03
I can't even put into words my love for this website and its administrator, the fine Johan Lundgren. At airliners.net we have made strides in reducing the number of accepted shots by "amateurs," and we have ensured that only professionals (by professionals I mean people with $1,500+ cameras) can get photos uploaded. As for the forums, they are simply second to none. We attempt to root out any kind of opposition to Johan Lundgren's fine ideas, any kind of pro-American sentiment, or people who do not share the core beliefs of the moderators. Every other commercial aviation site out there is an imposter, they have all stolen code from airliners.net, the property of Sir Johan Lundgren. I....errr....Johan run the best aviation website."
Anyone else thinking that's a little forged?
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2593 times:
Yeah most of the reviews are by people who have been kicked out of the site, or can't get their poor quality photos accepted. You've gotta pity them in a way...
If you read some of the criticisms, not all of it is whining because they don't get their photos accepted or because they were banned. Some of the reviews contain legitimate concerns but recent events have made people very wary of posting their concerns on this site.