User avatar
Topic Author
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 4:32 am

Again.... Bad Info :-(

Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:14 am

I don't want to start another bashing thread but...

I wonder why some contributors are so careless about the info they put while uploading their photos. I thought the new Auto complete feature will improve the situation, but even with it, there are certain individuals that keep using the fields as they want.

I'm not talking about occasional mistakes that everyone commits (myself) Embarrassment

Some days ago I was amazed to see that someone uploaded thirty or forty photos in a batch, and while he put every cn, he did it in the remarks field. Others simply put the generic aircraft type when there have been previous uploaders that have done it properly with the subtype for the same aircraft others rename the airline or the location to match their tastes...

I think the screeners should take a tougher line on this, or perhaps the uploading scripts should force to fill the fields in a proper way.

I know some of you would say that you don't want to "waste" your time with the info, but is not simply loads of unsorted photos... And the database standardization staff time is as important as yours.  Wink/being sarcastic

Just my humble opinion...  Innocent

Toni M

There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 10:42 pm

RE: Again.... Bad Info :-(

Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:23 am

Toni M,

We have been asking photographers to use autocomplete for a long time.
Most of them use it, but we still get new photographers every day and they are not that familiar with the procedure.
Here is another topic regarding this issue:

Take care,
BWIADCA - Nikon D100
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2000 3:26 am

RE: Again.... Bad Info :-(

Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:47 am

Now now... You should report that to the photographer  Nuts
User avatar
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 8:19 am

RE: Again.... Bad Info :-(

Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:17 am

Hmmm Would make life of a screener and data base editor a lot easier!

About half of our job is to check details for accuracy and I have at times spent quite some time filling in manuf, model and cn details. Where a photographer continually uploads with missing info we usually let them know and most of these are newbies. If a photo is rejected for some other reason and there is a missing model or cn that is readily available in the DB we mark the info reason as well and I generally include a message with the details to correct, and live in hope that the next time the photographer uploads they will include all the info or use the auto complete.

Keep in mind when uploading the more we (the crew) do for you to correct info the longer it will take to get your photos to the database. Some time spent reading and following the thread listed above will help us all immensely.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


Good things take Time.
Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:55 pm

RE: Again.... Bad Info :-(

Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:27 am

Hi all

IF ONLY PEOPLE WOULD TAKE HEED OF THE UNIQUE FILE NAME REQUEST!.....then there would be no wrong images attached to wrong photographers.

It's there plain and simple and easy to read but we STILL get stoopid upload file names like 'G-BOAC.jpg'

Once that has been sorted, the screeners would not have to reply to these problems, which are happening often now.


Gary Watt
Sabena 690
Posts: 6065
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 12:48 am

RE: Again.... Bad Info :-(

Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:14 pm

During the past days, there were indeed quite a lot of corrections submitted about pictures with totally wrong information due to the filename being overwritten.

Put your birthday date in front of every picture you upload or the name of your dog, but make them UNIQUE!

For the rest: I include the c/n of every correction I handle, looking up the c/n is done in 10 seconds. A pitty that there are still photographers out there that even don't look up the correct aircraft type (MD80...., B737-..., B737-2..., A330-2...).

It must be extremely frustrating for the database standardisators when they standardize for example all Concorde picturers (which is a big effort), and see after 3 weeks that the new uploaded Concorders are again full of mistakes.

User avatar
Posts: 4938
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: Again.... Bad Info :-(

Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:31 pm

I agree too. People spend much time shooting these photos, editing them, and uploading them and should at least make a good effort to get all the info right. I dont just mean auto complete but some people put in the MSN but not CN or wrong format, incomplete aircraft model, etc etc.

There are many accurate places online to get this info from and its very quick.

The MSN/CN field is such a good search tool now because many planes have had numerous owners & changes of reg#.

People should take as much pride in making sure they have all the right info as they do in editing the photo to upload standards. Of course then there are those who simply work as fast as possible to batch-upload 30 or 40 at a time to get into the "top uploader" spot.....  Big grin

Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Posts: 4843
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:40 pm

RE: Again.... Bad Info :-(

Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:41 pm

I'm doing UK - England at the moment.. and the other week a photo came up with the location looking something like:

London Heathrow (LHR/EGLL).. when it should be..
London - Heathrow (LHR / EGLL)

Why don't some people use the drop down lists?!

About the file names.. couldn't a random value be added to each upload? I know a image hosting site that adds a random value, couldn't do the same?

Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:55 pm

RE: Again.... Bad Info :-(

Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:45 pm

Hi all

I agreed with Bruce and Frederic.

Too many people rush to upload without taking some time to research aircraft and c/n details. Yes, some people don't care about c/n's but lots of guys like this info.

I don't really have a use for c/n's but still like to upload the info if I can get hold of it. A quick search of the Internet can bring up great information.

As for not uploading the correct aircraft type, sheer blody laziness if you ask me.


Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Again.... Bad Info :-(

Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:55 pm


Trouble with the standard drop down lists is that we screeners don't know when a standard value has been used, and when the photographer has made something up. Take the Concordes for example. Seems to me like some of them should be BAe/Aerospaciale, some should be BAC/Aero... blah, blah or whatever. Likewise, 146s - BAe, AIR, Avro... When we screen a picture of a Concorde, we have no idea whether the photographer has picked a standardised value, or whether they've picked the right standardised value. Do we screeners check every single upload? Honestly, no. Does it look right is the crucial question, and if its a 146 BAe, AIR, Avro could all "look right". Even "London Heathrow (LHR/EGLL)" looks OK during that first quick glance when we see it whilst screening. Some are easier than others though - a common 737 which is just showing 737-3.. rather than having a customer code is obvious laziness on the part of the photographer, but mostly we just don't have time for the minute detail.

It would make things a lot easier to achieve standardisation in the screening process if our scripts showed us whether a photographer had picked from a standardised list, or just entered stuff for themselves.

As for the file names thing - we've said this until we're blue in the face, but some folks either don't read this forum or don't read the instructions. I for one have no sympathy any more for those who get rejections because they've used a common file name - they deserve the rejection, and if they get a sarcastic reply back from the screeners when they complain too, well then they they deserve that too. Some people just won't help themselves, and it reaches the point where we shouldn't have to spend time helping them either.

There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Again.... Bad Info :-(

Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:57 am

If there are established standards for certain aircraft, why not make the badinfo a javascript bounceback? You know... like when you fill out a form on the internet and forget to put in your phone number for example, the next page says "You forgot your phone number." Except in this case, for example, if someone misidentifies the established aircraft (like the Concorde example), the user gets an immediate bounceback badinfo warning. That allows the USER to make the correction AT THE TIME OF UPLOAD.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Popular Searches On

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos