User avatar
eksath
Crew
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:19 am

Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:31 am

hmmm....

Since we are "exhorted" to live up to the "HIGH standards" of A.net, I think it is only fair we expect the same from some screeners ( I say some because I know there is a majority of diligent ones). Pictures sit in the queue for far too long to be summarily kicked out by sloppy screening.

Here are my two recent examples. If I am wrong,please show it to me and I will humbly apologize to the ALL the screeners.

#1

REJECTION REASON: "INFO" (<-----Note the aircraft already exist in database, the squadron info is painted on side)



http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejp...in?filename=20070730_DSC01870a.jpg

my comment and reg:
"USA - Navy
Grumman E-2C-II Hawkeye "
"Galveston - Scholes Field International (GLS / KGLS)
USA - Texas, April 29, 2007 "
"165304 A52-177 AA-601 From VAW-121 'Bluetails' NAS Norfolk, VA "


#2:

REJECTION REASON: "SIZE" (<------Portrait photo is 1000pixel by 667 pixel in PS)

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejp...in?filename=20070801_M9P2515a2.jpg

"USA - Air Force
General Dynamics F-16C Fighting Falcon (401) "
"Off-Airport - Fort Lauderdale
USA - Florida, May 6, 2007 "
"87-0319 5C-580 1 The Thunderbird stack above my head. Smoke on. Power on. "
World Wide Aerospace Photography
 
JohnJ
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2000 5:01 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:35 am

my comment and reg:
"USA - Navy
Grumman E-2C-II Hawkeye "
"Galveston - Scholes Field International (GLS / KGLS)
USA - Texas, April 29, 2007 "
"165304 A52-177 AA-601 From VAW-121 'Bluetails' NAS Norfolk, VA "

Code should be AA-600.
 
EK20
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:31 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:37 am

The second one also has a few dirty blemishes. One in the top right hand corner and one in the bottom left. I'm not sure about the info on the first one but I would have rejected it for being too tightly cropped towords the nose.
 
OlegShv
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:22 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 1):
Code should be AA-600.

So basically, all other photos of the same aircraft have wrong info?

http://airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=165304
 
User avatar
eksath
Crew
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:42 am

Quoting OlegShv (Reply 3):
So basically, all other photos of the same aircraft have wrong info?

http://airliners.net/search/photo.se...65304

Agreed. And I have been told before NOT to change the AUTOFILL fields.
World Wide Aerospace Photography
 
aero145
Posts: 2867
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:59 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:43 am

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 1):
Code should be AA-600.



Quoting OlegShv (Reply 3):
So basically, all other photos of the same aircraft have wrong info?

Yes, they do. 601 as a code and 600 painted on the aircraft doesn't make sense.

Quoting Eksath (Reply 4):
And I have been told before NOT to change the AUTOFILL fields.

If you know better, and you see it's wrong in the autofill, then, why not change it? I do it all the time!

[Edited 2007-08-01 22:44:18]
 
EK20
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:31 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:50 am

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 5):
If you know better, and you see it's wrong in the autofill, then, why not change it? I do it all the time!

www.scramble.nl is the best place to check.  Smile
 
User avatar
eksath
Crew
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:55 am

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 5):
If you know better, and you see it's wrong in the autofill, then, why not change it? I do it all the time!

[Edited 2007-08-01 22:44:18]

CASE AND POINT


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Suresh A. Atapattu



Though serial shows 42-38050, she is actually 44-85718.

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=900RW

Note the info put in by the AUTOFILL fields. I changed this info on submission and had the picture rejected. I can probably find the screener email but i got a message in effect saying "not to mess with the fields".
World Wide Aerospace Photography
 
dendrobatid
Posts: 1645
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:40 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:55 am

I will only comment on the Hawkeye which I rejected for info - the Code you eneterd was 601 whilst painted on the aircraft is 600.
Now, unless you know better, but that to me is simply wrong so I will accept your apologies.
If the information is wrong on other photos, I do not know as I simply screened yours not the previous X that were on the database. Information does change on aircraft and can be changed when it is evidently wrong as it was with yours !
The info rejection was valid

Mick Bajcar
 
OlegShv
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:22 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:56 am

Quoting EK20 (Reply 6):
www.scramble.nl is the best place to check.

Thanks for the link! Recently I had tough time figuring out info for some military planes that I tried to upload.

Regards,

Oleg.
 
User avatar
eksath
Crew
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:59 am

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 8):
I will only comment on the Hawkeye which I rejected for info - the Code you eneterd was 601 whilst painted on the aircraft is 600.
Now, unless you know better, but that to me is simply wrong so I will accept your apologies.
If the information is wrong on other photos, I do not know as I simply screened yours not the previous X that were on the database. Information does change on aircraft and can be changed when it is evidently wrong as it was with yours !
The info rejection was valid

Mick Bajcar

Mick,

My apologies for being harsh but i can assure you that 1. I did not enter 601 2. I have been found at fault for previously changing auto info as stated above in my post hence I no longer mess with AUTO FILL fields. What is the current policy with all your screeners?

Suresh

[Edited 2007-08-01 23:01:48]
World Wide Aerospace Photography
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:03 am

I don't understand the confusion.
This one is clearly 600 as yours so it also has wrong info.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rod Dermo



Idem

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Shull



There is nothing wrong as far as I can see with thos one as it clearly shows 601.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Radomir Zaric



Guess there are 2 of those HawkEye's.

Quoting Eksath (Thread starter):
REJECTION REASON: "SIZE" (<------Portrait photo is 1000pixel by 667 pixel in PS)

Isn't 1024 the minimum upload size ?
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
User avatar
eksath
Crew
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:06 am

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 11):
Isn't 1024 the minimum upload size ?


1000 pixels wide is allowed as long as the ratio is maintained. My picture IS WITHIN the specs hence my post.

"We have had to reject the following photos:

The size of these photo(s) is too small or they have a very unusual
width/height ratio.
Uploaded images should be at least 1000 pixels wide and at least 667
pixels high for landscape format photos, or 1000 pixels high (the longer
side) for portrait format photos. The width/height ratio should be in the
region of 3:2 or 4:3. To read more about the required size of the images,
please go to
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#size"

[Edited 2007-08-01 23:08:24]
World Wide Aerospace Photography
 
dendrobatid
Posts: 1645
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:40 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:08 am

Suresh,
Let me put it like this, if you entered an Airliner that had been owned by airline A but had been sold to airline B and you had the first photograph so that airline B was not listed, would you leave it as airline A because that is what the autofill said ?
Of course not because that would clearly be wrong.
The same applies with yours as the info is wrong on the autofill (or the Code has changed)
All screeners have the same guidelines, the same policy as it has always been - the information has to be right. We do not have access to the autofill when we screen, we check the image against the information given for it. If it is wrong we usually reject. We sometimes miss incorrect information though I did not with yours.
Mick Bajcar
 
User avatar
eksath
Crew
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:24 am

Mick,

In the future I will change the fields as needed. My apologies to you.

The email below is after my last episode of changing the B-17s AUTOFILL fields. Refreshing my memory the screener did not say dont mess with the fields but effectively, i read this as bging told that if you don't have any more info please don't input it. I did not have the CN number though i had the USAF serial number (which i corrected). I ended up uploading the picture with the AUTOFILL fields and GUESS WHAT, it is in the database now.   Along with all the other wrong ones.


This mail is sent to you to confirm that some or all of the photos you
recently uploaded to Airliners.Net have been through the screening
process.

This is the status of your photos that have undergone screening so far:

-----------------------------------------------------------

We have had to reject the following photos:

- DSC01791a.jpg (Untitled Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress (299P))
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...in?filename=20070512_DSC01791a.jpg

Some of the info you submitted together with these photo(s) was either
missing, incorrect, irrelevant or in the wrong format. A common reason for
this message is a missing registration or an airport name or location in
the wrong format. This problem may also be due to the info being written
in a non-English language or grossly misspelled, or to a significant
incorrect use of upper and lower case letters.
This problem is usually easy to correct, and if this was the only
rejection reason for these images, we would certainly appreciate a
re-upload with the correct information filled in. If you want to read more
about this problem, please go to
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#info

The screener(s) decided to include a personal message to you about these
photo(s). Please scroll down to read this message.

-----------------------------------------------------------

A total of 1 photos processed.

A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"Where's the CN like the others in the database? Need to be more consistant."

[Edited 2007-08-01 23:25:58]
World Wide Aerospace Photography
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:38 am

Quoting Eksath (Reply 14):
I ended up uploading the picture with the AUTOFILL fields and GUESS WHAT, it is in the database now. Along with all the other wrong ones.

Some screeners are more lenient than others, or are not as familiar with military serials, regs, codes, and the like. Future plans call for better tools to cross reference supplied info as well as screeners who know the mil stuff screening the mil stuff.

On a personal note I know I need to get tougher on info rejections, I tend to let them slide, which is why I have one of the lowest rejection rates (I can't bring myself to reject a great photo for a missing c/n, as an example) but the downside is it does create some inconsistencies.

But we need to be firm at the same time, or it wouldn't be long before all the hard work the database team puts in to go completely sideways.
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:57 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 15):
On a personal note I know I need to get tougher on info rejections, I tend to let them slide, which is why I have one of the lowest rejection rates (I can't bring myself to reject a great photo for a missing c/n, as an example) but the downside is it does create some inconsistencies.

Royal,

I personally find very disappointing (and very counter-productive for all involved) to get info rejections. I had proposed some time ago that photos with info rejections to basically be accepted but somehow be put "on ice" until the info on them is corrected. I think this will be a great improvement to the submission and acceptance processes and everyone will be happy: we won't get info rejections and you will not shed tears when rejecting a great shot for info.  Smile Maybe, you (i.e., the site) might want to look into this?

Eksath, Sorry for hijacking the thread for this!

Regards,

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
User avatar
ThierryD
Crew
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:25 am

Quoting SNATH (Reply 16):
I had proposed some time ago that photos with info rejections to basically be accepted but somehow be put "on ice" until the info on them is corrected.

And who would correct it? The screeners? The database editors? I don't think it's the A.net crew's job to get OUR info right. There are enough sources on the internet to get all the data that you need and if you really don't find some required data, a short note to the screeners during uploading will most probably solve the issue.

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 11):
Isn't 1024 the minimum upload size ?

Nope! Look here: http://planecatcher.com/IGRR/Size.htm  Wink

Thierry

[Edited 2007-08-02 00:26:48]
"Go ahead...make my day"
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:41 am

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 17):
There are enough sources on the internet to get all the data that you need and if you really don't find some required data

 checkmark 
and if I am informed correctly the database editors have some 30.000 corrections to go Big grin

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 17):
Nope! Look here:

Yeah...Yeah...... I got the message Thierry  knockout 
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:06 am

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 17):
And who would correct it? The screeners? The database editors? I don't think it's the A.net crew's job to get OUR info right.

The photographers themselves. Until the info is corrected, the picture will not get "unfrozen". And if it's not corrected within, say 2 weeks or whatever, the picture disappears.

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:09 am

Quoting SNATH (Reply 16):
I personally find very disappointing (and very counter-productive for all involved) to get info rejections. I had proposed some time ago that photos with info rejections to basically be accepted but somehow be put "on ice" until the info on them is corrected

I completely agree! (Although I'm getting a whole lot more color rejections than info rejections these days.) It would seem to me that info has very little to do with the quality of the photograph, which I would hope the screeners (who are photographers) would spend nearly all their effort judging.

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 17):
And who would correct it? The screeners? The database editors? I don't think it's the A.net crew's job to get OUR info right.

I thought that was why we have database editors. Is that wrong?
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:34 am

It's not unusual to change an a/c's modex. It is only AA-600 when it's designated as the CAG's (Airwing Commander's) bird. In each Navy squadron, a/c x00 is designated the CAG bird.

In May of 2003 it probably was not the CAG bird, and was correctly identified by the modex 601. Probably the Skipper's bird. Usually a/c x01.

In March 2007, probably due to the loss of the previous CAG bird either by accident, retirement, or any of many other possibilites, the a/c was designated to become the CAG bird, and repainted to become what we affectionately call "Double Nuts" in Navy Slang.

What is painted on the plane when the photo is taken is what should be reflected in the remarks.
 
lennymuir
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:58 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:45 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 15):
Future plans call for better tools to cross reference supplied info as well as screeners who know the mil stuff screening the mil stuff

Wow! How many mil screeners does a.net have?
I reckon two ... (maybe more?)..... such a burden!


Good luck!

 

[Edited 2007-08-02 02:49:12]
 
User avatar
ThierryD
Crew
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:17 pm

Quoting SNATH (Reply 19):
The photographers themselves. Until the info is corrected, the picture will not get "unfrozen". And if it's not corrected within, say 2 weeks or whatever, the picture disappears.

Well, if you'd be able to correct the info yourself why not get it right during uploading!?

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 17):
And who would correct it? The screeners? The database editors? I don't think it's the A.net crew's job to get OUR info right.

I thought that was why we have database editors. Is that wrong?

I hope you're just kidding here. If what you imply here became reality no uploader (or at least a very big part of them) would not care anymore about getting the correct info and the database editors would have to "clean up" after us, meaning getting right a few hundred photos per day!
As I said before, there are enough sources available to get all the necessary info; all you have to do is invest some time into it.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 21):
It is only AA-600 when it's designated as the CAG's (Airwing Commander's) bird. In each Navy squadron, a/c x00 is designated the CAG bird.

Very interesting info, Jeff! Thanks for that!  thumbsup 

Thierry

[Edited 2007-08-02 11:18:58]
"Go ahead...make my day"
 
User avatar
tonyosborne
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:27 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:29 pm

I am intrigued how you know that Thunderbird 1 is "87-0319" seeing as the numbers on the sides of the jet are interchangable and the only way to check which jet is which at that moment is by looking in the cockpit.

But of course we screeners are 'sloppy'  Yeah sure
Intentionally Left Blank
 
Ljungdahl
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 2:10 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:43 pm

One of the reasons this problem occur, is these words on the photo upload page:

Big version: Width: 642 Height: 90 File size: 16kb
upload page info


"NEVER erase info added by the Auto-complete function."

As said before, what if you have a photo of a "new" airframe, using an "old" registration?


 Smile
/Johan
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:14 pm

Quoting Tonyosborne (Reply 24):
I am intrigued how you know that Thunderbird 1 is "87-0319" seeing as the numbers on the sides of the jet are interchangable and the only way to check which jet is which at that moment is by looking in the cockpit.

All I've ever had to do at any airshow was ask a crew chief, they know everything about their jets and love to tell you about them. I've also seen the sn' listed in the progam.
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:23 pm

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 23):
I thought that was why we have database editors. Is that wrong?

I hope you're just kidding here. If what you imply here became reality no uploader (or at least a very big part of them) would not care anymore about getting the correct info and the database editors would have to "clean up" after us, meaning getting right a few hundred photos per day!

I'm not kidding at all.

Look, it doesn't take much to tell the difference between someone who made an effort, and someone who is abusing the system. For instance, if it's a civilian airliner and you put in the wrong reg number (or none at all), that person didn't make an effort. If the bad info is that this plane was uploaded as a 737-728 when it was actually a -74B (or whatever), that person clearly made an effort. These things aren't easy, especially for military jets, which apparently change regs frequently. Why not leave it to the experts?

In short, reject for info when the person got something easy and obvious wrong. Send to the DB editors when it's not clear what the correct info is.

When you start rejecting a bunch of photographs for info, I think you are saying that the primary focus of the site is something other than aviation photography.
 
JohnJ
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2000 5:01 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:32 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 27):
When you start rejecting a bunch of photographs for info, I think you are saying that the primary focus of the site is something other than aviation photography.

I like to think of the primary focus of this site being a database of high-quality aviation photos. A database isn't much good with inaccurate information.

Military shots can be a hassle from an information perspective, particularly older frames in a museum. I've spent many hours tracking down serial numbers and construction numbers, and there are some for which information simply isn't available online. Corey (database editor) turned me onto Scramble, and it's the best single source I've found so far for this type of information. The E-2 in question is correctly listed as AA-600 on that site.
 
JohnJ
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2000 5:01 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:34 pm

Here's another site I use a lot for military reg info:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:40 pm

The problem with allowing bad info shots to be accepted is it rewards someone for not playing by the rules. A good example is the refinment we did to the DARK category a few months ago....there are some photogs who list every shot as dark, even if it was taken at noon. If the screeners fix it for them, they keep doing it. But if you start rejecting the shots, they figure it out, and don't do it anymore.
 
Granite
Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:55 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:05 pm

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 30):
The problem with allowing bad info shots to be accepted is it rewards someone for not playing by the rules. A good example is the refinment we did to the DARK category a few months ago....there are some photogs who list every shot as dark, even if it was taken at noon. If the screeners fix it for them, they keep doing it. But if you start rejecting the shots, they figure it out, and don't do it anymore.

 checkmark 

Regards

Gary
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:22 pm

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 30):
The problem with allowing bad info shots to be accepted is it rewards someone for not playing by the rules. A good example is the refinment we did to the DARK category a few months ago....there are some photogs who list every shot as dark, even if it was taken at noon. If the screeners fix it for them, they keep doing it. But if you start rejecting the shots, they figure it out, and don't do it anymore.

Royal, I agree with that of course, but we both know you can tell the difference between an abuser and someone that makes an effort. That guy that lists it as dark at noon should not be surprised by the rejection. That guy that puts the reg number as 601 for a warplane that says 601 on the side SHOULD be surprised by the rejection when it turns out that, oops, on that day, it was actually 600.

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 28):
A database isn't much good with inaccurate information.

Don't disagree with that either. (I'd also point out though that the Autocomplete function is worse than useless if using it can cause a rejection.) Where I part ways is in insisting that getting information wrong after an honest effort to put it in correctly is appropriately penalized by
- dumping the photograph,
- making the photographer attempt to do another honest effort to put in the correct information (often without guidance as to why his information was wrong in the first place,
- forcing the photographer to wait another 10 days in the queue,
- lowering his acceptance ratio,
- and forcing his shot to be judged again for its photographic merit, by another set of eyes that may subjectively differ from the up to 3 people that thought his shot was HQ the first time.

I think it wastes screener resources, and probably doesn't do much for screener-photographer relations either. I don't see how the current way encourages people to make an honest effort when more likely, their honest effort is met with such an overhanded penalty.
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:52 am

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 23):
Well, if you'd be able to correct the info yourself why not get it right during uploading!?

...because, as it's already been discussed, sometimes it's just not easy to get it right the first time. Especially in situations, like the one described in this thread, when you are assumed that you have to change the info given by the autocomplete function, even though there are very explicit and strict instructions not to.

Quoting D L X (Reply 27):
In short, reject for info when the person got something easy and obvious wrong. Send to the DB editors when it's not clear what the correct info is.

 checkmark 

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 28):
A database isn't much good with inaccurate information.

FWIW, once, I was actually encouraged to add inaccurate information. It was for a window shot over the US and I didn't know which state we were over at the time, so I had tagged it as unknown. I was then told to guess the state. The fact that the screeners believe that inaccurate information is better than no information goes against everything I believe about the accuracy of the DB.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 30):
The problem with allowing bad info shots to be accepted is it rewards someone for not playing by the rules. A good example is the refinment we did to the DARK category a few months ago....there are some photogs who list every shot as dark, even if it was taken at noon. If the screeners fix it for them, they keep doing it. But if you start rejecting the shots, they figure it out, and don't do it anymore.

I never claimed that you should accept shots with inaccurate information. I marely suggested that you should put them on the side while the information is corrected for all the reasons DLX described in reply #32.

Quoting Granite (Reply 31):
checkmark

Regards

Gary

Do I smell a bit of screener comradery here?  Smile

Quoting D L X (Reply 32):
Where I part ways is in insisting that getting information wrong after an honest effort to put it in correctly is appropriately penalized by
- dumping the photograph,
- making the photographer attempt to do another honest effort to put in the correct information (often without guidance as to why his information was wrong in the first place,
- forcing the photographer to wait another 10 days in the queue,
- lowering his acceptance ratio,
- and forcing his shot to be judged again for its photographic merit, by another set of eyes that may subjectively differ from the up to 3 people that thought his shot was HQ the first time.

I think it wastes screener resources, and probably doesn't do much for screener-photographer relations either. I don't see how the current way encourages people to make an honest effort when more likely, their honest effort is met with such an overhanded penalty.

Really, I could not have put this better myself. And the screener-photographer relations issue is a particular important one, in my opinion. If, you screeners, had a mechanism to be more accommodating and helpful about photos with incorrect info, provided it's obvious the photographer made a conscious effort to get the info right, would only improve the photographers' uploading experience. And, who knows, we might even start to like you.  Smile  duck 

D L X, welcome to my RU list BTW.

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
dlednicer
Crew
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:35 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:06 am

I posted this on May 16th and it slid off the forum with few comments. Please read it:

In cleaning up the database, I have been coming across a lot of images with very incorrect types and Generic types. This posting is an attempt to educate uploaders so that these errors do not keep happening.

When uploading a picture, always first try to use autocomplete. On the upload page, enter the registration and airport code into the two boxes at the top of the page and click on the "Get Info" button to the right. If there is another image of an aircraft with that registration, the type and Generic type will be automatically provided for you. If boxes appear with multiple choices, pick the one that looks most accurate - don't make up your own.

If nothing is supplied by autocomplete, next go to Photos>Photo Index option on the main Airliner.net page. Click on "Aircraft type" and the first letter of the manufacturer's name. A list of possibilities will appear. These are Generic types. Find the one that applies best and click the "V" button to the left. A list of variants will appear. These are the types. Unless you are uploading something that just plain isn't in the database, use one of these Generic types and types for your upload. Don't invent new Generic types or types when ones exist that describe the aircraft you are uploading.

A common mistake is to name just the manufacturer in the Generic type and just the aircraft designation in the type. For example, this is a wrong:
Generic type: Boeing
type: C-17A Globemaster III

This is correct:
Generic type: Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
type: Boeing C-17A Globemaster III

On a related note, the definition of the manufacturer (except for homebuilts) is the company name that was on the factory the day the particular aircraft flew. Hence, C-17s are split between McDonnell Douglas and Boeing. Lacking detailed production information, for the moment we use the USAF serial numbers. McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in 1997. USAF serial number give a fiscal year (first two digits) showing when the aircraft was ordered. This precedes first flight by about 2-3 years. Hence, the cut-off for the C-17 is the end of 1995. All aircraft serialed 95-xxxx and before are McDonnell Douglas. All serialed 96-xxxx and on are Boeing.

For homebuilts, the "manufacturer" is the entity who designed the aircraft or sells the plans. For example, all Rutan Long-EZs are listed as "Rutan 61 Long-EZ".

Please stick to these rules and save us work on making the database usable. To help further educate uploaders, I will work on a related post on resources available for uploading information.
 
113312
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:09 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:47 am

While we are taking shots at the screeners, I'm going to throw a couple of bombs too. First, I have had shots rejected on the grounds that the screener claimed to see reflections from terminal windows. Well, there may or may not have been but they were vintage and unusual shots. Today, I saw several newly posted pictures with very distinct window reflections.

Secondly, I am seeing a disturbing trend of over cropping of images. It now seems that over 1/4 of the new digital images accepted are cropped so tightly that the tail, wings, and even wheels are cut out leaving only the body of the aircraft and perhaps the engines. I don't think that this is great airliner photography. More effort should be devoted to preparing for a shot so that all or most of the plane is captured. Occasionally, a nose or tail shot is great as a special effect. However, the amount of cropping in so many images gives the impression of viewing through a key hole. Why is this technique becoming so common and perhaps encouraged by some screeners?
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:03 am

Quoting 113312 (Reply 35):
Today, I saw several newly posted pictures with very distinct window reflections.

If there are shots with window reflections they should have never been accepted. Please send an email to screeners@airliners.net If the images do have reflections they will be deleted right away.

Quoting 113312 (Reply 35):
Why is this technique becoming so common and perhaps encouraged by some screeners?

What you are stating is a personal opinion. You call it a "disturbing trend" yet some people might really like such shots. We have had many internal discussions with regards to cropping, yet the team is divided. Many shots are rejected for having "weak crops," but if such s hot doesn't miss any of our other guide lines it won't be rejected.
 
jajo
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:31 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:21 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 36):
If there are shots with window reflections they should have never been accepted. Please send an email to screeners@airliners.net If the images do have reflections they will be deleted right away.

That doesn't work very good. I have done this and never got a reply.

/ Jacob
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:33 am

Quoting Jajo (Reply 37):
That doesn't work very good. I have done this and never got a reply.

Ah. Well, that happens, too. We try to respond to everyone, but some fall through the cracks.
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3177
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:20 am

So what about the size rejection?
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:57 am

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 39):
So what about the size rejection?

It would take some extra programming, but I think that if the photo does not meet the size requirement, there should be a warning on the confirmation page saying so. My understanding is that the screening panel has a section that shows the size, and the size is in red if it's too big or whatever. That should be made available to uploaders as well.


BTW, I really hope this doesn't sound like piling on to the screeners. I'm thinking of ways to improve the relationship with them, not slam them.
 
dlednicer
Crew
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:35 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:25 am

Begin Rant
Here is an example of what gives me fits as a db editor. A picture of an Italian F-16 was submitted and accepted (I've fixed the entry already). The submitter did not use auto complete - in other words, they didn't type in the registration and hit "Get Info". There are two other occurences of this aircraft in the database, which autofill would have used for info. The submitter then identified the Type as a Lockheed Martin F-16A Fighting Falcon when it should be a General Dynamics F-16A/ADF Fighting Falcon (401) and the Generic Type as a Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon when it should of been a General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon (401). Lastly, they left the cn blank, when autofill would have provided it. Luckily, I scan all of the accepted photos almost every day looking for such mistakes. A little effort would prevent many of these mistakes. Auto fill is not perfect, but it gets you a long ways there. Use a little common sense if it provides you obviously wrong info. If you auto fill provides something that you don't think is right, include a message to the screeners in your submission.

I would encourage people to research what they are submitting. Type in the registration in Google and see what you get. Consult the FAA database for US registered aircraft (http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/) or for other registrations, see if databases are available at www.landings.com. For military aircraft, consult Scramble (http://www.scramble.nl/milbase.htm) or for US aircraft, double check with Joe Baugher's lists (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/). If its a helicopter, check Rotorspot (http://www.geocities.com/rotorspot/historic.htm) or this site: http://www30.brinkster.com/ukcopter/frames/master.html
Look at the database to see how aircraft of this type are identified. Put effort into understanding what you took a picture of. If you are really uncertain what to do, e-mail me at: dlednicer@airliners.net
End Rant

[Edited 2007-08-02 23:38:16]
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3177
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:53 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 40):


Quoting KFLLCFII:

So what about the size rejection?

It would take some extra programming, but I think that if the photo does not meet the size requirement, there should be a warning on the confirmation page saying so.

I believe there already is some sort of mechanism in place, IIRC.

However, that's even irrelevant here, as the photo DID meet said size requirement...

Quoting Eksath (Thread starter):
REJECTION REASON: "SIZE" (<------Portrait photo is 1000pixel by 667 pixel in PS)



Quoting Eksath (Reply 12):
"We have had to reject the following photos:

The size of these photo(s) is too small or they have a very unusual
width/height ratio.
Uploaded images should be at least 1000 pixels wide and at least 667
pixels high for landscape format photos, or 1000 pixels high (the longer
side) for portrait format photos. The width/height ratio should be in the
region of 3:2 or 4:3. To read more about the required size of the images,
please go to http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#size>

So what gives?
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
User avatar
eksath
Crew
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Rejection "happy" Screeners?

Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:15 am

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 42):
So what gives?

yep..still not answered. However, one screener did take a pot shot on me for this registration (as JeffM correctly pointed out in how to get a reg for these birds, I did spend my time with the crew at OPF and the public affairs officer on the event days as the Thunderbird routine took place at Ft.Lauderdale beach)..
World Wide Aerospace Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests