Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Psych
Topic Author
Posts: 3008
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:38 am

It's been a long time - so here I go   .

I have been interested to read a recent thread relating to file size, where a discussion point has revolved around whether it is okay or not to mention that a photo has been uploaded at a size larger than the standard 1024 pixels. The crew decision has been to exclude any mention of file size in the comment to a photo. One implication behind this is that making mention of a larger file is a premeditated attempt to draw the viewer into clicking on that image, somehow in an ‘unfair’ manner.

Throughout my time at A.net I have always been interested in debates about people inappropriately trying to generate views for their images – be it exclamation marks after '1600px'; drawing attention to female pilots; comments which include the phrase ‘…if you look closely…’; putting a thumbnail of your own photo in a thread; and more unsubtle examples besides.

Given that one of the fundamental reasons for anyone uploading an image here is to generate attention for one’s photo, I thought it might be interesting to think through in a little more detail what the site’s ‘philosophy’ is about appropriate and inappropriate ‘hit-seeking’ – comments to photos, threads about your own images etc. It always amuses me when people make the link between showing a photo of their own and ‘shame’, or feel they have to preface a link with an apology - as through this is something to hang your head about. Sure, sometimes people are boasting, but often they are not. I also think it is useful to avoid any perception of unfair ‘censorship’ by crew around things such as comments. Such a conversation may help that.

I will begin – I really don’t see why anyone should feel in the least bit bad if they illustrate a point in a discussion using a photo of their own. In my mind there is nothing ‘shameful’ about using your own photo(s). I agree there are limits though – i.e. no need to put 10 thumbnails in when one or two will do fine. For me the comments I make to my own photos should be left alone unless they breach some clear rules relating to appropriate behaviour and/or site protocol. I see the comment as an opportunity to inform the viewer about elements of the image that I believe are potentially relevant – particularly where the photo is taken from; information about the aircraft in question that they may find of interest; and any description of what the scene is showing us. For me, drawing attention to an element of the image – such as an interesting decal on the aircraft or a condition under which the photo was taken (such as slow shutter speed) - may well be completely acceptable and helpful.

What do you think?

Cheers.

Paul

P.S. Phil's post re the Northern Lights illustrates a few of my themese perfectly. I would be more than happy to have seen him post that thread even if the photo had been accepted. Also - for me - if he wanted to write a paragraph in his comment explaining how the aurora happen then that would be completely acceptable in my opinion. That's what comments are for.

[Edited 2011-03-12 03:18:34]
 
cpd
Posts: 6554
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:18 pm

I'm not including details like shutter speed on new photos I upload (which is not often).

I try to avoid linking my photos in messages if possible.
 
megatop412
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:40 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:23 pm

The fact that this discussion even needs to take place is a reflection of how absurd some of the policing gets. No one can dispute the fact that many individuals uploading to the db do so for exposure of their work, and it seems intuitive that hit-seeking would be a part of that. Even though I myself don't appreciate that specific behavior, it's only logical that someone would engage in marketing; it's a means to achieve an end. After all, with strangers asking us questions like "Do you have any shots on anet?" and photographers posting threads that say things like "Thank you everyone, my first shot accepted!!!" (which I personally think is in poor taste- if you want to thank someone then PM them)I think it's fairly obvious that a person having shots here is a point of pride.

When you start looking for ways to place a set of arbitrary constraints on this behavior, you're setting youself up for a backlash like the one in the other thread. I agree with what one of the respondents said over there about how they can sort of see the reasoning behind this new rule, but where then might this go next? So what if I want to do a search for 1600? Who cares? If that lets me see the photos I want to see as a user, then that makes this site more user-friendly than others, does it not? If I have to deal with restrictions, that makes me want to use other sites instead. Just a hint.
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:21 am

quote=Psych,reply=0

What do you think?

quote=megatop412,reply=2

If I have to deal with restrictions, that makes me want to use other sites instead. Just a hint.



Paul;

I read every post on the thread you are talking about. I learned a few things I was unaware of. I heard a few things which I thought were nonsense! And I read and re-read the reply by one of the screeners, ( forget which one, but it really doesn't matter ), trying to decide if I agreed with him or not. So.......what do I think ?

First, I have to point out a couple of things; no two people on planet Earth think "just alike"; there are as many reasons for that as their are people ! This web site is unlike anything in my entire previous experience, and believe me, I have a LOT of "experience"! People on A.net come from...EVERYWHERE ! ( Haven't seen anyone from Antarctica yet, but I'll bet there may be a few! ) You will always find many differences in people's thinking, when they come from different countries, and I've never even HEARD of any "organization" with more "diversity" than A.net has. ( One of the major things that I personally love about it.) Also, people on A.net come from so many "backgrounds" that it amazes me.
I have noticed that there are a handful of extremely talented photographers on A.net that are only interested in posting their work here, and we never see anything posted in the forums by them. I'm sure there are many reasons for this.
Until quite recently, I had just about become convinced that the only "distinction" I will ever have on A.net is that I assumed that I was probably the "oldest living member"! Then, after viewing another members profile, I may not even have that "dubious distinction" after all. ( Not sure though.) So you have all these things making all these 4,000 or so people all "think differently". ( Including the "Crew" )

O.K. Here's what I think; I think you made an exceptionally thoughtful and articulate argument for your point of view.
It is a point of view that I tend to agree with almost entirely. But then again, that may or may not count for much, as we probably have somewhat different reasons for being members of A.net. You love to photograph airplanes, and you like to get your photos on A.net. I'm also very interested in photography, and no one on A.net likes airplanes more than I do, but for some strange reason, I'm not that interested in seeing my photos on A.net. I live 60 miles from the nearest large airport, so my "opportunities" to take aviation photos are somewhat limited, plus I'm very involved in a host of other "pursuits". When I do have the opportunity, such as when I happen to be traveling by air, up til now I haven't had the proper "equipment" with me to take A.net quality photos. Now I knew all these things when I became a member, so it's not a problem. And during the time I've been a member, I have had a few "unique" opportunities to take some "memorable" photos of airplanes. One was at the grand opening of a brand new international airport; because of a relationship to someone I am not at liberty to discuss on a forum, I had ramp access, and even met some of the top "brass" of a major airline. I even got some photos of the very first airplane to ever touch down on the then brand new
( I'm not sure, but I believe the new runway is 10,000 ft. ) Unfortunately, because of the "equipment" I had with me, the photos are not "A.net quality", so I won't be uploading them. But that's also O.K. ! The mere fact that I was able to make 18 X 24 prints of them on a friend's commercial printer, took the trouble to buy a matt cutter and make matts for them, made frames for them with molding that I made myself with my molding machine, out of lumber from our woods, and now they are hanging in the office of a certain Station Manager of said airline, where they were "viewed" by a Director of the Airline, who now wants 3 for HIS office at Corporate........that's all the satisfaction I need ! Now that I have replaced my film camera with "proper equipment", I intend to re-photograph the interior of a fabulous building in Chicago, and my goal is to have an exhibit of my work in the photo gallery of that building. In addition to photography, I do graphic design, and if I don't get a "move on", I may "run out of time" before the world has an "opportunity" to see my "body of work" ! ( Better be careful or I'll be accused of "pimping my own work" ! )

Do I think some of A.net's "rules" are "trivial" ? Yeah, I do,,,,,,,,,,,,but it's THEIR website, and I still LOVE it, so I have no inclination to argue with them about their rules. About megatop412's comments about "other sites"........I was thinking the same thing when I read the thread !

But I kinda have to "keep a low profile", or I may find my self "on the outside looking in" as they say; I made an incredibly innocent, seemingly "spot-on" remark about a reply to a post that I considered to be an insult to the United States Air Force, and not only did I get deleted, I also received a "stern warning" ! And I don't even know who gave me the warning; but it doesn't matter..........I have "ceased and desisted", and will remain on my best behavior !
Because I LOVE this website! A hand full of the 4,000 members makes it all worthwhile for me; I'm even thinking of upgrading to a First Class membership, mainly to get "full screen" and no watermarks.

I have read every comment by every crew member since I have become a member, and I don't believe I have been in disagreement with any of them, until the "thread in question". Matter of fact, they all strike me as very nice people.

Getting back to "the thread"; if I was skeptical before about ever trying to get photos "accepted", all that stuff about pixel sizes kinda nailed it for me. I seriously doubt if A.net will ever need to worry about turning any of my photos down, because I doubt that I'll ever submit any. But I STILL love the website! I love the photos! I have contacted a few of the photographers about their photos, and I can tell you, there are not just "world class photographers" on A.net, there are also some "world class people" ! And I love people ! ( Especially if they are world class! )

My overall philosophy is, if I find some "yucky" on the sidewalk, that I don't want to step in, I just walk around it, and don't bother to look back; if it's something that I consider demeaning to my country, or to my loved ones, LOOK OUT ! I may become dangerous ! But if it's just stuff that differs from my opinion, I try to ignore it, and just "keep on keeping on". Because I already know all those millions of people "out there" have millions more opinions.
As long as I stay out of "Non Aviation", and watch my mouth, I think I'll make it !

And that's pretty much what I think !

P.S. Yes, I know there are "other sites", but please don't tell me where they are ! I have enough trouble trying to find time to keep up with this one !

Cheers;

Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
unattendedbag
Posts: 2191
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:35 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:30 am

Quoting Psych (Thread starter):
I really don’t see why anyone should feel in the least bit bad if they illustrate a point in a discussion using a photo of their own. In my mind there is nothing ‘shameful’ about using your own photo(s).

I agree. If we are discussing a certain aircraft in a certain condition and I know I have a photo of it, it is much easier for me to link to my photo than to search for someone else's. I don't think I have ever read anything contrary to that viewpoint.

This is a photography forum imbedded in a aviation photography website. The main attractant of visitors to this site is the photos. We should not feel ashamed to post our work in the database or in the forums. They are here for a reason.

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 2):
and photographers posting threads that say things like "Thank you everyone, my first shot accepted!!!" (which I personally think is in poor taste-

I have no problems with someone starting a thread to announce their first acceptance. Some try many many images before they get one accepted, I was excited too. I will be excited when I pass 1000 and so on. Will I post in the forum? probably not. should I reserve the right to? sure, why not, milestones don't come along very often.

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 2):
So what if I want to do a search for 1600? Who cares? If that lets me see the photos I want to see as a user,

Until DM puts in place a search mechanism to retrieve photos of a certain size, I feel that removing the image size remark is unwarranted. There is a valid argument to support leaving the image info in the remark field.
Slower traffic, keep right
 
PMN
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:44 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:01 am

Quoting geezer (Reply 3):
Do I think some of A.net's "rules" are "trivial" ? Yeah, I do,,,,,,,,,,,,but it's THEIR website, and I still LOVE it, so I have no inclination to argue with them about their rules.

Okay, that's your opinion but you have to accept other people think differently.

I think Paul's made an excellent point and it's something I've never even vaguely understood about the way A.Net works. I had an image rejected a few months ago because I said something along the lines of "it's always nice to get a friendly wave from the crew". It was rejected because apparently that's, if I remember the quote from whoever screened it correctly, a "cheap way of seeking hits". Apart from the fact that's a pretty insulting thing to say to any photographer (I have NEVER made ANY attempt to "hit-seek"), as Paul points out, the whole point of posting your images is so people look at them. It seems entirely counter-intuitive to me to have rules in place that not only insult photographers (yes, if whoever screened my Dash-8 photo is reading this you insulted me - thanks for that), but also rules where the very purpose is to actually reduce the number of views. The logic of this is... What, exactly? I'm failing to see it.
Edith in his bed, a plane in the rain is humming, the wires in the walls are humming some song - some mysterious song
 
User avatar
geocan
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:20 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:10 am

To avoid photos getting views based on comments as described on the thread starter there is a simple solution.
However it may not be so easy to implement on the database. There may be programming difficulties.
The possible solution is this: Why not make the comment invisible on the thumbnail and only visible when opening the photo in large size?
This way people can add data and comments to their hearts content (like if a pilot is picking his nose or whatever) without running foul of the screeners/moderators, providing the comments are not rude or insulting or politically/religiously motivated.
Why not go one step further and do the same with the photographers name.

This way views will only be achieved by the merits of the photograph and not be influenced by a comment or a name.

Just a thought.
Cheers,
George
 
cpd
Posts: 6554
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:13 am

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 4):
will be excited when I pass 1000 and so on. Will I post in the forum? probably not. should I reserve the right to? sure, why not, milestones don't come along very often.

I wouldn't do that either if I ever reach a milestone like that. If my images were good enough, someone else will mention it.  

It should also be the right of anyone getting their first image accepted to make a forum post announcing it! Starting out, it's not easy to get a photo accepted to this website. Even when you think you know what you are doing, you'll get a bunch of rejections out of the blue that makes you think that you aren't any good at the whole photography thing.  

Some people may only ever submit a couple of photos here, and then they just disappear, never to be seen again. Shame that - but that's the way it is.

Quoting geezer (Reply 3):
there are a handful of extremely talented photographers on A.net that are only interested in posting their work here, and we never see anything posted in the forums by them.

There are sometimes reasons for that. A lot of times in web-forums, it is easier to be in the silent majority and not say anything.
 
Psych
Topic Author
Posts: 3008
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:14 am

Thanks very much for the replies to date.

I was prompted to write this thread starter because the recent debate about pixel size (and the glaring conflict I always feel between hit-seeking as a 'bad thing' and the whole point of uploading here, or anywhere else on the web) made me want to hear more about the justification behind such a decision and a further exploration of the 'culture' that I presume such a decision is an attempt to preserve. Sometimes when these things are unspoken I think it can lead to misunderstandings and perceptions of unfairness.

As has been said time after time, those who operate A.net have every right to make the rules as they see fit. Thus, for those who don't follow the rules there may well be sanctions. For me there have always been inconsistencies - but at least as long as we understand the reasoning behind the inconsistencies, then - well - so be it.

To try to take the discussion further forward - I have often felt that an unwritten rule here is that it is okay for a photo to be 'promoted' (e.g. by site features designed to give more exposure - front page, top 5, linkage in other places etc), but it is not okay for the photographer to be seen to be trying to promote their own photo. Is that correct? Is that too black and white? I am not necessarily arguing either way - just trying to 'peek' into such things as the thinking that leads to a ban on mention of upload size. Is there a danger here of throwing the baby out with the bathwater with such rules?

Quoting cpd (Reply 1):
I'm not including details like shutter speed on new photos I upload

Chris - your apparent change of mind here is exactly what I think is a negative result of such decisions, if I understand you correctly. I recall my mouth dropping open when I saw an Emirates panning photo of yours taken at 10,000 ISO. For me that was a perfect use of a comment - informing me as a viewer of crucial photographic details of the image. I assume the screeners were content that use of such information was legitimate. It would be crazy in my book for anyone to suggest that you - in this example - were doing something with the express purpose of 'hit-seeking'. But if you (and others) now feel you can't/shouldn't give such information in similar circumstances again then I think something has gone wrong here and the site is worse off for it.

Paul

P.S. Paul - I recall the days when the decision was taken to prevent people commenting on waving pilots and/or even reject such a photo for motive (if I recall that bit correctly). I think the argument was that the subject of the image, and thus the focus, should be the aircraft, not the pilot - waving or otherwise. Some might say that rule is not consistent with the one that allows cabin images of landscapes which barely include any element of the aircraft itself. There the subject is the landscape - not the aircraft. That can be debated - but I would always argue that the more internal consistency there is in the rules the better they will be understood and therefore the better they will be appreciated by uploaders.

[Edited 2011-03-13 04:20:55]
 
cpd
Posts: 6554
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:21 am

Quoting Psych (Reply 8):
Chris - your apparent change of mind here is exactly what I think is a negative result of such decisions, if I understand you correctly.

Hi Paul,

It'd be nicer if the EXIF data could remain intact, and be displayed just as other data related to the photograph is displayed. The other site does use the EXIF, if you choose to allow that - and it also allows you to choose the kind of camera and lens you used - rather than typing in those details manually each time. That's one thing they've done that is very good - it saves time.

But I could make a whole shopping list of "nice things to have" - as I'm sure we all could.  
 
PMN
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:44 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:06 pm

Quoting Psych (Reply 8):
I think the argument was that the subject of the image, and thus the focus, should be the aircraft, not the pilot - waving or otherwise.

Sure, but (I know you're not saying otherwise, I'm just randomly making a point) in that case one could argue that comments like 'gently descending into 27L' are equally irrelevant because it has no real significance to the subject of the image - whether it's coming down into 27L, or 27R, or wherever doesn't seem any more relevant to me than mentioning a waving pilot, and again, to tell photographers they're seeking cheap hits in such a manner is a wrongful assumption and an insulting one at that. The entire concept of rejecting an otherwise perfectly good image because the photographer makes a random comment about something within the photo still seems profoundly counter-intuitive to me.
Edith in his bed, a plane in the rain is humming, the wires in the walls are humming some song - some mysterious song
 
dendrobatid
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:40 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:24 pm

Quoting PMN (Reply 10):
The entire concept of rejecting an otherwise perfectly good image because the photographer makes a random comment about something within the photo still seems profoundly counter-intuitive to me.

Paul
I can't say that that hasn't happened because it has, though that is incredibly rare. I can only recall one case, a comment totally (and I mean totally) unconnected to the image about the paranormal by someone who had been warned not to do precisely the same before. We do however remove inappropriate comments, make minor info and category corrections all the time - in order to add otherwise good images rather than rejecting them.


Mick Bajcar
 
PMN
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:44 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:40 pm

Hi Mick,

Thanks for your comment. I admit I was a little surprised to have it rejected solely for that reason; even though I couldn't spot another problem had it been deemed soft, dark, etc as well then I could perhaps have understood it as part of a wider rejection but it seemed a little odd for the comment to be the sole reason. If that's very much not the usual case then fair enough, as a screener myself on another site I know more than well that these oddities do happen from time to time although I do still think a little more care should be taken when accusing people of hit seeking! That's exactly the kind of thing that could put good people off uploading at all, even if it isn't intended in a 'nasty' way.

Thanks again,

Paul
Edith in his bed, a plane in the rain is humming, the wires in the walls are humming some song - some mysterious song
 
IL76
Posts: 2238
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:43 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:15 pm

Funny how this topic comes back every single year... And I've been on this site for over 12 years (thinking about makes me feel very old), and yet it just keeps coming back.
My view on the matter? 'No comment', it doesn't make difference anyway and I have more important things to worry about. Something many more people should have...
 
unattendedbag
Posts: 2191
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:35 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:20 pm

Quoting PMN (Reply 5):
if I remember the quote from whoever screened it correctly, a "cheap way of seeking hits". Apart from the fact that's a pretty insulting thing to say to any photographer (I have NEVER made ANY attempt to "hit-seek"),

While it has been discussed before, I believe there is a certain disconnect between the actual intentions of the uploader and the perceived intentions from the screener. I'm sure, as a screener, when you sit at a computer for a few hours rejecting photo after photo, it can begin to grow on your nerves. Then, all the sudden, you see an image with an inappropriate comment. The intentions of the uploader may only be to point out an abnormality in the photo, but are perceived by the screener as an attempt to draw attention to the photo solely based on the comment. Then, the screener may come across as persecutory when no actual harm was intended.

The same goes with forum deletion emails. They can be extremely off-putting.

Quoting PMN (Reply 10):
I'm just randomly making a point) in that case one could argue that comments like 'gently descending into 27L' are equally irrelevant because it has no real significance to the subject of the image - whether it's coming down into 27L, or 27R, or wherever doesn't seem any more relevant to me than mentioning a waving pilot, and again, to tell photographers they're seeking cheap hits in such a manner is a wrongful assumption and an insulting one at that.

Like the great Donny Rumsfeld once said, "There are known-known’s, there are known-unknowns and there are unknown-unknowns". An aircraft "arriving runway 27L" is a known-unknown. The photographer knows that the aircraft is landing on the specified runway, but the viewer may not. In that case, the comment is helpful as it adds to the image, setting and location. A remark such as "look at the female pilot waving to me as she passes by" is a known-known. The photographer and the viewer can both see that the female pilot is waving, making the comment redundant and irrelevant. You will find that most of the images coming out of Russia are unknown-unknowns.  
Slower traffic, keep right
 
unattendedbag
Posts: 2191
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:35 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:23 pm

Quoting IL76 (Reply 13):
and I have more important things to worry about. Something many more people should have...

You saying more people should have something to worry about? That's cruel.  

I worry about very few things.
Slower traffic, keep right
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:27 pm

Quoting PMN (Reply 5):
I had an image rejected a few months ago because I said something along the lines of "it's always nice to get a friendly wave from the crew". It was rejected because apparently that's, if I remember the quote from whoever screened it correctly, a "cheap way of seeking hits"

Slightly incredulous, I checked the screening log. If you are referring to the Air Southwest rejected in November, the only rejection reason was for overexposure. The screener (not myself) included a message to not include such remarks, but there was no mention of them being 'cheap', nor was that the reason for the rejection. Please check your facts before making such accusations/assumptions.
 
cpd
Posts: 6554
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:42 pm

Quoting PMN (Reply 10):
The entire concept of rejecting an otherwise perfectly good image because the photographer makes a random comment about something within the photo still seems profoundly counter-intuitive to me.

Seems pretty odd, I'm going to call on this one, to use a poker term.

Unless you've put something absolutely obscene in the comments, I can only imagine the comment being removed and the image, if not having any other problems, will go through to be accepted.

Quoting PMN (Reply 10):
whether it's coming down into 27L, or 27R, or wherever doesn't seem any more relevant to me

Maybe not to you - but to the viewer who may have no notion of if the plane is landing or taking off. I've neglected mentioning that once on one of my images (over on jetphotos, where you are a screener) - and sure enough, someone asked if the plane was landing, or making a very shallow takeoff. Sometimes that info is useful for people who aren't familiar with the location where the photo was taken.

Hit seeking might also be framing an image so that for instance, a plane taking off is pictured against a ship in the background which is making a lot of smoke, in such a way that it appears the black smoke is coming from the plane, and then putting no comment. If a comment was included explaining what was occurring, many people probably wouldn't click on the image in the first place. I'm just throwing that out there as a flip-side to the theory on seeking views with comments.

[Edited 2011-03-13 16:47:08]

[Edited 2011-03-13 16:48:29]
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:48 am

Ok im going to weigh in and throw a different light and viewpoint on this.
First there is an assumption that getting hits is "bad"...correct me if i'm wrong but the site is successful because people look at photo's.
If people dont look at pics the site dies.
So if someone uploads a shot that is good enough to be accepted at 1600 whats the problem with them saying 1600pix in the remarks?
People want to see hi quality images thats why they surf here and JP etc so what is the matter with say my stellar 1600 shot being advertised as a 1600 stellar shot over say my other very standard 1024 shot?
Is it that people who cant get 1600 accepted whether its through equipment or technique get upset as they are missing out on being able to plug there stuff and are missing out?
Personally i think the shot should have its size listed on the thumbnail as i "want" to see great images.
I mean who actually uses 1024 as a monitor res anyway???
I run 1400 on my laptop and 2500 on my Imac..1024's are tiny and hide a lot of detail particularly in flightdeck stuff.
I put a remark in almost every photo i've uploaded here with the intent of showing the gear etc and also the runway etc. I find nothing worse when researching shots of airport ive never visited for info on runways than blank photo's that people cant even put in a comment about the runway or location the pic was taken.
On the subject of facebook and twitter given how hard it is to get a pic on the front page i'd be voting for an embargo on pics in the first 24 hours of upload being placed on the social networking pages by a group of individuals whose intentions may be good. In the end the decisions as to what is a good photo should be left to viewers not to what some who may not even be photographers think is good.
We struggled years ago to get rid of the 9am 24hour cycle and now FB and TW have replaced them as ways to effect the best of day etc...let the viewers of Airliners decide.
2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
 
PMN
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:44 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:50 pm

Quoting dlowwa (Reply 16):
Slightly incredulous, I checked the screening log. If you are referring to the Air Southwest rejected in November, the only rejection reason was for overexposure. The screener (not myself) included a message to not include such remarks, but there was no mention of them being 'cheap', nor was that the reason for the rejection. Please check your facts before making such accusations/assumptions.


I thought my recollection was quite clear that it was rejected for the comment, but if not and I'm wrong then my apologies and thanks for the correction.

Nevertheless, none of that changes my point about the accusation of hit-seeking (cheap or otherwise) being quite insulting and the concept of not including such comments counter-intuitive.

[Edited 2011-03-14 05:55:46]

[Edited 2011-03-14 05:56:46]

[Edited 2011-03-14 06:08:32]
Edith in his bed, a plane in the rain is humming, the wires in the walls are humming some song - some mysterious song
 
User avatar
jid
Posts: 889
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:37 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:35 pm

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 18):
Personally i think the shot should have its size listed on the thumbnail as i "want" to see great images.
I mean who actually uses 1024 as a monitor res anyway???
I run 1400 on my laptop and 2500 on my Imac..1024's are tiny and hide a lot of detail particularly in flightdeck stuff.

Great points Darren, unfortunately the general impression I get from a.net right or wrong is that they just want small images with no comments, or else it is seen it as hit-seeking. Like you when I view images at 1024 on my desktop which is set to 1900 tiny detail is just lost. You would think that a.net as a company would want to encourage hits on their site? Things like useful comments, including the file size, exif data (if the photog wishes) would all encourage people and hits for the site. These new rules just seam to be a further backward step for this site, which is a shame.
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
 
LHRSIMON
Posts: 1315
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 5:59 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:22 pm

To be honest i dont have a problem with additional details being added. When you have 1000's of photos being added everyday it somewhat helps a bit if your looking for a certain size image. Or maybe you want to know the equipment that was used. Or the method to which the photo was taken. With shutter speeds added for example. All these thing i assume are added to help people viewing the photo. It didnt even cross my mind that people would add these just to get hits. Do they do that !!!!

To make the photo size being added to the text a cause for rejection seem crazy if you ask me. As others have stated above , other sites even have fields to add additional info. Like camera - lens etc etc. If anything when people add no additional text , that annoys me far me than the above issue.....

A backward step !!  
Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
 
PMN
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:44 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:52 pm

There's another aspect to having the size of the image in the description; I now have a 27 inch iMac so I have 2560x1440 pixels of viewing joy, but back when I only had my 1280 wise laptop I'd avoid looking at larger images altogether because I couldn't appreciate them properly. In that sense having the size actually allowed me to avoid certain images, thus it had the exact opposite effect of hit-seeking. This isn't something that concerns me now having a nice big fat screen but if I still had a smaller monitor then it's something I'd find very handy.

I think it's perhaps worth considering the fact that this site has infinitely more general viewers worldwide than it has photographers, and while the vast majority us who shoot will have appropriate screens many who are just viewers probably still won't. Not allowing the size to be added is not only a step backwards to me, it's also mindblowingly cynical of A.Net to assume the exclusive reason people ever do so is to hit-seek.
Edith in his bed, a plane in the rain is humming, the wires in the walls are humming some song - some mysterious song
 
legoguy
Posts: 2981
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:54 pm

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 18):

   I fully agree with Darren.

When browsing through the thumbnails of images, I liked knowing whether the image was 1600pix before opening it. On today's monitors, 1024pix images are next to useless to admire. I have always enjoyed viewing images between 1400 and 1600 pixels in dimension, even if its just a bog standard side on shot... I love the extra detail that can be seen which is not visible in 1024pix shots. And now when casually browsing through the latest photos, there's no way of identifying the shots I like to see. Whats the point of even bothering to look now? The search engine doesn't even allow a search of 1600 pixel images.   

What's happening to this place, which was once known as the best aviation photography website on the net? Accusations of 'hit seeking' when adding simple comments on image dimensions.   

Dave
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
 
PMN
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:44 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:05 pm

Quoting cpd (Reply 17):
Maybe not to you - but to the viewer who may have no notion of if the plane is landing or taking off. I've neglected mentioning that once on one of my images (over on jetphotos, where you are a screener) - and sure enough, someone asked if the plane was landing, or making a very shallow takeoff. Sometimes that info is useful for people who aren't familiar with the location where the photo was taken.

You've completely misunderstood my point. Of course where it's landing is relevant and could possibly be of interest to people; I'm not suggesting it isn't, what I'm suggesting is that for every type of comment deemed irrelevant by A.Net there's an equal argument for saying other comments are equally irrelevant. Therefore it's a very grey area and one that seems to be largely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. A photo of a plane low over Maho beach with a waving pilot and a not particularly well covered girl underneath with a comment like...

'Phwor, look at the knockers on that!'

...Is very clearly hit-seeking and the image is being uploaded for the wrong reasons. The same photo uploaded with a comment like...

'Always nice to see a friendly wave from the crew, and who wouldn't be happy arriving in SXM?'

...Clearly isn't intended to hit-seek. It's just an observation and a thought based on the content of the image. I understand the perspective that if the content is obvious then it doesn't need to be commented on, but at the end of the day the photographer who's uploaded the image owns it. He/she should be able to make a comment they feel is relevant to their own photo, and to not allow that seems nothing short of ridiculous.
Edith in his bed, a plane in the rain is humming, the wires in the walls are humming some song - some mysterious song
 
LHRSIMON
Posts: 1315
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 5:59 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:11 pm

So if someone did "hit-seek" , so what. Has it effected my images on A.Net , no. Has it somehow ruined my enjoyment of A.Net , no. I really dont care if Mr A.Bloggs got 8,000 views rather than 300. As i said it baffles me why people are so worried about hits. And how many hits others have.

Does it really matter. Just enjoy A.Net for what it is. The best aviation website on the net.
Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
 
G-CIVP
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 6:38 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:13 pm

While you are at it, ban the use of the phrase 'short final'. It seems to be used an invitation for the viewer to look at the image in question but it often impossible to tell whether an aircraft is on 'short final' from the image in question.
 
User avatar
walter2222
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:40 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:37 pm

Hi All,

I have almost always (I might have forgotten it on some) added something like "scanned from old slide" to my old slide scans. In fact, I felt it was something like an apology to the viewers for not getting a standard high quality image, but instead a grainy image with sometimes faded colors... I had never considered that to be hit-seeking, although some of my oldies did get a lot of hits (my two most popular shots are slide-scans) and indeed it may have helped... I know that it has helped people finding the old images and I have received a lot of questions related to scanning old slides (I am still very grateful to M.B., who taught me a lot about how to scan old slides) and I will always remain helpful to others with advise, if possible.

Personally, I am interested in hits, but I don't leave my sleep over it. I wish I had more time to participate in these discussions, but work is calling again...

Best regards,

Walter
Canon 347d mkII ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l IS USM - ...
 
unattendedbag
Posts: 2191
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:35 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:19 pm

Quoting walter2222 (Reply 27):
I have almost always (I might have forgotten it on some) added something like "scanned from old slide" to my old slide scans.

I love seeing old scans and what I am about to type reflects ONLY an extrapolation of the new rules and not my personal opinion.

Adding "scanned from old slide" represents information about the image itself and not the technique "nikon d300 & 70-200 vr at 3200 ISO" or location "short final runway 27L", both of which continue to be permissible. Taking the same principal DM is using in banning "1600pixels", shouldn't the "scanned slide" remark be eliminated as well?
Slower traffic, keep right
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:45 am

I think its funny how over time is changed.
I remember people first started writing 1600px as a warning to dial up users that the image would take a while to load.
Now people are writing 1600!!!!!!!!!!!! in an attempt to draw attention to the image.
I would of thought hopefully most viewers would want to see a photo for what it represents not how many pixels it is across.
I think Royal hit it on the head 1600!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is not the same as 1600px which is for viewer info and if someone has to write that then i gather the image cant be that flash!!
I enjoy seeing the gear and exif type stuff and hope that doesnt change but hope to see 1600px remain..
2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
 
sulman
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:09 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:01 am

Oh, they do love their rules at a.net.
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
 
Psych
Topic Author
Posts: 3008
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:26 pm

Quoting sulman (Reply 30):
Oh, they do love their rules at a.net.

That is true James. All good rules will have a clear purpose and their underpinning rationale will be understood by those to whom they apply.

I still feel there is more that can be done to clarify in more detail the philosphy that sits behind certain rules - an obvious contemporary one being the banning of any mention of file size. Royal informed photographers in that thread of the change to the Rejection Guide, whereby comments relating to file size will be removed. But there is no further explanation offered for this rule change. We can deduce from other contributions that it is to do with people abusing this and trying to draw attention to their photo, with the apparent aim of 'encouraging' people to open the image, or an attempt to prevent people boasting about their achievements.

My question remains - what is that all about? Is it like rules for a 'gentlemen's club', or some unwritten joint understanding members sign up to about decorum on the site? Or what?

In another recent discussion about the role of Facebook/Twitter in hits and the Top 5, helpfully informed by Paul McCarthy, new 'rules' have been created with the full engagement of contributors - it is there for all to read, understand and see where the position adopted comes from. For me that was a good model of how discussions such as this can actually get somewhere. I felt what we saw there was a strong feeling amongst some that a photo 'doing well' (i.e. in terms of number of views received) should be down to the way this site alone works - and not influenced markedly by other sites and their activity. We could see 'an underlying philosophy' coming out there - which was accepted. Right or wrong - not the point of issue here; clarity - gained. I am still struggling to understand how someone who, say, uploads a close detail shot of a flightdeck at 1600px, so that all the instrumentation shows better, and informs me of that fact in their comment, can in any way be seen to be doing anything unreasonable or illegitimate; it is informative and helps me consider further whether I am going to spend the next 10 seconds looking at the larger version of the photo. There is no difference between that and any other informative comment.

I wonder whether what might be driving something here is the sense that hits and competition for visibility via the site's facilities might be taking something away from the desire to simply have the site showcasing excellent aviation images. i.e. it should be about the photo, not the numbers; the image should speak for itself. I don't know, but I am still interested to hear more.

Paul
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12595
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:55 pm

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 29):
I would of thought hopefully most viewers would want to see a photo for what it represents not how many pixels it is across.

Sure. But if I see similar photos of the same aircraft, I'm more likely to open the 1400 or 1600 pixel photo, rather than the 1024 pixel photo.

As someone suggested in the other thread, they should add choices in the photo search menu for image sizes. Something like 1000+, 1200+, 1400+ or similar.

Quoting Psych (Reply 31):
In another recent discussion about the role of Facebook/Twitter in hits and the Top 5, helpfully informed by Paul McCarthy, new 'rules' have been created with the full engagement of contributors - it is there for all to read, understand and see where the position adopted comes from. For me that was a good model of how discussions such as this can actually get somewhere.

That discussion was indeed very productive, and the reasoning very transparent - the way a discussion should be.

Quoting Psych (Reply 31):
I wonder whether what might be driving something here is the sense that hits and competition for visibility via the site's facilities might be taking something away from the desire to simply have the site showcasing excellent aviation images. i.e. it should be about the photo, not the numbers; the image should speak for itself. I don't know, but I am still interested to hear more.

Yeah, seems like that may be the reason. But honestly, why does the site care? They get the images to display, the photographers get the exposure they want, the viewers get the photos they want, and everyone wins!
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
spencer
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:30 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:19 pm

Quoting Psych (Reply 31):
All good rules will have a clear purpose and their underpinning rationale will be understood by those to whom they apply.

All good rules, yes! I certainly wouldn't claim everything ruled here is good, however. We, that have persued this hobby, long before A.net ever existed, will probably agree that in general styles and approaches to aviation photography here have definitely changed in the last ten years. So, although the rules of noise, double and motiv might seem like good rules, they have almost certainly acted as deterants for images that should fit the A.net model. As such I can see people changing their methods of shooting, especially newbies. And this trend will never be reversed, sadly.
This has always annoyed me but it won't stop me also shooting for A.net, the way they want. What people should remember is to also shoot the way they are used to and/or want to with freedom and no rules!!

Quoting Psych (Reply 31):
I wonder whether what might be driving something here is the sense that hits and competition for visibility via the site's facilities might be taking something away from the desire to simply have the site showcasing excellent aviation images.

I don't even think they're trying to be the best (anymore?). A.net prides itself on the number of images it has online and unless I've missed something, never advertises the fact that there's beautiful, rule-breaking photographs instead. Probably because it has so few on average when you think about the massive number of pictures it has? Maybe I'm wrong but I would say it's only about the numbers.
Spence
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
 
User avatar
ThierryD
Posts: 2038
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:25 pm

Quoting spencer (Reply 33):
A.net prides itself on the number of images it has online and unless I've missed something, never advertises the fact that there's beautiful, rule-breaking photographs instead.

Hey guys,

I'm too lazy right now to read through the entire thread but wanted to comment on the mentioned quote.

Whether A.net lets in enough "beautiful, rule-breaking photographs" has been discussed many times and right now I believe we are not doing too bad in that respect.
On the other hand let's not forget that Airliners.net still is a database and as such has a certain recording duty to fulfill; so, yes, if you want to put it that way, numbers in a certain way are more important than creativity. Not saying though, that creative (or whatever you wanna call it) photos are not welcome or shouldn't be encouraged here.

Thierry
"Go ahead...make my day"
 
User avatar
jid
Posts: 889
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:37 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:30 am

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 34):
On the other hand let's not forget that Airliners.net still is a database and as such has a certain recording duty to fulfill;

Hi Thierry,

You make an interesting point. Indeed a.net is a database so why not try and expand on the data you can query from it? like image pixel width, exif data etc. All these would make a.net a better place IMHO and the coding for such additions should not be too expansive.

Jid
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
 
timdegroot
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 10:37 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:06 pm

Just hide the comments when browsing the pics, that will take care of the hit seeking comments and 500 word comments some people write to describe just about anything in the photo
Alderman Exit
 
spencer
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:30 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:59 pm

But Tim, what would we whine about then mate?! Hahaha
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
 
User avatar
ThierryD
Posts: 2038
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:16 pm

Quoting Jid (Reply 35):
Indeed a.net is a database so why not try and expand on the data you can query from it? like image pixel width, exif data etc

Jid, this is a feature we're planning on implementing in the future; when exactly that will be however depends on a number of things. Hopefully soon though...

Thierry
"Go ahead...make my day"
 
timdegroot
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 10:37 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:23 pm

I'm sure we can find something Spence 
Alderman Exit
 
legoguy
Posts: 2981
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:23 pm

There is a very nice sunset shot on the front page currently with the photographer exclaiming "1600 pix wide!" Has this whole decision regarding image dimensions been reversed? It's hard keeping up with all the various rules with no updates from the crew. Taking nothing away from the shot in question, it's a stunner.

Dave
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:16 pm

Quoting legoguy (Reply 40):
It's hard keeping up with all the various rules with no updates from the crew.

There was no need for an update, it was an honest mistake by a member of the crew.
 
Newark727
Posts: 2144
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:58 am

It's almost certainly just my neurotic self, but the only function that [1600px] comments have for me is to feed my inferiority complex at not being a good enough shooter to get pictures like that into the database. If I'm interested in the photo, I'll click it, disregarding size. Frankly the thought that including such information might build hit count completely escaped my mind up until I read this discussion (which may explain why my highest-res photo at 1400px is also among my least viewed.] I take some interest in camera data because it might improve my own efforts. I can't think of too many other contexts that feel like hit-seeking to me. Every now and again (doesn't seem like often to me) someone mentions the attitude of the crew, but that doesn't personally bother me, nor does it really compel me to click. If I wanted to see photos of people waving/peering/making rude gestures out windows I wouldn't be on a site devoted to pictures of airplanes. Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say here is that comments don't have to be such a big deal, necessarily, except in a few cases I suppose.
 
locsta
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:53 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:04 am

While we're at it there should also be a ban on comments about medical emergencies and other passenger related issues on standard landing shots. These clearly generate hits and there is nothing visible in the photo to substantiate the comment.
Missed 4 chasing 1
 
GPHOTO
Posts: 799
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 11:44 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:01 am

Quoting LOCsta (Reply 43):
While we're at it there should also be a ban on comments about medical emergencies and other passenger related issues on standard landing shots. These clearly generate hits and there is nothing visible in the photo to substantiate the comment.

What if they are the reason for an aircraft being at a location that it does not normally visit?

Best regards,

Jim
Erm, is this thing on?
 
locsta
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:53 am

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:41 pm

Good point Jim. I clearly hadn't thought this through.  
Missed 4 chasing 1
 
User avatar
notaxonrotax
Posts: 1301
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:29 pm

RE: ‘Illustration/explanation’ Versus ‘hit-seeking'

Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:56 pm

Hi all you click-gifted,

I have been enjoying all your little works of art for quite a while now, on here and other sites.
I quite easily browse through 50 pages of pics at a time, excellent work!
I can´t even get a decent shot of an LSA flaring with 45 MPH myself (!!!)……with my "Coolpix" cam--> so hats off to all of you! Also to your endless patience that you must have at times……..

However part of my fun, I always feel; are the brilliant remarks under some of those pics.
Especially when there´s an interesting story to it, or even "romantic" perhaps. I mean, a crashed wreck in a remote desert………interesting to read what went down there. (No no, no pun!!)
A small private aircraft landing on a remote strip……….I´d like to know the "where & why" to the story.

But so many great pics don´t carry remarks……….what a great shame!

I know, I know………your average modern jet flying into one of the mega-hubs like almost every day, well; I suppose that could take part of the "romance" away. But still, a quick comment about where it came from, how extremely cold it was that day, how your battery was about to die or that your car wouldn´t start afterwards………..it just tends to give the pic that extra "thing".

I don´t know, maybe it´s just me……but for people with so much patience such as yourselves; surely it´s not a big hassle to spend that extra minute or two writing about the conditions or any other relevant detail………
After all, famous painters / artists tend to sign their work!

Oh yes, and that whole "hit seeking" deal……….do a lot of people really go in for that nonsense?
Just askin´………..


No Tax On Rotax
For anybody that happens to be wondering:"yes, owning your own aircraft is a 100% worth it!"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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