Airport-Data.com Forum Index  
  Airport-Data.com » Forums  Guest: Log in |  Register |  Search |  Memberlist |  Usergroups |  Profile |  Private messages |  FAQ 
Posters who do not identify their aircrafts full information       
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Airport-Data.com Forum Index -> Aviation Photography
  Display posts from previous 
Display posts from previous:   

  Posters who do not identify their aircrafts full information 
Author Message
Canonman



Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:41 pm    Post subject: Posters who do not identify their aircrafts full information Reply with quote

I have seen many incomplete profiles for posted aircraft and I was thinking that either the poster is lazy or doesn't care what the profile looks like. with a little bit of searching a lot of the information is available. Yes, I know there is a bug in some of the posting profiles, but if you post a picture, please make sure you have the right profile, if there isn't one, make the new one for your photo. The Admins have a lot to do with corrections.

   
Author Message
Malcolm Clarke



Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 2752
Location: England

PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Canonman makes a very good point and I also suspect that some members do not take the trouble to check the validity of their uploads and that there is a failure to report errors that they are aware of but unable to correct themselves.

Also, at times, the volume of uploads is such that new images rapidly move on from the Recent Aircraft Photos section and therefore enter the database before they can be assessed and any errors will remain uncorrected. It is not feasible for Admin to trawl the database in order to seek and correct these.

Whilst there are no stated upload limitations on the number of images of an aircraft taken at a single event, the above situation is aggravated by members who regularly upload large numbers of such images; recently one member uploaded 20 images, others regularly up to 10 images. I doubt that so many images are of great interest to those who view the site.

This statement from Ken Wang made some years ago is still valid but is clearly and regularly ignored by some members.

Duplicate or identical photos

Recently we have noticed a very disturbing trend: more and more members uploading similar even almost-identical shots to the website. While we still proud ourselves as a no-screening, free uploading site, duplicated shots from same photographer adds no value to the site. Please refrain yourself from doing so.

So we have to emphasise our uploading policy again:

• All uploaded photos are subject to screening by our admin team. We reserve the rights to delete any photo in our sole discretion.
• Any duplicated or almost-identical shots from the same photographer will be deleted without notice.
• Occasionally we will move photos between airport and aircraft section.
Please go through your gallery, check for duplicated or almost-identical shots and delete them. Your help is greatly appreciated.

Let's work together to make this site a better place for our hobby.



Valid and objective comment is welcome.

Malcolm.
Admin Team.

   
Author Message
Florida Metal



Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 309

PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I been trying to separate my images in groups especially if I have 20-30 shots of one particular plane such as at an airshow. I been sorting them so I post maybe 3-4 shots now, then a year from now when I get around to my next round of postings another couple so it isn't bombarded at once. Also is kind of cool because I still have some USAirways and Air Tran stuff and other airlines no longer around that will be posted at a later date.

some of it is lazy posting by members, they don't want to take the time to make the corrections. I can understand someone mixing up some rare homebuilt aircraft or mixing up Cessna 172s with Cessna 182s, where a tail number used to be on an RV-6 but now on an RV-9. However when someone posts a picture of an RV-9 but it's under a Beech Baron profile, it tells me A. you don't know aircraft well or B. just being lazy

  Posters who do not identify their aircrafts full information 
Author Message
Canonman



Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:09 pm    Post subject: Posters who do not identify their aircrafts full information Reply with quote

I cannot understand it, even after posting about incomplete profiles, several people are still refusing to or don't understand how to get correct profiles. It must really be difficult to work for the site manager when this type of action is taken. I bet the Admins are pulling out their hair, I know I would. Sorry about the rant.

  Posters who do not identify their aircrafts full information 
Author Message
Malcolm Clarke



Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 2752
Location: England

PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:17 am    Post subject: Posters who do not identify their aircrafts full information Reply with quote

Over the past week, I have corrected or asked the uploader to correct approaching 50 profile errors.
More corrections are likely to have been made by other Admin Team members.

Already today the following are among those corrected……

‘Construcioni Aeronautiche Techna P2010’ instead of ‘Tecnam P-2010’ as the 31 entries existing in the database.

‘British Aircraft Corporation Jet Provost T5A’ instead of ‘BAC 84 Jet Provost T.5A’ as the 125 entries we already have.

To add Corsair to a Cessna 425.

Regular entries with Textron instead Bell, Cessna or Beechcraft. Textron themselves have stated that such names will continue to be both manufactured and marketed under these names.

There are more and of course the above are examples and not aimed at individuals.

Very many upoladers treat profiles with contempt, failing to add any entries below the Construction Number line.

Many add descriptions to the profile remarks when uploading an image contradicting the profile data rather than query the existing profile data. “I’m right and you are wrong?”

Some regard the FAA Registry data as utterly reliable. For this site’s purposes, this is not always so but it is a reliable guide and plainly suitable for the purposes for which it is created and used by the FAA.

I have the feeling that too many contributors are over eager to upload their images to the site and failing to check for common errors or for descriptions and data already in common usage.

One of the functions for Administration Team members is to correct errors but surely not at the current level and types of upload errors.

I repeat from my previous post entry above that new images rapidly move on from the Recent Aircraft Photos section and therefore enter the database before they can be assessed and any errors will remain uncorrected.

It is disappointing that only two others seem to have any interest in these matters.

Malcolm.
Admin Team

   
Author Message
Timothy Aanerud



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 171
Location: KMIC

PostPosted: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Construcioni Aeronautiche Techna P2010’ instead of ‘Tecnam P-2010’ as the 31 entries existing in the database.


I copy/paste profile information from the FAA's website when I enter a new aircraft.

   
Author Message
Malcolm Clarke



Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 2752
Location: England

PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timothy,
I welcome your response as long serving member but the reality is that under the information you used to identify your image, it would be very difficult for it to be found under the usual search process. As I have already said, even the model reference would be invalid as the site uses P-2010.

Prior to the appointment by Ken Wang some 9 years ago of the three current Administrators, you may recall that the database was supported by regularly downloading the current status of the FAA database. The drawback was that, should any of those already in the database be corrected, and it was agreed that many were in error, when the FAA content was next downloaded, the corrected ones were duplicated in our database resulting in more corrective work.

Unfortunately, some of the FAA entries are completely unrecognisable against many identical aircraft.
Take Vans as an example.

These are aircraft built from kits and are very often registered with the FAA, not only stating the kit builder as the manufacturer but also using random model types not used by Vans. These would then be separated in the database from identical aircraft and difficult to locate. Outside of the FAA database, such as Vans RV-6A is the common usage and the site has followed accordingly.

My understanding is that the site was originally created to provide an internet site for a number of enthusiasts to have a home for their images but has become a site with significant public interest and thus the need for more conformity. The site has few rules but has expectations that uploaders will accept the obvious benefit of listing identical aircraft together.

Malcolm.
Admin

   
Author Message
Florida Metal



Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 309

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah the FAA website is what I go by too. for the Cessna Citation Latitude it says Textron 680A. While I am aware of the Textron stuff being Cessna, Beech, Bell and I will continue to post as Cessna, Beech, Bell.

FAA has some other ones too. All Socata TBMs seem to show up as 700s on the FAA site despite their being 850s, 900s, 910s, 930s etc. Lear 40, 45, 70 and 75 all show up as Lear 45 despite all 4 aircraft having noticeable physical differences. Of course the Global 6000 shows as the BD-700 ##### and I also make sure I show it as a Global 6000 but put the BD-700 in ( )
.
for the Boeing Airlners there is no such thing as a 787-900, Boeing did away with the 100-900 for the 787, Max and the 747-8 but I have seen some 787s getting the old Boeing codes like United 787-922, American 787-823 etc Instead it is just the 787-8, 787-9, 737-8 MAX (hopefully we will be able to enter the MAXs again).

I am more concerned about an individual that was posting Oshkosh pictures a few weeks ago and put in totally wrong aircraft types like a Berkuit profile but the aircraft was a Long EZ and a Cessna 172 profile was showing for a twin. If you are a spotter and don't know what a Cessna 172 is (the most mass produced aircraft in the world currently), you might as well smash your camera on the ground

  Posters who do not identify their aircrafts full information 
Author Message
Canonman



Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:46 pm    Post subject: Posters who do not identify their aircrafts full information Reply with quote

Still see some people who seem not to care about correct profiles, so glad that you, Malcolm, are so interested in keeping the site correct. Are there any more people who should be helping you

   
Author Message
Malcolm Clarke



Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 2752
Location: England

PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Canonman, but it's not all down to my efforts as there are two other members of the Admin Team looking after the interests of all who post their images here.

Malcolm.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Airport-Data.com Forum Index -> Aviation Photography All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Copyright 2004-2011, Airport-Data.com. All rights reserved.
Airport-Data.com does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk.
Do NOT use these information for navigation, flight planning, or for use in flight.