Airplane Pictures home

Home » Forums » Site-related » Incorrect information in accepted photos

Incorrect information in accepted photos

Agnieszka Jamro 
Member
Joined in June 2012
Posts: 6
Posted 22 May 2014 - 22:08 CET

How come that the screeners accept the photos with incorrect information about the plane? In the same time pictures presenting aircraft detail are not accepted because not enough info was provided (no register numer of the plane) . Example of a plane with wrong aircraft type below:

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/405670/0225-poland-air-force-casa-c-295m/

Michael Carbery 

Full member
Joined in June 2008
Posts: 1138
Posted 22 May 2014 - 22:25 CET

Because it's a close-up and although most of the screeners are fairly knowledgeable with shots like this we take the information on good faith. If the info is wrong then there is a link below the image, 'Is the data incorrect? Let us know!', to report the error.

Wallace Shackleton 

Full member
Joined in February 2007
Posts: 1897
Posted 22 May 2014 - 22:29 CET

The screeners may not recognise there is a problem or they not look at the information supplied a lot of the information is taken on trust that the info supplied by the uploader is correct however I can attest that some folk clearly lack the knowledge or the desire to check details for themselves. Generally screeners concern themselves with only the quality of the picture and the information a poor second.

AP is thankfully not as "anal" about the information supplied as other web sites.

Wallace Shackleton 

Full member
Joined in February 2007
Posts: 1897
Posted 22 May 2014 - 22:35 CET

Its a M-28 Bryza, which seems to have over saturated, almost lurid colour.

Image

It takes a real anorak or know the difference ;)

Image

This post has been edited by Wallace Shackleton on 22nd May 2014 - 22:55

Agnieszka Jamro 
Member
Joined in June 2012
Posts: 6
Posted 22 May 2014 - 22:43 CET

Congrats Wallace! Yes , it is :))). But I can't believe that the screeners , even in a close-up photo can't recognise CASA aircraft. Bryza may not be so popular, but CASA is, and the screener should see the difference.

And what do you mean "anal"? Expecting correct information in aviation photo web is really such a nuisance? And the quality of the accepted shots is also questionable (and I don't mean rare planes and news items)?

Wallace Shackleton 

Full member
Joined in February 2007
Posts: 1897
Posted 22 May 2014 - 22:54 CET

Best if I don't explain fully but let's say that some web sites are obsessive about the amount of information needed for photographs, turning photographers into plane spotters.

For instance I have had rejections from one site for not including an aircraft's construction number, which turned out to be really hard to find.

Most sites seem to have forgotten that whole point of their existence is about the photograph and not the trivial information that goes along with the picture, like construction numbers and the precise aircraft type.

Agnieszka Jamro 
Member
Joined in June 2012
Posts: 6
Posted 22 May 2014 - 23:12 CET

I agree that it is the photo which is important and the construction number may not be necessary and for the plane photographer it can be hard to find. And I appreciate that this site presents more creative shots and not typical spotting photos. But at the same time it should be reliable, and if the information about the plane is provided it should be correct, as people (eg. me) can learn about the planes from your site. However, AP screeners also reject the photos because not enough info is included. Are they 'obsessive' if they expect full data for an aircraft detail ? And if the detail is sharp (that's the point of the shot) and the rest not, they comment the picture is not sharp and reject it.

Michael Carbery 

Full member
Joined in June 2008
Posts: 1138
Posted 22 May 2014 - 23:15 CET

There's a difference between incorrect information and not enough information being provided. With this image the information was provided and was taken in good faith. Had the type, location, operator etc been missing then yes it would probably have been rejected.

Agnieszka Jamro 
Member
Joined in June 2012
Posts: 6
Posted 22 May 2014 - 23:38 CET

In the category airport overview- aircraft detail the information provided is only the airport. So, please, be consistent as users can check the rules on the site and then upload the photo including the data which so far was sufficient in this category. And the screeners suddenly decide it's not enough. How come, that for some photos its ok and for others not? Not the same rules for everyone or not rules for the screeners and everything depends on their "mood"?

I understand that the screeners take the provided information in good faith, but it's not a typical photo site but a site specialising in aviation and the obvious mistakes should not be accepted. If they are not sure about the plane they can check it on the websites, even on this one there are a lot of pictures of Casa, and looking at them would definitely let avoid the obvious mistake. If the data cannot be confirmed, the photographer can be asked for further details and confirmation.

And here the WB at sunset seems to be more important than the plane type presented?

Dave Henderson 
Full member
Joined in March 2009
Posts: 29
Posted 23 May 2014 - 04:26 CET

A screener is there to assess the quality of the image and decide whether the image is good enough or not for the websites criteria... they are not and should not expected to know every single aircraft type in existence as you seem to perceive Agnieszka. I'm somewhat amazed at what some uploaders expect from screeners, who, lets be reminded, volunteer their time away from their life and families, do deal with stuff like this. And also remember screeners are human, not robots, errors will happen from time to time.

And whilst you are here complaining about why the screeners do not recognise certain aircraft types, I have to ask why you didn't bother adding a registration to this image? It took me only 2 seconds to find... incase you couldn't actually find the reg, its FA-84.

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/387561/belgium-air-force-airport-overview-people/

Lastly, if you see so many errors with accepted images as you claim, help the crew out and submit corrections instead of bad mouthing them.

Wallace Shackleton 

Full member
Joined in February 2007
Posts: 1897
Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:08 CET

There are two type of contributors to AP; plane spotters, who know a lot about everything and photographers, who don't.

The screeners do a job, sometimes very well and sometimes very slipshod, I can say that from experience. It does rely on a degree of background knowledge, which some as photographers do not have.

Some points from the above posts, the only rule at AP is the Skyshot Rule. There is no other guidance or instruction given to screeners. Nothing. It is left up to their judgement to decide what gets accepted, this allows them great flexibility to accept photos. All a screener must know is what a good picture looks like, they are Full members who give up their time to ensure that the standard of photography is upheld on this site that's all.

Unfortunately sometimes the quality of information supplied is an embarrassment to AP, where an omission on the uploader or screeners part can become fact on the internet within seconds of accepting the photo. This is just a fact of life, one simply can not be perfect all the time. This is just a fact of life.

The photo referred to above,

Image

You can see that as part of the URL the Uploader selected Airport Overview, erroneously in my opinion as it is not an overview and it has since been corrected.

The serial is not that important, it only is important to plane spotters and then only once, so the omission can be forgiven.. in my book anyway.

Bradley Malais 
Member
Joined in December 2010
Posts: 31
Posted 23 May 2014 - 13:34 CET

That F-16 should not be too hard to find as it is the Belgian demo F-16.

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/402807/fa-84-belgium-air-force-general-dynamics-f-16a-fighting-falcon/

The serial could be important when a potential costumer is looking, for example, this F-16 and when he searches for it he won't find the one in the post of Wallace's ;)

This post has been edited by Bradley Malais on 23rd May 2014 - 13:34

Agnieszka Jamro 
Member
Joined in June 2012
Posts: 6
Posted 23 May 2014 - 15:12 CET

Dave, I do not expect the screeners to know 'every single aircraft type in existence'. I just expected some overall rules that work for everyone as I couldn't understand why sometimes the pictures were accepted with not complete data and sometimes not. To answer your question why I didn't bother adding registration to the image http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/387561/belgium-air-force-airport-overview-people/ I can only say that I uploaded it in a category - airport overview - people, as it presents Cpt R "Grat" Thys, and putting the photo in this category does not require the info about the plane. The screeners changed the category for this photo and it appeared with the plane type (not provided by me) but unfortunately, the register number was missing. Had I been asked to provide the missing info, because they changed the category, I'd definitely have done it. While uploading photos I try to check other shots and categories to make sure I do not sth wrong. In the category airport overview- people - I found a few shots similar to mine - with a pilot in the cockpit. Why the category was changed, was the screener's decision. One more thing is that according to the rules only 2 shots of a plane taken on the same day can be submitted - hence the possibility to present two photos of a plane (eg. in the air) and submit in separate category the picture of a pilot or aircraft detail which does not require the full data, such as registration number as it's not the point of the shots in those categories. Please correct me if I'm wrong and do not feel offended saying that I'm only complaining and criticising and do not appreciate screeners' job. I do, but sometimes don't understand their decisions. As I'm trying to work out some rules for accepted photos just observing the shots that are presented here :))

Wallace Shackleton 

Full member
Joined in February 2007
Posts: 1897
Posted 23 May 2014 - 15:15 CET

Always assuming that a picture editor actually knows what a serial or an F-16 is.

No, that kind of trivia is strictly for the plane spotters and the anoraks :)

Szymon Bochyński 

Member
Joined in March 2013
Posts: 11
Posted 23 May 2014 - 17:00 CET

Na przyszłość polecam opcje zgłoszenia nieprawidłowych danych, każdemu się pomyłka może zdarzyć. Pozdrawiam.

Agnieszka Jamro 
Member
Joined in June 2012
Posts: 6
Posted 23 May 2014 - 22:53 CET

Jak najbardziej Szymon, może się zdarzyć, zwłaszcza, że po wpisaniu rejestracji automatycznie pojawiała się błędna nazwa samolotu i musiałeś tego po prostu nie zauważyć. Sorry, że Twoje zdjęcie posłużyło mi za przykład, a nie zauważyłam opcji zgłaszania nieprawidłowych danych. Mój post miał jednak również na celu wyjaśnienie pewnych zasad Tu panujących i dotyczących informacji niezbędnych do zamieszczenia zdjęcia, bo najwyraźniej są duże rozbieżności co do wymagań w zależności od tego kto jest screenerem. Ja sama jestem początkująca w tej dziedzinie i na pewno popełniłam niejedną pomyłkę, ale od screenerów- ekspertów wydawało mi się, że można trochę więcej wymagać. Pozdrawiam serdecznie :)

Szymon Bochyński 

Member
Joined in March 2013
Posts: 11
Posted 23 May 2014 - 23:05 CET

Nie ma sprawy, ostatnio zauwazylem, ze bledne dane sa czestym zjawiskiem. Nie zdarza sie to jedynie przy blednym wypelnieniu formularza, ale takze, nie wiedziec czemu, poprawnie opisane zdjecie czasem po publikacji ma bledne dane i to duzo bardziej absurdalnie niz w przypadku mojego zdjecia :D ekipa a-p bardzo szybko reaguje na zgloszenia, wiec przynajmniej takie glupoty dlugo nie "wisza" :)

Wallace Shackleton 

Full member
Joined in February 2007
Posts: 1897
Posted 25 May 2014 - 14:51 CET

Probably a victim of flash screening, It's a Cessna 206 and not a Zlín Z-142.

Image

Michael Carbery 

Full member
Joined in June 2008
Posts: 1138
Posted 25 May 2014 - 14:54 CET

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/precorrect-information.php?p=406795

Wallace Shackleton 

Full member
Joined in February 2007
Posts: 1897
Posted 25 May 2014 - 18:18 CET

I made the correction just before I posted the picture, I take it the correction has been rejected off the Admin Panel because it is still down as a Zlin.

Jump to the top

Log in to post in the forum.

Terms and Conditions | About | FAQ | Photo Use | Privacy Policy | Online 1595 (29 members)
© 2006-2024 Airplane-Pictures.net | E-mail us: Team@Airplane-Pictures.net
All photos are copyright © to their respective photographers and may not be used without permission.