Opinions please on why rejection

[tartanpics]

Hi guys
I have had a shot rejected for 2 reasons... Firstly that i put "Unknown" as aircraft type... The reason i did that is because the manufacturer and type are not in the DB, i tried to add them using the form on the upload page, however, for at least the past month this form has been faulty (Uneditable) this is something only the boffins at JP can fix (But seem unable/unwilling to fix this issue) therefore the ONLY way way to upload the shot is either class it as "unknown" or call it a type in the DB that it is not.. I also gave the screener full details of the aircraft type,manufacturer etc.. in the hope maybe they or someone could add the type to the DB. But secondly i am told the horizon is unlevel... the ONLY point of reference in the shot of a fixed point is the wind sock pole (Which may or may not be perfectly vertical).. I have also did a screenshot heavily cropped in of the windsock pole and showing the grid overlay in photoshop and the pole is absolutely vertical in relation to the grid. Opinions please.

[B7772ADL]

How many ways do you need to report this? You've posted it in various different forums and you've posted your opinions to the screening results. We get the message! However, we can't solve your problems right now. You really need to just sit back, relax and hang on until FR24 sorts it out. The screeners can't add in manually what you are asking.

At the end of the day, is it really a big deal? You are making a mountain out of mole hill. It's not the most important aircraft on the planet right now and surely you can wait and be patient until the bugs are ironed out.

Sir, patience is a virtue. I'm sorry we can't accommodate your needs. If you really must post it then may I suggest you investigate alternative avenues until your needs can be met.

Thanks, and good evening.

[brianw999]

...and a good guide to horizon is available in the flat based clouds, especially as it is the lean on them that gives the impression of an off level horizon. I am even more curious as to why you posted this thread after I answered your email with this...

Windsock poles, light poles etc. are very unreliable as horizon calculators as they bend easily. Best to use is a solid structure vertical, preferably close to the centre of the picture. For a sea background there's no better tool than the natural sea horizon but make sure that you calculate over the full horizon as the earths curvature can throw it out. Flat based clouds can be used as can a visual average across the horizon. Sometimes you have no option but to "guesstimate" the view of the horizon, I.e. What looks good normally is good in the absence of other clues. I have one shot in the database that is almost 5 degrees off from what I know is true level.

The inability to add new aircraft is a pain as we cannot even do it manually. The FR24 guys are working to fix it.

Regards,
JP Admin.

[tartanpics]

Brian I posted this before I got your email to which I replied with thanks for your time.
B7772 I posted this here today to ask for other photographers opinions mostly on the horizon issue.. my other thread from last week was a rant about the state of the site (which sat unreplied for many days) until 20 mins ago I wrongly assumed that JPnet was run by JPnet. .had no idea that FR24 now run it... plus the other thread is in a part of the forum called site related.. which if JPnet have no input on the JP site seems a pointless forum? ..to quote the description of that forum... Provide us with your feedback on the site. Would you like to see something added here? Have questions? We want to hear from you!...what point having a feedback page to which any feedback can only be replied with "Sorry.. We don't run the site" I agree my mere shot of a small motor glider is not the most important plane on the planet.. and maybe my subscription is less important than those that post photos that "matter"? I am more than happy to patiently wait now that I know the elongated version of my rejection reason "Bad Info" is a technical issue with the site outwith JPnet 's control... maybe posts like mine could be avoided if the screener rejected with an actual explanation and not a 7 letter 2 word reason?