Reason(s) For Rejection:- Bad Info

[cHabu]

Hiya,

Probably not for this forum, but perhaps this time i get a decent reply....

I uploaded a photo of OO-FPA, see: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=267063

It was rejected and reasen was given as "- Bad Info (Aircraft, Airline, Registration, etc.)". Thought i'd done good research, i went on the web and checked the provided info against info i supplied and all checked out perfectly.

appealed the rejection with the request to mail me and tell me what info is wrong, in order for me to correct this.

All i got in return was an automated message, telling me my appeal has been rejected ...... No comments, no info on what is wrong with the info.

Seems i have to guess what is wrong with the info i proveded....

Anyone on the forum who is willing to help as the screener/admin isn't.......

Thanks, Chris.

[Leftseat86]

Hmmm, not being the screener who screened it, I cannot tell you, as it appears everything is correct...did you check to see if that aircraft type was in a different format under the dropdown menus? You may have gotten the type correct bud if it is not in database format that may draw the rejection.

-Clovis

[DeltaASA16]

Cool billboard in the background :P

-Adam

[AJ]

The type 'Cessna 560/XL Citation 5' is incorrect. The Citation 5 is different to the Citation Excel, which you have pictured. The type is therefore 'Cessna 561/XL Citation Excel'. Cessna 560/XL is also acceptable as this was the type's initial designation by Cessna.

Cheers.

[cHabu]

Thanks to all who replied.......

'AJ' probably told me why it was rejected, due to my lack of biz-knowledge.
I assumed there's only one Citation XL, so i choose the Cessna 560/XL from the menue.

I uploaded the photo again, with 560/XL as type, now hoping it's correctly changed. The only thing i find hard to understand is the lack of response from admin/screeners when i ask the same in my appeal.

If admin/screeners read this, perhaps they can give it the correct attention the next time someone asks a question when apealing a rejection.

Thanks again for the help, Chris.

[AJ]

If admin/screeners read this, perhaps they can give it the correct attention the next time someone asks a question when apealing a rejection.

I'm a screener and I just gave you the information, unpaid, that you required. Some effort is also required by uploaders! In the last seven days 6633 shots have been screened, a detailed response to all 2568 rejections would have more that halved this number, not fair to other uploaders really.

Cheers and please show some understanding.

[cHabu]

If admin/screeners read this, perhaps they can give it the correct attention the next time someone asks a question when apealing a rejection.

I'm a screener and I just gave you the information, unpaid, that you required. Some effort is also required by uploaders! In the last seven days 6633 shots have been screened, a detailed response to all 2568 rejections would have more that halved this number, not fair to other uploaders really.

Cheers and please show some understanding.

Don't quite know how to respond to this.....

If i appeal to a rejection, i think there's nothing wrong in asking why and to ask for a more detailed reply.

Some effort is required from the uploaders but also from the screeners.
Take 30 seconds more to reject an upload and give more details if possible.

Hope you don't mean we have to guess what's wrong, if i read correct.....

Understanding has to go both ways, so next time someone makes a small mistake in aircraft type, reject the photo and type "wrong aircraft type", not just "bad info". Don't tell me a screener can't spare 30 seconds extra.

Thanks again for the free advise. I uploaded the photo for free BTW.....

Bye, Chris.

[CorporateAv8r]

The type 'Cessna 560/XL Citation 5' is incorrect. The Citation 5 is different to the Citation Excel, which you have pictured. The type is therefore 'Cessna 561/XL Citation Excel'. Cessna 560/XL is also acceptable as this was the type's initial designation by Cessna.

Cheers.

Make them seperate catagories then. Both the Citation XL and the V are CE560's, so in they are the same type, different models. Never heard of a 561, then again I've only flown in 560's (both the V and Excel) about 10 times.

[CorporateAv8r]

Don't tell me a screener can't spare 30 seconds extra.

That's a little too much to ask. You figure they reject as many photos as are uploaded, so say they reject 700 pics in a day, that comes out to 350 minutes of their day wasted on typing up rejection reasons.

[cHabu]

That's a little too much to ask. You figure they reject as many photos as are uploaded, so say they reject 700 pics in a day, that comes out to 350 minutes of their day wasted on typing up rejection reasons.

Mmmm, i think you mis my point. I'm not implying they type more info on all rejections, just the ones who are difficult to detect.

In my case, i only got the message "bad data". If i had known at that time, i got the wrong type, i could have adjusted it without mailing to this forum.

So why not reject an upload with the message "bad data - wrong type" ?

Don't get me wrong. It's not the rejection that bothers me, it's the lack of additional info that bothers me. As said, i'm no expert and only know there's one Citation XL.....

So, don't spend 30 second, make it 10 seconds...

I'm expected to show some effort (like searching the web for info, like i did), isn't it fair for me to expect the same effort from the screeners ?

Bye, Chris.

[SWA733Captain]

Rejection reasons are not manually typed out. All the screeners do is check the reason that applies to the specific photo.

[cHabu]

Rejection reasons are not manually typed out. All the screeners do is check the reason that applies to the specific photo.

So if i understand correct.

If, for whatever reason, i get another "Bad Info" rejection, the only way to find out what's wrong with the upload, is to mail it on this forum and hope someone has te answer ?

Bye, Chris.

[SWA733Captain]

If, for whatever reason, i get another "Bad Info" rejection, the only way to find out what's wrong with the upload, is to mail it on this forum and hope someone has te answer

Or you could just enter the correct info the first time.

http://www.landings.com/ Scroll down to databases under Search/Ref.

[u2o]

That's a little too much to ask. You figure they reject as many photos as are uploaded, so say they reject 700 pics in a day, that comes out to 350 minutes of their day wasted on typing up rejection reasons.

Mmmm, i think you mis my point. I'm not implying they type more info on all rejections, just the ones who are difficult to detect.

In my case, i only got the message "bad data". If i had known at that time, i got the wrong type, i could have adjusted it without mailing to this forum.

So why not reject an upload with the message "bad data - wrong type" ?

Don't get me wrong. It's not the rejection that bothers me, it's the lack of additional info that bothers me. As said, i'm no expert and only know there's one Citation XL.....

So, don't spend 30 second, make it 10 seconds...

I'm expected to show some effort (like searching the web for info, like i did), isn't it fair for me to expect the same effort from the screeners ?

Bye, Chris.

You're just being selfish and ignorant. I stand by the screeners for this. The screeners are NOT being paid to screen the pics, and it must be very hard work. As AJ wrote, 6633pictures screened in one week, 2568 rejections. Its probably more effort than you lookin for your info on google search. Also the screener turned up here to comment on your rejection (and you're still b1tching), whats your problem? If you're gonna upload and get angry because YOU made a mistake (i.e. aircraft info) then its your fault, simple as that, whether its difficult to detect or not. Afterall, what are you taking the photos for, is it for hobby or just to get it accepted online.

[CorporateAv8r]

YOU made a mistake (i.e. aircraft info) then its your fault, simple as that, whether its difficult to detect or not.

He didn't make a mistake though. All he did was select CE560 from the selection bar. It's not his fault that selection includes both the V and XL. It's the same with the Hawker 800/1000 selection under Raytheon. I have gotten comments for simply writing Hakwer 800 so, for now on I'll always use the selection, but as proven in this topic even that is reason enough for a rejection.