Originally posted by wrth
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Bad Info - Genre, Categories, Photo date, etc.
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
A reminder nudge. Please use email to the photographer or the data correction facility. It's by far the more polite way to do it.
How would YOU like to have your mistakes published for all to see ?
Thank you.If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
Incorrect type return results for 727-200
Hello,
I am doing a generic search for 727-200 from the main page. The search returns a number of -100 pics in the return set. For example, I'm in this page:
13,380 photos. Here are photos 5041 - 5220
and this one is in the set:
P4-FLY. Boeing 727-22. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
I have not kept track of all the -100 pics I've encountered so far, but there were several, but the ones I've checked out were 727-22, -22F or -22C.
Conversely, in the above -22 page (id=6246961), if you click on the type link (http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos....=Boeing+727-22), the search also returned pics of -200 727s in addition of the -100s.
Seems the database query needs to be finetuned a little bit, it looks to me there is a wildcard that results in 727-223 (and similar) being pulled alongside 727-22, 727-22F, or 727-22C when one has specifically selected -200 or -22 as the type. Or something to that effect, I hope I explained it clearly.
Cheers,
Christos Psarras
UPDATE:
Here's another one I found to add to this issue, a -23 this time:
My very first 727 and what a beautiful one!. N800AK. Boeing 727-23(Q). JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
so the same issue happens with the -23 or -230/-232, etc.
UPDATE:
Another example, -22(F):
Parked over the wash rack at Hangar 12.. N186FE. Boeing 727-22(F). JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
Comment
-
Wrong Info On This Image
Dear Screeners,
Kindly check this photo. The reg on aircraft and the reg inserted for image are different. I guess some minor error.
VT-JGF. Boeing 737-8FH. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
Thanks !
Janam Parikh
Comment
-
Originally posted by janamparikh View PostIf it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
Can someone please have a look at Royal Air Marocs CN-RGB.
All photos in the DB seems to have the "old" serial nr (35507) which were never delivered. The one flying for RAM as CN-RGB today has the serial nr 43817.
Seems to be 4 photo to match 35507, while the remaining 26 photos should be 43817.
Thanks!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by SIA_744 View PostIs the "Correct Photo" link removed after the update? I'm not able to find it anywhere.
ERROR
Photo ID: 8134316
EXIF Data: October 28, 2015
Photo Date: December 25, 2015
Added: November 13, 2015If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
Hello, is there anybody who can change the airport from this picture? http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/8173538
It is not Istanbul but Frankfurt...thank you
Comment
-
Quick question about Uzbekistan Airlines registrations - I noticed this photo - http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/8262833 - has the reg as UK67005 (no dash), and other photos of the same aircraft such as this one - http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/8255457 - have the reg as UK-67005 (with dash). Now, it does physically say UK67005 with no dash on the plane but there are far more photos which include the dash. I'm wondering which is the correct one to post, this would apply to uzbekistani registrations in general
Comment
-
Hi Brian, there seems to no longer be a "correct info" button/link on photos in the db. I am coming across a lot of messed up info while browsing and not sure what to do. Like this photo for example:
Comment
-
I noticed that this photo http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/8049341 has an incorrect rego, should be F-GZHQ however I received email notification that the correction was rejected. Aside from the rego it is also obvious by the livery, GZHQ has the new livery whereas GZHO does not. Not sure if I should resubmit the request.
Comment
Comment