Hi,
Hope this is the right forum for this topic. Recently I had a pic of US Coast Guard Aérospatiale MH-65E Dolphin, tail number 6534 rejected for 'Hot Photo'. The rejection was indeed correct since pictures of this aircraft already exist in the JP database. I only wanted to point out a couple of things that led to the mistake of it being uploaded as 'Hot Photo'.
First, the Auto Fill did not work; Aircraft fields were not populated.
Second to confirm it was hot, I did a search of 6534 using the 'Search Bar' on the top (did not use Advanced Search) - Aviation photos on JetPhotos. Looks like when this is done, it searches first for all CN containing 6534 and not registration. All pics in first page were not of USCG helicopter. Those were in the second page towards the end. Here, it is completely my mistake that I missed to see the second page of search. Would it not be better for direct 'Search' function to look for registration first and then CN? I am guessing most photographers are searching for reg.
Regards,
Siddarth
Hope this is the right forum for this topic. Recently I had a pic of US Coast Guard Aérospatiale MH-65E Dolphin, tail number 6534 rejected for 'Hot Photo'. The rejection was indeed correct since pictures of this aircraft already exist in the JP database. I only wanted to point out a couple of things that led to the mistake of it being uploaded as 'Hot Photo'.
First, the Auto Fill did not work; Aircraft fields were not populated.
Second to confirm it was hot, I did a search of 6534 using the 'Search Bar' on the top (did not use Advanced Search) - Aviation photos on JetPhotos. Looks like when this is done, it searches first for all CN containing 6534 and not registration. All pics in first page were not of USCG helicopter. Those were in the second page towards the end. Here, it is completely my mistake that I missed to see the second page of search. Would it not be better for direct 'Search' function to look for registration first and then CN? I am guessing most photographers are searching for reg.
Regards,
Siddarth
Comment