Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2 Rejected Incorrectly...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2 Rejected Incorrectly...

    Rejected for bad info: http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=716853

    All the info I put here is absolutely 100% correct. Just because the plane was not in the JP census doesn't mean the registration doesn't exist. See here:
    http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNum...umbertxt=221WN


    This one for bad motive was rejected,
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=716856

    but you accept this one, which isn't even straight:
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=464739


    Again, all I ask for is consistency...
    Follow me on Twitter! www.twitter.com/flyingphotog


  • #2
    You didn't put in a serial number...which is cause for a bad info rejection.

    I don't know about the badmotive shot...I kind of like it.
    Bobby DeBarge
    www.debargephoto.com
    http://utccollegelife.blogspot.com
    1999 Firebird Driver| Aviation Enthusiast





    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by bobby
      You didn't put in a serial number...which is cause for a bad info rejection.
      That figures, since N221WN wasn't in the JP census for me to get the serial number.
      Follow me on Twitter! www.twitter.com/flyingphotog

      Comment


      • #4
        I would re-upload the first shot and include the s/n. As far as the bad motive shot, if the first shot is accepted I would just keep the 2nd for my personal collection since the logo is clearly visible in the wider shot and is overall more interesting.
        Last edited by Chris Starnes; 2005-10-07, 15:53.


        http://www.starnesphoto.com/aviation
        [LAX / IAD Update 2.27.07]

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Chris Starnes
          I would re-upload the first shot and include the s/n.
          Done, but I still strongly disagree with the rejection of the 2nd one if this site accept other "sticker shots" like mine.
          Follow me on Twitter! www.twitter.com/flyingphotog

          Comment


          • #6
            For the second shot, they were probably screened by two different screeners. We don't have a defined policy on tight-special-sticker-focus-shots, which I think you can understand. So it's up to screener discretion. If you disagree with it, appeal it, citing the other photo as an example. If the appeal gets rejected, then you'll know the boss's decision.
            Will F.
            Photos: JetPhotos.Net | Airliners.net | General Photography

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Crazy764
              For the second shot, they were probably screened by two different screeners. We don't have a defined policy on tight-special-sticker-focus-shots, which I think you can understand. So it's up to screener discretion. If you disagree with it, appeal it, citing the other photo as an example. If the appeal gets rejected, then you'll know the boss's decision.

              Exactly. There's really no point to posting it on here and questioning our consistancy. We pride ourselves on this, but mistakes will happen.

              All you have to do is appeal it, and unlike "Johan's blue ego" you won't be waiting 3 months just to have it rejected again.

              B
              I like my aircraft how I like my women...old Russian smokers!

              Planes, and girls, and stuff...SeriouslyFunny Photography.
              http://myspace.com/seriouslyfunny11

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by PT737SWA
                That figures, since N221WN wasn't in the JP census for me to get the serial number.
                hmm well since I got this from the link you posted...

                "Serial Number 34259"


                hmm.
                Bobby DeBarge
                www.debargephoto.com
                http://utccollegelife.blogspot.com
                1999 Firebird Driver| Aviation Enthusiast





                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bobby
                  hmm well since I got this from the link you posted...

                  "Serial Number 34259"


                  hmm.
                  How do you think I got the number? I found it on another site 'cause it wasn't on here. I have my answers, no need to drag it on any further.
                  Follow me on Twitter! www.twitter.com/flyingphotog

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X