NO DATABASE UPDATING BEING DONE

[Mike]

Good to see FR24 are right on to this issue...............

Sorry for spending 4 days in hospital. I will try not to do it again. I close the thread here as I can't see any positive coming out of it.

[Mike]

The web form is completely broken. It really boils my piss when people like Mike tell everyone to use it yet can't even manage to set it up so it functions correctly.

I have found the Rwandair 737 first flight on playback (06E012, 1726Z taxying at RNT) and added all the fields and entered 2017-05-13 in the last box. Clicked submit, the first flight date box turns red and the form refuses to send and the submit button greys out. What is wrong with it? The first flight was on MAY 13, 2017 - exactly as entered in numerical form.

Mike an explanation please.

We have processed more than 8000 aircraft submissions from the form and there are no known issues. If you find any errors please send an error description together with a screenshot to support@fr24.com so we can investigate and try to replicate.

[Mike]

There is nothing preventing you from setting up a private forum accessible only by some key members and have the form submissions automaticaly copied there. I believe this forum software supports email to forum if enabled in the panel. The data "screeners" could cast their experienced eyes over the data and report any inaccuracies so that if the form submission has already been processed it can be swiftly corrected. Without having any proper screening in place you are at high risk of ending up back where you were with a database full of trash.

There is absolutely no connection between the forum and the aircraft database, so any solution that is including the forum will always be 100% manual at the end and will never be an option for us.

[apgphoto]

Mike,

Can you remove from the ICAO list

PT6A still my favourite code, just for the engine
P68C
PT19

The coding logic for the drop down makes it impossible to go through in a logical way so I will add to this as I notice them.

And of course anything with these codes in the DB will have to be modified too!

[nomad77]

Good to see FR24 are right on to this issue...............

[Tyke's Aero blog]

And here's why having proper data quality screeners is vitally important :

https://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/1872-Aircraft-to-be-added-into-Flightradar24-aircraft-database?p=91634&viewfull=1#post91634

Just out of a small selection spanning 2 weeks I've found 4 errors in the data submitted by people via the web form which has been copied and pasted into the database without any checks.

[apgphoto]

I have found a bug in the first flight box too, but it just seems to be random and as you say if you leave it blank it works fine....

It doesn't like the year 1940 for a Hawker Hurricane I was adding yesterday

[Tyke's Aero blog]

It sends if you leave the first flight box blank, but the submit button greys out if you enter any date. How retarded is that. Well at least it will save me time having to add them.

[Tyke's Aero blog]

The web form is completely broken. It really boils my piss when people like Mike tell everyone to use it yet can't even manage to set it up so it functions correctly.

I have found the Rwandair 737 first flight on playback (06E012, 1726Z taxying at RNT) and added all the fields and entered 2017-05-13 in the last box. Clicked submit, the first flight date box turns red and the form refuses to send and the submit button greys out. What is wrong with it? The first flight was on MAY 13, 2017 - exactly as entered in numerical form.

Mike an explanation please.

[fungus]

I can't for the life of me understand why Admin doesn't grab you blokes with both hands and utilise your expertise. You're far smarter than I'll ever be and to let you guys slip through their hands would be sad indeed. FR24 could so much better if it were done.

Regards,
Gregg

For the record, I don't know these guys from a bar of soap but I can recognise talent when I see it.

[Tyke's Aero blog]

As I wrote the form is only accepting data that is already available in database. If there is any bad data in database please report it for correction.

We used to have the web form before and it was removed because the quality of submitted data was so bad that it was not even worth screening. Now we have lanunched it again based on lessons learned from last time. So to reduce number of errors users are only able to use codes that are already in database and now the rate of correct data is above 90% and we are working on continuing improving the data quality. We are not ignoring any data, just trying to keep things as easy as possible. When having over 1 million rows of data, from thousands of different data sources, it's impossible to aviod errors.

There is nothing preventing you from setting up a private forum accessible only by some key members and have the form submissions automaticaly copied there. I believe this forum software supports email to forum if enabled in the panel. The data "screeners" could cast their experienced eyes over the data and report any inaccuracies so that if the form submission has already been processed it can be swiftly corrected. Without having any proper screening in place you are at high risk of ending up back where you were with a database full of trash.

[Tyke's Aero blog]

3. Sorry, I don't get the problem here.

Military transport aircraft do not fit under 'airlines' or 'private owners'. Nor do some other operators.

[apgphoto]

Mike fully agree that having a controlled form of data entry is the way ahead.

Its a shame the database wasn't cleansed before the form was made live, that way the false ICAO codes could have been removed and the incomplete/miss spelt/different format types could have been removed too.

The form uses some strange logic so its difficult to weed out the bad codes in a logical order. E.G. if you type "D" it doesn't bring up all the codes beginning with D...

If you are able to extract the list I would be happy to go through it.

Good job on getting the Airbus NEO codes updated

[Mike]

Can you at least remove all the codes that are complete rubbish then?

ICAO are now updating their codes monthly. In March there were 3 new types, in April there were 7 new types. So in two months already 4 ahead of your yearly estimate. So it would be just as easy to add the new codes to the database monthly, rather than ignore them.

As I wrote the form is only accepting data that is already available in database. If there is any bad data in database please report it for correction.

We used to have the web form before and it was removed because the quality of submitted data was so bad that it was not even worth screening. Now we have lanunched it again based on lessons learned from last time. So to reduce number of errors users are only able to use codes that are already in database and now the rate of correct data is above 90% and we are working on continuing improving the data quality. We are not ignoring any data, just trying to keep things as easy as possible. When having over 1 million rows of data, from thousands of different data sources, it's impossible to aviod errors.

[fungus]

1. We started with live to start somewhere and get some data for evaluation and trim the system. We may add it on other locations later when we are happy with performance.

2. It only accept codes already in database to reduce number of errors. New codes are really, really rare and we think reducing errors by hundreds per week is much more important than adding 5-6 new codes per year.

3. Sorry, I don't get the problem here.

4. We check which looks more likely and/or which has been supplied by more users.

5. It's much easier and faster to press one button "approve" or in some cases even have it auto-approved than opening 2 windows, and copying + pasting 6-8 fields manually.

I've got comments to add to at the least points 2, 3 and 4 but as it's almost midnight here in Oz I'll elaborate on them tomorrow.

Regards,

Gregg