NO DATABASE UPDATING BEING DONE

[Tyke's Aero blog]

I don't know the source of this claim, but there are 50-200 new aircraft added and 100-500 corrections made in the aircraft database, every day. Today 2 new airports, 4 new airlines and more than 40 airline logos have been updated as well. Aircraft database now contains 1075111 rows.

Well if that is the case then perhaps you can expain why the thousands of new entries and updates posted in the forum thread since post #9420 are not displaying?

Eg.

Sent 3 weeks ago (#9428) : https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/b-1427

Nothing!

Sent 3 weeks ago (#9429) : https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/b-1436

Nothing!

Sent 3 weeks ago (#9437) : https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ei-fya

Nothing!

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/expanding-the-flightradar24-database-and-how-you-can-help/

"Once the information has been submitted it can take up to 72 hours for the information to be included in the database."

Currently up to 864 hours and counting.

[Anmer]

I don't know the source of this claim, but there are 50-200 new aircraft added and 100-500 corrections made in the aircraft database, every day. Today 2 new airports, 4 new airlines and more than 40 airline logos have been updated as well. Aircraft database now contains 1075111 rows.

This thread was specifically about updates from forum members.

When the question was first raised I did a fairly extensive "sample" of the last few weeks posts in the topic "Aircraft to be added into Flightradar24 aircraft database" and found over 90% of the aircraft not in the database.

I've just checked all the posts for 1st May 2017 and 60% are not found. Over 50% of those were available in other sources, matching the details in the forum post.

All tracking providers need volunteers to supplement their official data sources. Some are more reliable than others. All Tyke's Aero blog needed was for FR24 to answer to his original question.

Unfortunately, he's still waiting!

[apgphoto]

To be honest they have possibly been all put off by the comments made toward them when errors are produced etc recently where people outright make statements like they could do it better and so on.

Being volunteers and not dedicated staff it is only processed during their own free time. And the number of them able to support doing so appears to have decreased recently

It also makes it very hard when airframes may change in quick succession. What is posted 1 week may change the next if only an intrim adjustment or another user may paste different info.. to which do you believe without extensive time put into investigation to support the information provided... And looking at the thread there has been a LOT of submissions recently

Before anyone else puts their hand up to volunteer, I don't think it is as simple as an OK. As (I believe) it quite an unrestricted database back end access and specific knowledge of the editor. Which seems to have the ability to import CSVs and such from additional providers which can skew user submitted data if there are slight errors

For this reason I started the thread to point out the fleetlist verification sites as people often have their own thoughts on the correct naming convention to use (ICAO vs IATA). And who should be credited as the operator when sub-let or leased with different branding and so on

With the new web-submission form we can only but surmise the verification by FR24 staff of those may also hinder user provided changes being over-ridden

I'm quite vocal but then funnily enough I also "volunteer" information to the site, nobody is paying or asking me too and I also host one of the receivers.

The new web submission form is good but also contains plenty of errors, I have already pointed this out, so the potential is there for incorrect data, but i digress....

Tyke is correct there is a backlog of info that hasn't been added for one reason or another. If the DB guys are upset with our words then someone should come out and say it and then we dont need to bother supplying missing data until they are good and ready for it.

I have no idea how the DB guys vet the data (they cant access official data for my country) but for "my country" they sometimes add the details to the hex or sometimes dont and I'm not talking about the more unusual types.

I would be more than happy to offer to help on data analysis and hunting down the errors that already exsist

[Mike]

Well if that is the case then perhaps you can expain why the thousands of new entries and updates posted in the forum thread since post #9420 are not displaying?

Eg.

Sent 3 weeks ago (#9428) : https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/b-1427

Nothing!

Sent 3 weeks ago (#9429) : https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/b-1436

Nothing!

Sent 3 weeks ago (#9437) : https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ei-fya

Nothing!

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/expanding-the-flightradar24-database-and-how-you-can-help/

"Once the information has been submitted it can take up to 72 hours for the information to be included in the database."

Currently up to 864 hours and counting.

First of all, thank you for all your data submissions to improve the database!

As stated in the first post

https://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/1872-Aircraft-to-be-added-into-Flightradar24-aircraft-database

There are about 5-10 people with access to the database that can update the database from the data posted on this forum. That may take from 5 minutes to 5 weeks.

I personally in most cases prefer posts where I can just copy and past data, so I can handle more posts in shorter time. Posts in upper case that need to be rewritten, I temporarily skip until I have more time to rewrite the data.
Following the pattern in the first post makes copy and past easier and faster (That includes the date as well. "Brand new" is not a date, but an output on the web page when age is less than 1 year.)

7803F6
B-5341
B738
Boeing 737-89L
36483
Air China
CCA
2010-05-20

We recommend to use the web submission form mentioned in the blog post, that we are able to process much faster, normally in much less than 72h.

[Tyke's Aero blog]

First of all, thank you for all your data submissions to improve the database!

As stated in the first post

https://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/1872-Aircraft-to-be-added-into-Flightradar24-aircraft-database

There are about 5-10 people with access to the database that can update the database from the data posted on this forum. That may take from 5 minutes to 5 weeks.

Dear Mike,

Firstly, on the page you are referencing it contradicts itself because a few lines later it says "Initially processing time is 2-5 days, but goal is that from next week process all requests within 2-72h." which was a recent update to the post from February this year.

Further, if you have 5-10 people that can edit the database then why are the updates not being done? We are now roughly 1 full week later since this topic was originally raised, yet still no manual airframe database updates have been done beyond post #9420. I know 1 editor is on long term vacation so what are the other 9 editors doing? Call me a cynic but the evidence speaks for itself from what I and others are seeing : you only have 1 active editor!

I personally in most cases prefer posts where I can just copy and past data, so I can handle more posts in shorter time. Posts in upper case that need to be rewritten, I temporarily skip until I have more time to rewrite the data.
Following the pattern in the first post makes copy and past easier and faster (That includes the date as well. "Brand new" is not a date, but an output on the web page when age is less than 1 year.)

This is not relevant to the discussion at hand and while it is clearly directed at me, there are numerous database update requests posted by other members around the same time which are in the correct format, yet a cursory check of the database reveals that none of them have been processed. Why is that?

We recommend to use the web submission form mentioned in the blog post, that we are able to process much faster, normally in much less than 72h.

You keep promoting your fancy (but highly flawed) web form yet continue to fail to address the issues with it raised by myself and others :

"6. I understand that the web-form submissions still have to be screened by a database editor first before being added - same as what happens with the forum submissions, just that we don't see them. Personally I think the web-form complicates matters and should be removed. There are many flaws with it as forum member 'nomad' has previously documented. Apart from the well-known limitations with some of the fields, there is the problem of it potentially increasing the workload for the editors as one person may submit xyz through the form but then someone else comes along and submits abc - how do you know which is correct? Who is the arbiter of that? You could waste hours looking into it, meanwhile the backlog gets even bigger. At least if all submissions had to be posted on the forum then there are many pairs of experienced eyes on the look-out for duff info and they would essentially get screened for free before reaching the database. I don't see a downside to be honest."

Is this really too much like hard work to address and instead you'd rather we all just keep quiet and be good little database contributors and not ask awkward questions? The problems aren't going to go away and they need fixing before your key contributors decide to vote with their feet. What is the problem with giving nomad77 and 40612 editor access as previously suggested? Both guys have good attention to detail and accuracy and the backlog would be sorted within a day or two. I doubt anyone here would have any objections to them becoming database editors.

[Mike]

Dear Mike,

Firstly, on the page you are referencing it contradicts itself because a few lines later it says "Initially processing time is 2-5 days, but goal is that from next week process all requests within 2-72h." which was a recent update to the post from February this year.

You are mixing 2 things up.

First there is a message about posting in the thread that says it's processed in 5 minutes to 5 weeks.

-

Then there is a message about using the web form and it says processing time is up to 72h.

-

And then there is a blog post about using the the web form and it once again says processing time is up to 72h.

-

Web form is easier and faster to process and is recommended for posting new data.

[SoCalBrian]

Hi Tyke,
I cleaned up the thread for you. Leaving my original post only.

[Tyke's Aero blog]

@Mike - OK, fair comment and I apologise for the misunderstanding there. However there is still a large portion of my post which remains unanswered! Perhaps it will make it easier for you to answer if I reduce the questions to bite sizes?

1. How is one expected to make submissions via the web form when the plane is not currently live? The web form option is only available in that situation and cannot be accessed by any other method. For example, the Boeing pings at RNT are often very short and have disappeared before you get chance to ID the frame and open the web form. Do you really expect people to go through the hassle of loading up the flawed playback feature and rewind to that point so they can use the form? I can tell you from experience that for very short pings the playback feature doesn't work because the minimum playback speed is too fast at 12x. It's much easier to note the hex code, work out what it is then drop it into the forum thread.

2. The form only accepts aircraft type codes which have been listed in the back-end type code database. How do you expect people to submit new data when the form won't send with the correct data? All it's encouraging is for people to deliberately select an incorrect type code just so that the form will send. Does this seem like a sensible way of doing it to you?

3. The form has only "airline" or "private" for the operator. Please tell me you don't need someone to point out the very obvious problems with this?

4. What happens when you get 2 or more submissions containing differing data for a given hex code? Who is the arbiter in deciding which one to use and which ones to ignore? With submissions being done this way you no longer have the luxury of having many pairs of experienced eyes screening the data for you in the forum submission thread. In my opinion this will lead to a significant degradation in data quality. You only have to take a look at the number of incorrect and incomplete submissions being made in the forum submission thread that are having to be corrected by 40612.

5. Why are web form submissions allegedly processed 11.6x faster than the forum submissions that have been posted in the correct 'copy & paste' format? Please explain.


I would be more open to a web form submission if :

a. point #2 above was fixed and allowed any 4 chars to be entered.

b. the web form was made available permanently on the site somewhere, not just when an aircraft is live.

c. you added a 'comments' field with a reasonable char limit to allow for comments which could prove to be useful intel in some circumstances.


If you are going to insist on wanting all new data to be submitted via a web form then there should also be one to submit corrections too, and also be permanently available to use. It should be done in such a way that the user can enter either the hex or reg and click a look-up button which will display the current data for that frame in the database. Each field should have a 'correct' button to click which would allow the user to input the correct data and submit it for review. It should also have an 'additional comments' box too to allow the user to add supporting evidence for the correction which would aid the editor. Also I would advise putting a daily look-up limit of say 20 per day in place to prevent abuse of people trying to extract the database. I would also make the web form submissions require the user to be logged in and the submissions have their username attached which over time would allow you to build up a picture of which users' data submissions can be trusted to be accurate.

I look forward to your answers to 1-5 above and your comments on my suggestions!

[Tyke's Aero blog]

Further to my comments above, there isn't even any button on the playback to allow submissions !

http://imgur.com/a/l4MZL

Totally flawed system.

[apgphoto]

I would be more open to a web form submission if :

a. point #2 above was fixed and allowed any 4 chars to be entered.

b. the web form was made available permanently on the site somewhere, not just when an aircraft is live.

c. you added a 'comments' field with a reasonable char limit to allow for comments which could prove to be useful intel in some circumstances.


If you are going to insist on wanting all new data to be submitted via a web form then there should also be one to submit corrections too, and also be permanently available to use. It should be done in such a way that the user can enter either the hex or reg and click a look-up button which will display the current data for that frame in the database. Each field should have a 'correct' button to click which would allow the user to input the correct data and submit it for review. It should also have an 'additional comments' box too to allow the user to add supporting evidence for the correction which would aid the editor. Also I would advise putting a daily look-up limit of say 20 per day in place to prevent abuse of people trying to extract the database. I would also make the web form submissions require the user to be logged in and the submissions have their username attached which over time would allow you to build up a picture of which users' data submissions can be trusted to be accurate.

Agree with Tyke on these points..

My suggestion for point "A" would be to clear out all the defunct/made up codes already in the drop down and to update it with the current ICAO list which saves users adding more junk. The ICAO list is now updated monthly so it would be an easy task to add new entries to the drop down every month.

The aircraft types also need analysis to remove duplicates/misspelling/layout errors but that's a job for another day

Having an offline version of the webform is an excellent idea perhaps two versions: One for new aircraft where the fields are not customisable forcing the user to enter data in the correct format. One for data updates where the fields are customisable so that existing data can be corrected and the user ID is logged

[nomad77]

Well once again we are discussing the Data Base and the failure to have information provided by
volunteers processed within a reasonable time frame.

My first issue would be the almost total lack of communications from FR24, many times questions
are asked or issues raised which are directly pertinent to this area but they remain unanswered.

When you have an asset which contributes so much to your business at no cost to you, it is madness
to treat them and their suggestions with the distain that I have seen in the past.

The idea of a Web Form was first raised on the DB forum with suggestions being kicked around by
those participating in the posting of data.

These posts were deleted with a reminder to only use the forum for posting data.

Then months later this form is introduced as a new and better option.

Well guess what. we all tried it and found it wanting, we made our remarks and suggestions in good
faith only to be howled down by FR24 with the remarks that they knew better.

You could have taken the suggestions on board and come up with something that really did do the job
and made life easier for everone or even agreed to review the form.

The problems raised in the begining are still problems, sticking your head in the sand is not going to make
them go away. A more likely option is your sources of information will go away.

Everyone who contributes data can and will make mistakes, incorrect information can be posted in good
faith, even official sources have errors. As pointed out in earlier posts the forum has the advantage of
peer review of information often correcting errors and ommissions before the data reaches the editors.

No such check can be done using the form, I suggested that perhaps data entered in the form could be
displayed in a subject to review format. Then the issue of how many times can data be entered into the
web form for the same aircraft. It does appear to me that multiple entries can be made but thats not
something I am sure about.

The forum goes some way towards the duplication of data, if its kept reasonably up to data it is easy to
check to see if a new aircraft is posted on the forum awaiting processing, don't think we can do that on
the web page.

Agree the provision of a second form to allow for the entry of data from aircraft not visible at the time
would remove a significant issue and should be given serious consideration.

Another area I have problems with is the Commercial or Private classification, it appears that if you are
an airline with the associated ICAO/IATA codes, your Commericial. If however you are a major non-airline
operation with out any of said codes, then you are a Private operator, thats just plain BS
(Sorry Tyke I just had to)

While I may have missed it, I don't recall seeing any response to the various problems or suggestions that
have been made over the last few months, all I have seen is an attack on those making these comments.

Committed reliable people, willing to contribute accurate data on a regular basis at no cost to FR24 or
indeed any business, are difficult to find and easy to lose if not treated with a modicum of respect

[Maxi_Tyrolean]

The main problem here is that no database-editor is doing any work from the "Flightradar24 (aircraft database)" forum. 99% of the post there are actually done by myself.
After more than 2 weeks on vacation I see that most of the posted aircraft informations are still waiting to get done.
I stopped my work on 25 April and todays date is 13 May, these are 18 days.
Work that has to be done:
Thread "Aircraft to be added into Flightradar24 aircraft database" 25 pages,
and "Data errors in Flightradar24 aircraft database" 8 pages.

As you can see for a single person this will take me many many days to finish this 31 pages of work.

[nomad77]

The main problem here is that no database-editor is doing any work from the "Flightradar24 (aircraft database)" forum. 99% of the post there are actually done by myself.
After more than 2 weeks on vacation I see that most of the posted aircraft informations are still waiting to get done.
I stopped my work on 25 April and todays date is 13 May, these are 18 days.
Work that has to be done:
Thread "Aircraft to be added into Flightradar24 aircraft database" 25 pages,
and "Data errors in Flightradar24 aircraft database" 8 pages.

As you can see for a single person this will take me many many days to finish this 31 pages of work.

Maxi I think you will find that we all feel that you are doing a great job but clearly the volume of work is such
that it demands a few more editors actually doing the job. Sayhing that there are "5 to 10" editors who can
do this work is beside the point if they don't do updates.

[airnrail]

Maxi I think you will find that we all feel that you are doing a great job but clearly the volume of work is such
that it demands a few more editors actually doing the job. Sayhing that there are "5 to 10" editors who can
do this work is beside the point if they don't do updates.

I've followed this thread recently even though I don't have any passionate views on the topic but it seems more than a few people do have and one thing strikes me. Does anyone (apart from Mike) who is actually employed by FR24 ever do any work on these databases? This is a commercial organisation that can't rightfully be run employing only administrators and IT specialists with the rest done by volunteer labour. It's seems to be way past the time for FR24 to have a critical look at its business model.

[fungus]

I've followed this thread recently even though I don't have any passionate views on the topic but it seems more than a few people do have and one thing strikes me. Does anyone (apart from Mike) who is actually employed by FR24 ever do any work on these databases? This is a commercial organisation that can't rightfully be run employing only administrators and IT specialists with the rest done by volunteer labour. It's seems to be way past the time for FR24 to have a critical look at its business model.

.... and sadly it has the propensity to suck the life out of many of the volunteers.

Regards,
Gregg