SHIP DETAILS

[davidships]

Clicking the mouse on the asterisk next to builders name will furnish the information "note. The current name of the shipyard might differ from the name when the ship was built."

Is this a new development since this thread was pursued? I cannot recall any reaction previously when clicking on the asterisk.

I don't know whether it's new or not, Rexroth, as it wouldn't occur to me to click on an asterisk. I think that the more usual icon for this is a questionmark in a circle.

Thank you, Ken, for checking with GT about updates. I am glad to hear that they do consider all submitted amendments.  I am sure that at least an acknowledgement (even if it is automated) would be welcome). Their data protection policy is unknown - when we join Shipspotting do we give authority for our personal data (eg email addresses) to be sent automatically to GT?  I don't recall so, and cannot find this in My Profile.

[Cornelia Klier]

Hello,

thank you for the explanatin of what the "asterisk" is for.

Although, the info you give, is incorrect.
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1870769

Here, it says "Daewoo Mangalia Heavy Industries Mangalia, Romania". The asterisk should mean then, according to you: "The current name of the shipyard might differ from the name when the ship was built."

I understand, like above mentioned, that this is the case with many shipyards, that have changed their names over the decades of years, which happens not only to English ones, but as well in Eastern Germany and in former Eastern countries, after old system broke down, they got renamed, sold but build ships in the same place. So, it might happen, that I look up an old DSR-ship and the name of the shipyard is the new one.

But, in case of "Jonni Ritscher" - the Ship was NEVER built in Romania and the Sietas shipyard never belonged to them or vice versa. The asterisk in this case is - wrong and useless ! This info is simply false, and I must second, that I am in favour of a button, so that someone can forward the right to the ones who take care of the database.

In case of former shipyards with new names - I understand completely. But my example with total incorrect info, I have no idea how such can happen and not be replaced.

I have also reported, that the shipyard of this ship is wrong, and I will see, how long it does take them, to replace this. I will look again next year 

[Jens Boldt]

Cornelia, Jonni Ritscher is a Sietas type 170. A lot of carcasses of this type of ship were built by Daewoo Mangalia Heavy Industries in Romania and brought to Hamburg where Sietas completed the ships. I think I remember that this was the case with some feeders of type 168, too.

And I've seen the same "confusion" of shipyards, too, concerning ships that were completed in the Netherlands, but the carcass was delivered by Daewoo Mangalia.

There are a lot more examples.

But I don't know if there's a rule which shipyard's name is given as builder when the construction of the carcass and the completion of the ship were done by two different shipyards.

Still, I see Jonni Ritscher as a Sietas-built ship, too:-)

Cheers, Jens

[Phil English]

You are absolutely right Jens. DMHI built a number of hulls as subcontractors of Sietas. I can confirm that the hull of JONNI RITSCHER was built by DMHI and it is listed on their reference lists as 'Project 4058'. However, Sietas Werft is marked on the ship's classification certificates as the prime builder, with hull number 1272

Brgds
Phil

[Jens Boldt]

Thanks for confirmation, Phil.

So, normally the name of the shipyard which is given as prime builder depends on what is written in the classification certificates?

Then Cornelia would be right that DMHI is not correct.

It seems to be a bit tricky when two (or more) shipyards are involved:-)

Brgds
Jens

[Phil English]

Hi Jens,

Generally what's on the ship's class documents should be the prime builder. However, it's not always that simple. If the JONNI RITSCHER switches from GL to ABS, the builder might become DMHI. I'm not saying that ABS would definitely show a different builder, but I've seen this sort of thing happen before when ships are built at more than one place. I'm just using them as an example. You might also get a different answer if you ask the owner 

Brgds
Phil

[Cornelia Klier]

Folks, it seems I am right on this one regarding "Jonni Ritscher". The builders plate I think, says it all.



Also, parts of Sietas ships were built in Poland, then carried to the shipyard in Neuenfelde. I know, it is not always easy, I know ships like "Samskip Express" were built by Damen Shipyard Netherlands - in Romania, under license. Jens is right, with his conclusions.

Most important is, there are so many shipyards about, that one person - or lets say one data base is impossible to get it all right, and I think, they can only profit from the vast knowledge here on shipspotting.com - I for example have NO clue about British shipyards and their history.

[Jens Boldt]

Hihi, I think the builder's plate will wipe away any doubts as to where it was built:-))

[davidships]

Thank you, Ken.  That is helpful.
Did GT say anything about their data protection policy and what happens to our email addresses?

David

[Rexroth]

Thanks, Ken. Good to see some progress on this issue.

[ChasB46]

Davidships, why don't you ask GT about data protection policy / email addresses? [email protected]

[davidships]

Davidships, why don't you ask GT about data protection policy / email addresses? [email protected]

They replied:

About mail sent us with corrections from the Shipspotting hotlink (never direct, always filtered by SSCOM Admins), our Staff simply get the correction (we don

[Kelvin Davies]

I have had my differences over the years with the Admins and the policies on this site.
However, this time I am on the side of the admins.
I think rather too much is being made of this issue.
Why this fixation over "data protection"?
In previous replies, GT have made clear, twice, that they are not interested in email addresses and they are automatically deleted from their system anyway.
I don't think email addresses are actually covered by the data protection laws anyway. Publishing a person's name and email address is the same as publishing their name and telephone number and we have all seen telephone directories.
The areas covered by data protection laws are intended to be more personal information such as sexual orientation, political views, religious beliefs etc. It does not cover email addresses.
Incidentally, the Act also stipulates that any personal data being processed must be deleted as soon as the purpose it was used for is complete. So GT are even complying with that regulation, even though they don't actually need to.
Ken, can we put this one to bed now perhaps?
Kelvin

[pieter melissen]

After some comments made to me by Phil English I read this thread, and I think that one important thing has been overlooked. The starting point to trigger the link to the GT website is obviously the IMO number. For my private interest I have spent some time here looking for shots of elderly tankers, and while most pictures now have the correct IMO number attached, there are several, especially among the earliest contributions to this site, that lack such a number. In several cases I have supplied the correct number which was subsequently changed/added, probably by Admins. Even to this day I see photos being uploaded without a number, and while I can appreciate that for older ships the IMO/LR number is not within direct reach of everybody, today googling on the name of the ship will give you the number right away.
I hereby volunteer to add the missing IMO numbers in the tanker categories on the site, which could be facilitated to give me just enough admin powers to do that (and only that). In this way the claim that this site is best source etc. can be made a bit more realistic.

AS far as the GT website is concerned, I have never visited that, but from the data extracted for this website, adding the yard number would be a great improvement.

Just my two cents, and merry X-mas to everybody.