There are some practical constraints regarding error reporting.
a) the alternative and favoured routes are working properly so far as we can tell, but it is true that there have been two periods over the last 12 months when they haven't (I would like to simplify the access to thos routes from the photo pages but that it currently not achievable.
b) I appreciate the work done by the data correctors on spellings/missing IMO etc, and most reports, by whichever are dealt with promtly, though occasionally there is some bunching
c) it would not be possible to extend photocomment editing access to just one type of photocomment
d) I sympathise with the concern that too many repeated corrections can crowd out the normal range of comments - not comments on the quality of the photo itself, but other info or news about the ship, the vessel's identification, reminiscences of members (whether as shipspotters or as seafarers. As I said earlier there were a couple of batches of useful corrections the other day which lingered rather. Normally, when seen, I contact the helpful member reminding or informingg of the preferred routes, and also noting that every example of the same ship does not need a separate correction - most correctors check out other images and correct them also as necessary.
I have asked that the Photo Comments section on the front page be enlarged, now that the notice concerning Ken has had an extended exposure.
It is one of my prime functions to monitor the Photo Comments to ensure that unacceptable contributions are nipped in the bud before the lead to arguments - and duplicate postings deleted. I am mindful that members' comments should not be censored except where absolutely necessary.
David