IMO NUMBER ERRORS

[Phil English]

I might be wasting my time, but here's a little tip for everyone. After you've submitted each photo, look at it on the site. If nothing is shown in the vessel identification and technical data boxes, or a completely different-looking ship appears under "more of this ship", it's very likely that you have added the wrong IMO number. If that is the case, please go back and check your sources. Hopefully, everyone should be using Equasis for existing/recent merchant ships.

Before anyone else comments, This is not meant to be a debate about admins correcting IMO numbers. This is intended simply as useful advice to members

Hope this helps.

Brgds
Phil

[kasco]

Grant
Same problem. :-) before or after?

[grant neillson]

Kasco,, just move your pointer over the box with the letters in and it tells you that they must ALL be typed in as CAPITAL letters..

regards,, David.

[BobS]

I am not an admin but would echo, amplify and reiterate the comment by Phil (who is probably one of the most-knowledgeable Admins we have on this site) and add by urging those members who like to upload loads and loads of long-ago-scrapped 'oldies' to the site - and who haven't already done so - to take out a subscription to http://www.miramarshipindex.org.nz.
It will cost you the equivalent of 20 bucks US for a year but will give you an invaluable access to details of 'oldie' ships and save not only the Admins  but 'oldie-fan' members the hassle of having to look-up the IMO numbers (when there is one) for you!

[Phil English]

^Bump

[davidships]

I wonder whether the techies can put an algorithm behind the "IMO Number" box so that invalid numbers cannot be entered.  There is a significant sprinking of spurious numbers throughout the site.  Yesterday I noticed what turned out to be an MMSI nmber. 

Then today I was looking at the sail training ship AMERIGO VESPUCCI.  Of the last 34 postings, only three have correctly left it blank!  Five have the perfectly valid, but wrong, number 5014721 (she doesn't look like a 1949-built passenger cargo ship); but the remaining 26, from a variety of members have 6109221.  This is a completely invalid IMO number - it cannot exist.  This AMERIGO VESPUCCI has never had an IMO number.  That's why the IMO column on Miramar is blank.  Putting Miramar's internal ID number does not meet the site's current rules ("This box can only be used for an IMO number, or seven zeros if there is no IMO number for the vessel") - is it possible for the phoney numbers to be removed by Admin?

[Ilhan Kermen]

I'm changing 3-5 Imo numbers everyday
There are many mistakes about especially with the same name ships
You may check "More Of This Ship" section for compare after upload your photos
best regards
ilhan

[Chris Howell]

Sorry Ilhan

I'm guilty of this !

Typo's caused by doing more than one thing at once !

[Ilhan Kermen]

No problem Chris
i find mistakes also on my photos

[Aleksi Lindström]

I see a lot of IMO numbers with one incorrect digit. This can only be caused by typing the whole string. To avoid this, one should always copy and paste the strings using CTRL+C and CTRL+V.

[Ilhan Kermen]

A quıckly sample
There are 2 GARDENIA ACE
old -IMO 7927415
new -IMO 9542295
You may see a new one with old ship's Imo number
correct
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=932160
incorrect
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1631398
best regards
ilhan

[davidships]

I suspect that there is little that be done in the system to prevent members choosing the wrong ship, but if all "impossible" numbers (too many or not enough digits, and where the last (check) digit throws up an error) could be prevented automatically that would deal with a large proportion of the problem.  Would be welcomed by the admins too, I would think.

[davidships]

Well, some members are paying attention! Number of "6109221" now down to twelve.

But still hoping for a response from Shipspotting Techies. 

David

[davidships]

6109221 is a 7-digit number, but it is not, and cannot, be an IMO number.
Some websites have a clever bit of kit that will not accept an invalid number.  I'm on the same side of the wall, hence my hope of a comment from the site Techies.

Incidentally, the site already refuses to accept IMO number entries with more than 7 digits.  Perhaps it could do the same for <7? (At present it adds zeros at the beginning to make up to 7 digits).

[Bj]

 ID-No  Year  Name  Tons                                                                     109221  1931  AMERIGO VESPUCCI  3543 
Miramar Ship Index/ it's not a IMO nr. only an Id nr.
no number in LR/IMO.