Author Topic: Ship data (was: Grosstonnage)  (Read 1315 times)

Offline ChasB46

  • Top Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
    • View Profile
Ship data (was: Grosstonnage)
« on: December 19, 2021, 11:16:57 AM »
With new members joining Shipspotting daily and unaware of the closure of Grosstonnage website in 2015 and its "locked" data link to the "Additional Information" box and its content info being unreliable.  We "oldies" know  the background story that the data is locked and admin cannot tweak. However, the title "Additional Information" is under admin input/control. Perhaps, the title box wording be tweaked to read "Additional Information - questionable" or similar.

Offline pieter melissen

  • Webmaster
  • Top Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
    • View Profile
    • ultimatecarpage.com
Re: Ship data (was: Grosstonnage)
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2021, 11:44:14 AM »
From what I can see, I can only tamper with Class Society and Year of Build. Status seems to be locked. YoB can be easily addressed, Class is a variable that needs permanent attention for changes. I don't feel inclined to do that.

Offline ChasB46

  • Top Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
    • View Profile
Re: Ship data (was: Grosstonnage)
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2021, 01:21:12 PM »
Hi Pieter, my suggestion was aimed at the backroom/server techies for a ONE OFF fix. My mistake by using term "admin." Not specifically at you or other day to day admin. volunteers. Its progressing the message up the chain of command through "admin" to backroom boffins... is it viable etc?
The blue coloured titled boxes I would assume are on the server/page template. Thus only needs the "Additional Information" box re-worded to "Additional Information-old data unreliable". (or shorter warning to fit space). Data needs a "health warning". A five minute tweak?
I / long time members appreciate that the actual Grosstonnage data is locked behind "Additional Information" and is erroneous in too many cases, and ignore, but the newer members "trust the info" and keep challenging members' old collection uploads of dead/historical "Photos Details" authenticity.

Offline davidships

  • Webmaster
  • Top Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,344
    • View Profile
Re: Ship data (was: Grosstonnage)
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2021, 11:49:51 PM »
Thank you Charles and Pieter.  I have asked IT about the "health warning" suggestion

We would love to be able to provide good information of this type on into the future, but at present have not identified an easily accessible quality source for this.  To help in that search, or to focus on any alternative approaches, it would be helpful to have a clearer idea of what the key data fields actually are.

Would members please indicate the key "must-have" data fields (eg year of build, tonnages or whatever). I am sorry, but long lists of nice-to-have items will not be helpful.

Thanks in advance

David

Offline Bob Scott

  • Home away from home
  • ****
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: Ship data (was: Grosstonnage)
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2021, 12:27:45 PM »
My "Must haves" would be: IMO no.; GT; DWT; TEU (container ships); Flag; Year of Build.
Details of Yard (as it was known at build date) and operator would be good, too, if there was room.
Forget non-permanent details like MMSI, Call signs, Classification society.

Offline simonwp

  • Home away from home
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: Ship data (was: Grosstonnage)
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2021, 07:03:43 PM »
I would be careful regarding asking members to provide too much detail, however frustrating that might be for some members. Not all members who post photographs are interested in such detail, they like good and post good photographs of ships, but the finer points of a vessels details are not things that they want to get involved with. Start making it more involved to post photographs could well deter such members from posting photographs that would otherwise be an asset to the site.

From my point of view, the IMO# is sufficient, if I want to know more there are plenty of sources for me to use.

We are frequently told when debates occur, that the site is primarily a site for ship photographs, not a database of ships. It should stay that way.
 

Offline pieter melissen

  • Webmaster
  • Top Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
    • View Profile
    • ultimatecarpage.com
Re: Ship data (was: Grosstonnage)
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2021, 08:23:30 PM »
Just for the record Bob, Operator is also a variable. TEU capacity is academic, unless you only want to carry empty containers. GT/GRT and DWT are also not above changes, so a ship has two permanent digital features, a yard number and more recently an IMO number. Crooks however tamper with IMO numbers and for a yard number to be meaningful it also needs to be accompanied by the shipyard, and yes, with the name that was used when the ship was built. 

Offline Bob Scott

  • Home away from home
  • ****
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: Ship data (was: Grosstonnage)
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2021, 09:16:51 PM »
Pieter: In my ideal world, the tonnages, flag and operator would be those that pertained at the time of the photo. Meanwhile, I shall just dream on. I do not actually expect to see anything happen.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk