Often admins put a comment on the movie page when they reject something, but not always indeed.

About the mk2, we have a few 1981 models listed as "Maxi 2".
But indeed these 1971 models and later should not have the mk2 at all, as it was not a new model, just a small restyling of the original one I suppose. I'll remove that.
Usually that "mk" field is used for different model generations sharing a common name.

The problem is something is stopping most of my submissions being added blurry or not and with no feedback it is impossible to correct, so just makes more work for the both of us.

BTW there is no such thing as a Mk2 Maxi. There was the Maxi and then there was the Maxi2. The late Maxis with Maxi2 switchgear were sometimes (unofficially) referred to as the Maxi 1.5. Not to be confused with the early 1500 Maxis.

Because errors happen.
Or it was identified later and nobody noticed these had to be regrouped.
They have different years, but being the same generation I should indeed regroup them, I'll do that now.
edit: done, moved your comment to here:
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=542968#Comment3633285
with the pic added in it.

Sure a blurry image is better than none, but not all cars of a movie/series are worth listing. If it is just passing by and very blurry, it does not especially deserve its own page, if it is not an uncommon model.


It would be good, but it is one of the numerous things on my to-do list, it will come some day.

So why are there two pages?

https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_542968-Austin-Maxi-ADO14-1973.html
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_760315-Austin-Maxi-ADO14-1976.html

If similar vehicles should be in comments?

Surely a slightly blurred image is better than none till someone has a better one, from say a DVD rather than a YouTube video?

https://imcdb.opencommunity.be/util.ks?page=forum_attach&id=3453 Is definitely an ADO14, as is https://imcdb.opencommunity.be/util.ks?page=forum_attach&id=3458. Rear tail lights are always a give away on these.

Still doesn’t explain why there is no trace of my previous submissions. Surely there should be feedback on these, so things can be “corrected”?

Ah yes I forgot that case: in case of a similar car already listed, the additional background ones should indeed be added in comments rather than a separate page.
And for series, also sometimes for small roles too (2-star).

I also don't think that is a Maxi, it looks more like the smaller 1100/1300 ADO16 models. We already have listings for both models, so realistically, it should be in the comments of the already existing pages, if it were to be added. The other thing missing is the star-rating. I mean, I guess this is a background car, but the poster needs to provide that detail and not assume the admins will guess correctly.

It is still worth adding them in some cases, but if it is just a passing blurry car maybe it is not really worth mentioning.

On the site, if the image is too big, it is automatically resized (if the "automatic resize" option is checked).
If the image disappears later, it is not something automatic: it is just an admin who rejected it.

The time stamp is not required, it is just a field that you can fill when you enter the info about the vehicle. It should not be in the picture itself.
Beside the episode field there is a little "i", like for most of the fields, that gives additional details when you hover your mouse over it (or tap it if you use a touchscreen) where it explains the format of that field.

So it’s not worth posting either on here on via the recommended link?

I realise the size does not equate to quality, but if the system rejects an image due to size you have to reduce the quality to meet the system’s requirements.

I believe my first attempts were with a cropped image which didn’t include the interface and required time stamp, but as it isn’t kept, even if only for a short time, how would anyone know?

As it only asks for episode, perhaps it doesn’t need the series at all?