Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

While it is true that many titles were slipped through without notes when Invelos first went live, that still doesn't excuse contributing illegal data.  There has always been a prohibition on doing that, so if we couldn't contribute notes, the screeners should have paid more attention and disallowed those profiles that weren't properly documented.  Whether or not it is from a 3rd party database in such cases is irrelevant.  No documentation is no documentation, so where the data came from or how good it might be is of no import.  Its like the chain of evidence in a criminal case.  If you can't document where the evidence came from or how it was handled and stored prior to court, it is inadmissible  even if it is good evidence.  Good or bad, data without documentation is inadmissible in DVDP.

In addition, there are a number of us still running version 2.5, so the old contribution notes are still available for most of this stuff, at least for those entered prior to Invelos going live.  That is prima facia evidence that documentation was or was not provided.

There is never going to be any documentation for INITIAL submissions for any profiles other than those from the last few months as even if one wanted to there was no way to provide documentation. So do we start again and re-submit all profiles? Of course we don't because most importantly it would be foolish and secondly we can't, if you don't change the current cast or crew then you can't resubmit as it only allows changes to be contributed.

As for your second point about admissibility. I am sure that's the way you would like it, that is contrary to the current rules. Why not do what every else has to and petition to get the rules changed. At the moment you have to provide a source for a change of data. The source has to show the data is wrong OR for uncredited entries undocumented AND from a 3rd part database.

The rules simply don't allow for removal of data on the basis that a previous contribution that was voted on and accepted by the screeners should not have been due to insufficient documentation. That's a good thing. If you notice that in an old submission there is a typo on one of the sound crew. An old submission note will have said all cast and crew taken from film credits as credited. By your thinking we should stone the heretic and say remove all cast and crew since I can show that it was not all as credited. I hugely prefer the current case where we don't throw the baby out with the bath water and only remove or change what is shown to need removing or changing because it is wrong. Incidentally to continue your analogy in criminal courts if you can't document etc then in fact it MAY be inadmissible if the judge decides it is too prejudical in all the circumstances it is not always inadmissible.

So, it seems that if we bicker long enough, the truth will eventually make itself clear.  But it's purely speculative based on the subject matter.

In this case, 12 pages.  The HD format war could be thousands.

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Graveworm:

Quote:
Sorry I am late to this party but a couple of observations. Many times I have seen repeated it is illegal data because there is no source in any contribution notes. When this and many other titles were released YOU COULD NOT GIVE A SOURCE OR CONTRIBUTION NOTES FOR AN INITIAL SUBMISSION. This was a recent change and a recent requirement for initial submissions to have sources. So there will be thousands of titles like this and it would be very dangerous to forget this. In many cases the data could have been in the initial submission.
There are rules that do apply and that is you may remove uncredited but it has to be undocumented AND from a 3rd party database. AND means that both have to exist before the data can be removed as I understand it. If the person wants to remove it in the contribution notes it should show that it is undicumented and the 3rd party database that was clearly used.

While it is true that many titles were slipped through without notes when Invelos first went live, that still doesn't excuse contributing illegal data.  There has always been a prohibition on doing that, so if we couldn't contribute notes, the screeners should have paid more attention and disallowed those profiles that weren't properly documented.  Whether or not it is from a 3rd party database in such cases is irrelevant.  No documentation is no documentation, so where the data came from or how good it might be is of no import.  Its like the chain of evidence in a criminal case.  If you can't document where the evidence came from or how it was handled and stored prior to court, it is inadmissible  even if it is good evidence.  Good or bad, data without documentation is inadmissible in DVDP.

In addition, there are a number of us still running version 2.5, so the old contribution notes are still available for most of this stuff, at least for those entered prior to Invelos going live.  That is prima facia evidence that documentation was or was not provided.

John,

You should re-read his post. He's referring to new submissions that before recently did not require contribution notes. Perhaps you misread .

Well, actually, under the old system, you could leave notes for new contributions, people just couldn't vote on them, so it still fell to the screeners to make sure they were documented properly.  ALL the stuff that got put in under Invelos was 'new' since we couldn't vote on it, and no notes could be entered, but the screeners still saw them.  So, either way, SOMEbody was able to at least run a cursory check.  And it still doesn't excuse sloppy contributions.  A lot of what got in was junk and the people posting it knew it, so they have no excuses now when somebody finds it to be wrong.

Quoting Graveworm:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

Well, actually, under the old system, you could leave notes for new contributions, people just couldn't vote on them,

Not in version 3

The old system is 2.5, is it not?  Thank you.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
While it is true that many titles were slipped through without notes when Invelos first went live, that still doesn't excuse contributing illegal data.  There has always been a prohibition on doing that, so if we couldn't contribute notes, the screeners should have paid more attention and disallowed those profiles that weren't properly documented.  Whether or not it is from a 3rd party database in such cases is irrelevant.  No documentation is no documentation, so where the data came from or how good it might be is of no import.  Its like the chain of evidence in a criminal case.  If you can't document where the evidence came from or how it was handled and stored prior to court, it is inadmissible  even if it is good evidence.  Good or bad, data without documentation is inadmissible in DVDP.

In addition, there are a number of us still running version 2.5, so the old contribution notes are still available for most of this stuff, at least for those entered prior to Invelos going live.  That is prima facia evidence that documentation was or was not provided.

This is all well and good.  One problem, Ken has not given us permission to strip data simply because it wasn't documented.  He said they can be removed if they matched a 3rd party db AND were not documented.

I believe it was AND/OR, not just AND.

Grave:

I can very easily determine that answer to most any title that is in my database, I can tell you the dates that data was Contributed, who it was, and the Notes that went with it. All I have to do is open my still retained 2.5, which I keep active for exactly this reason.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Now that would just be stupid.  I have contributed uncreditd cast, with documentation, that exactly matched a 3rd party db.  Why did it match?  Because it was correct.  Using your logic, they could be removed from the db simply because they matched. 

Boy is this true.  Sometimes even IMDB can be accurate, though not often.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Now that would just be stupid.  I have contributed uncreditd cast, with documentation, that exactly matched a 3rd party db.  Why did it match?  Because it was correct.  Using your logic, they could be removed from the db simply because they matched. 

Boy is this true.  Sometimes even IMDB can be accurate, though not often.

See my reply to Uncus.