As far as I can tell, the contributor can rebutt in the form of a PM, I know several that do and I never seen them in these forums...

As long as you make sure your "no" comments are clear, then it doesn't matter how many yes votes it gets, the screeners will see it and reject the submission.
It's not an automated system, even 1 no vote can sometimes be enough, regardless of how many yes votes there are.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
This simply is no longer true as long as you are clear with your 'no' comments.  Gerri has been known to reject contributions that were 25-1.

Earlier this month, on an update to an existing profile, i lost a 0-0 decision! 

I couldn't disagree.  My notes should have been clearer.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
How I vote is between me and the contributer and Invelos.

I wonder if the voting would be even more accurate if the contributor didn't know who the voters are. Show the voting comments to the contributor but not the voter's identity. Perhaps this would work best if the contributor was allowed a rebuttal comment.

How about if the voters didn't know who the contributor was?

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Dragon73:

Quote:

When you have a vote of 6 to 1 you will get bad data into the system then someone else will have to resubmit the correct info. This waist my time and everybody else if we have to go back and fix something that should have been done right the first time.

This simply is no longer true as long as you are clear with your 'no' comments.  Gerri has been known to reject contributions that were 25-1.

I had one last week that was rejected after a 31-1 vote! Thank God that that one no vote kept the database pure! And then right after that the same voter kept my updates from removing IMDb cast data from a profile, that one was 0-1. I will never understand how that person thinks that people listed in the cast should not be in the profile, but feels that data copied from IMDb with errors in the roles names and uncredited listed as credited should stay in the database.

pdf

Quoting Lopek:

Quote:

As for the specific question, I won't support a thread of this type with my opinion. 

Note the form of the poll. It's not asking you which of the two (three?) options is right. It is asking if you follow the rules or not.

...or "or"...

Quoting Dragon73:

Quote:
For the most part I do not contact the voters and I don’t tell them how to vote.

That's good and correct, only you shouldn't do it "for the most part" but ONLY like this.

Quote:
In the past I have contacted voters after trying to contact the submitter and let him know of the mistake or violation of the rules. Usually the contributor verifies the info and fixes it but sometimes they continue with the mistake or violation of the rules. I then have let the voters that have voted yes with the contributor to let them know of the mistake in the profile and it is there decision to change it.

This is uncalled for, and you shouldn't do it as you're interfering with other peoples business you don't have a say on to begin with.

Quote:
When you have a vote of 6 to 1 you will get bad data into the system then someone else will have to resubmit the correct info. This waist my time and everybody else if we have to go back and fix something that should have been done right the first time.

You waste far more time on contacting other users trying to get them to change their vote than it would take to wait the outcome of the contribution and then maybe do a corrective update yourself.

Not to mention the time and effort this thread consumes...

Quote:
I don’t agree with bulling voters, I just have let them know what I have found.

Which is something you're doing already by casting a well argued "no" vote. Users casting their vote after you did can read and evaluate it. As there's no timestamps assigned to the votes and since "No" votes are always listed first in the "Show votes" section, you wouldn't know if the voter already saw your "No" vote when he cast his. So, you're probably bullying. Although without intent, the fact remains.

Just refrain from contacting other users about their votes and have a little more faith in the system. For the vast majority of submissions, Gerri decides just fine. And the few mistakes she might make are easily corrected, and it's not that time consuming as you might want to make believe.

I never said that blindly voting yes is the right thing to do, it's a sad side effect of the voting system. I also never said that no one makes mistakes, some of the mistakes made in contributions are honest mistakes, others are a result of laziness, and others a result of personal preference. So what?

I don't argue the existence of mistakes, I detest the means some users apply to correct them. They are not doing so by following the system's set up but decide to step outside the box, although walking that extra mile is unnecessary.

The system installed does not tell you to call others out on their wrong votes. It only tells you to cast YOUR vote and then let the screeners decide.

And if bad data finds a way into the online db, go and correct it. You're sure to get the same amount of "yes" votes from the proverbial "three blind mice" as the prior contribution.

Using the means of the contribution and voting system is far more time-effective than PMing other users and trying to convince them to change their vote (which is futile most of the times anyway) or taking these topics to the forum.

And especially with the keen eye Gerri has kept on the submissions, I calculate the risk of bad data getting into the db despite well reasoned "No" votes as minute, especially compared to the old days at IVS.

I don't know what premise I set up that you don't buy, as I surely didn't paint a picture of a perfect contribution world where everything automatically falls into its right place (i.e. bad data never gets in).

I only criticized the means applied by some users, as the system we're supposed to be working with does not call for them. In fact, until very recently, the program wasn't even intended to provide you with the necessary information to take this kind of action. Ken only implemented the "show votes" function because it was already available by using a third party script and Firefox. He merely made this function available to everyone to level the ground for everyone so to speak.