And yet another disrespectful post, hal. You started out fine, but you just couldn't help yourself. Stop disrespecting everyone with your posts.

Skip

Grave:

In your example, as far as I am concerned that would be adequate, if you could add time stamp so much the better. The purpose is not to make entering such data impossible, it is merely to hopefully minimize the existence of bogus data, which is rife in other Db's.

Skip

This seems like an opportune moment to express my personal policies and procedures. IF have to pull data from somehwere say to fill in a role in an OLD movie that doesn't list Roles. I never duplicate what I might find, I will try to modify it when possible.

For example if i find Captain John Smith, I will use Capt. John Smith. Or if as many movies do the movie lists only one name, Joe, Mike, Mary, etc. but the source for the actor I need lists Michael Barnes, then I would change it to Michael keeping it consistent with the look of the filmed roles.

Does that make sense.

Skip

If there are errors in both IMDB and the database then it is good evidence that it they both have the same source, not necessarily that the IMDB was the source document. If IMDB had included some original corrupt data to watermark their product and we knew what that was then we would be closer to showing that it was the source. Halliwell was doing this kind of thing long before the IMDB. If there are no such errors it proves very little.

But the most important issue is that even if it was 100% it came from IMDB then there is still a difference of opinion. You think 

Quote:
That is information that should NOT be in the database under any circumstances because its completely wrong.  Why?  Because its obvious that it was copied verbatim from IMDB.

I'll requote this

Quote:
Ken stated at the same time that he is against the wholesale removal of data, which is why you need to document your removals of said data.

He also stated that even if it came from that site, it should not be removed.

So your database can be free from any data that is the same as the IMDB and Ken's can stay just as it is unless it can be fully explained that it is incorrect (not in accordance with fact or standards; wrong).

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I won't quite go that far, grave. Ken made specific comment on specific date, for data that we STILL have access to. So as I used to say at the old site anything prior to that date gets grandfathered in per Ken. Anything AFTER if has to be documented to bve included OR removed, as the case may be. So far that is the only line in the sand. ANY title released after that date must have (uncredited) documented, if not it has to be removed.

Skip

Yes, any title after that date.

BUT...

John stated he wants to remove all data becaise this is a brand new database that was created after that date.

Ken stated in the same thread that he is against the wholesale removal of the data, even if it came from the IMDB.

So, unless Ken's stance has changed, any data that was in the IVS database should stand to be fine in the Invelos database.

I don't think that anyone is saying that undocumented uncredited should be added to Spider-Man 3 when the UPC is first announced. It would have to be added after the initial contributuin with full documentation.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
On the contrary, the myth that it is required by the rules needs to be exposed. I am still waiting........

No one ever said it was in the rules.

Use your eyeballs to read the seventh post down in the thread below:

http://www.intervocative.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=104958&PageNum=4

Read my posts. I am well aware of the prohibition on using IMDB as a source for uncredited cast data. Use your eyeballs and sharpen up your reading and conprehension skills. The issue under discussion is the fact that the rules do require documentation in order to contribute uncredited cast. Do you have anything to add to that discussion?

Telecine:

In my book it is common courtesy. I don't know you and vice versa. Why should i be willing to accept anything just on your say so, that to me is simply disrespectful to all members of the community and says "I was too lazy too verify it". That is why my notes are as comprehensive as they are, I do not expect ANY member to just say oh that's Skip, then it must be OK, I make mistakes and I supply the documentation so that it is part of our record and so you can, if you choose check it out.. It's funny I am accused of disrespecting people here, but in my book I am probably the most respectful user, I will never tell you to take my word, or that I am too lazy to do the work.

Skip

Skip,

I accept the force of your argument about common courtesy. FYIW, unlike some I have a lot of respect for you because of the consistent effort that you have put in around here. That said, this is a tricky area for obvious reasons. The only statement made by Ken of the subject is:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:

Quote:
IVS said not to use IMDb for anything other than Uncredited information

Correction- IMDB may not be used even for uncredited information.

It is clear from the rules that uncredited cast information can be contributed to the database. The problem is that if we document the source, we are almost guaranteeing that the information won't be accepted unless it is based on personal observation. I don't scrape IMDB data but don't document the source/s for uncredited data because I would like the information in the database.

I think that you need to think about the fact that you have only contributed one uncredited cast member in two years because of the view that you and a few others have taken. I will generally provide sources to a member who asks for them but don't quote them in the contribution notes for the reasons already mentioned. I think that that approach overcomes the common courtesy concern that you have.

I don't support the removal of correct data because it doesn't have documentation. I believe that we need a common sense approach to this. Afterall, it is Ken and Gerri who have the final say as to whether or not to accept the profile. In my experience, that is more likely to happen if documentation as to the source/s is not provided.

Quoting Telecine:

Quote:
The only statement made by Ken of the subject is:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:

Quote:
IVS said not to use IMDb for anything other than Uncredited information

Correction- IMDB may not be used even for uncredited information.

Actually, that is not quite true.  That is the only statement Ken made on the public IVS boards.  Ken made another statement, in a chat, held by the old rules committee.  In that chat he said, "there's no real reason to wipe data from our database just in case it might have come from them indirectly."

A few people want to ignore that statement simply because it was made in a chat and not posted on the public IVS boards...I am not one of them.  Belief that uncredited may have come from them is not reason enough to remove them from the profile.

One point that I think needs clarification... so we don't go pages and pages and multiple threads arguing back and forth about it...

If a profile was entered on the Intervocative side before July 16, 2005, and there are uncredited entries on there that are "carbon copied" from IMDB...

Should those uncredited entries be removed before contributing, or also as a contribution update on the Invelos side as they are found?

From your comment it seems the answer is yes, but I think it needs clarified, as there seems to be a consensus that any profiles with "carbon copied" IMDB data that were entered on the Intervocative side before July 16, 2005 are "grandfathered" in and those uncredited entries should not be removed.