Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum rules before posting.

Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free registration is required.

If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.

    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...9  Previous   Next
With All Due Respect to All
Author Message
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting Giga Wizard:
Quote:
on the other side, you do your research on the changes you are propossing, so it's only a small step to document your changes with the source. This is very easily done:
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=136607&PageNum=LAST


Try updating a TV Season profile that has potentially hundreds of changes to it and then tell me how easy it is to provide sources in the notes for each and every change including a screenshot of every cast/crew change.  Not everyone has a place to even host images to add to the notes.

Insisting on this level of documentation is NOT in the best interest the database!


I did it all the time, hal.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting EnryWiki:
Quote:
Quoting Giga Wizard:
Quote:
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:
Quote:
It also says "be sure to provide explanations where needed", so a user does not have to source his/her changes, with the exception of cast and crew, if he/she thinks it's not necessary.

it is marked in RED: "For all contributions, indicate the source of data, especially cast and crew additions."
I don't see anywhere an exeption where you should not comply to this. Additional you should provide explanations where needed. this is how i understand this.


The meaning of that sentence in the Rules is not very clear, to say the least.
"Especially" seems to contradict "all", unless you read it to mean that longer explanations are needed for Cast and Crew but some documentation is necessary for all data anyway.
It seems to me that the Screeners are strict on the documentation of Cast and Crew but not on other fields, so I guess that is the (sort of) "official" interpretation.
While I personally like well-documented contributions and try to do so myself, I don't see the Screeners ask users to document *everything*.
Again, I would love if all contributions were fully documented in every detail, but I also think a compromise is necessary if we want a large number of users to contribute and new users start contributing. Maybe that is not a concern for R1, where there are many contributors anyway, but it is a concern in other regions, where I see many empty profiles and few contributors.


It is very clear, Enry, unless you don't want it to be. Especially is merely EMPHASIZING the cast and Crew data.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorBad Father
Registered: July 23, 2001
Registered: March 13, 2007
Posts: 4,596
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
I have to agree with Skip on this one. I find it quite annoying when a contributor, in his/her contribution notes, states: "changed common name: Joe blow>Joesph Blow [Joe Blow]" without any documentation to validate the change and yet everyone votes yes and some voters, in their vote comments say "The CLT would seem to support this change: Joe Blow 10/23, Joseph Blow 59/101". While the change in itself may be valid, the contribution notes don't support it. The voters comments do not become part of the permanent profile record. IMO, I find it a bad practice on the part of the screeners to accept contributions based on voter comments like this when the contribution notes, when accepted, will only show the change made with no documentation. This sets a bad precedent.
My WebGenDVD online Collection
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorhal9g
Who is John Galt?
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 6,635
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
If you aren't talking about pre-release, then you have no argument. Ken and Gerri say to provide documenntation for your changes, especially cast and crew. You have watched me do this now for years, truts me, my friend it isn't hard.

Studios corrected per film credits

Runtime verified via PowerDVD and DVDDecrypter

Features updated and verified per Menus

Same with every field it isn't hard, I don't understand why you think it is.

It takes me maybe 5 minutes to type Contribution Notes and I document each and evrything I do.<shrugs>

Skip


I am talking specifically about new profiles which are not pre-releases, not necessarily updates to existing profiles, although TV season profiles can have hundreds of "changes" at once.
Hal
 Last edited: by hal9g
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
BTW, since I am thinking about it. The title of this thread Wit All Due Respect to All and the way in which i handled the first post also reflected that respect. It is a pity that i was not shown the same respect by some users and others would seem to wish to create an argument where none should exist. A real shame.

Quoting the very first response
"wow.. the protector of the DB strikes again."
If all of us approached this with the same degree of concern and genuine desire to get it RIGHT in both Contributions and Voting then such insulting remarks would not be necessary....would they.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorhal9g
Who is John Galt?
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 6,635
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
I have to agree with Skip on this one. I find it quite annoying when a contributor, in his/her contribution notes, states: "changed common name: Joe blow>Joesph Blow [Joe Blow]" without any documentation to validate the change and yet everyone votes yes and some voters, in their vote comments say "The CLT would seem to support this change: Joe Blow 10/23, Joseph Blow 59/101". While the change in itself may be valid, the contribution notes don't support it. The voters comments do not become part of the permanent profile record. IMO, I find it a bad practice on the part of the screeners to accept contributions based on voter comments like this when the contribution notes, when accepted, will only show the change made with no documentation. This sets a bad precedent.


How do you reconcile a "no" vote with this part of the Rules"?

Quoting The Rules:

Quote:
If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible.
Hal
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Hal:

It is no different. I document everything, and you know that, you have watched me do it for several years now, on ANY kind of Contribution, initial contribution, pre-release, whatever. So expect nothing from me to allow you not to. It is not hard to do, at all. Sorry, Hal I have done far too many profiles and I KNOW how hard or easy they are to do. The time investment lies in constructing the profile, and setting up images, not typing the Contribution Notes...regardless of what kind of Profile you are referring to.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorWinston Smith
Don't be discommodious
Registered: March 13, 2007
United States Posts: 21,610
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
I have to agree with Skip on this one. I find it quite annoying when a contributor, in his/her contribution notes, states: "changed common name: Joe blow>Joesph Blow [Joe Blow]" without any documentation to validate the change and yet everyone votes yes and some voters, in their vote comments say "The CLT would seem to support this change: Joe Blow 10/23, Joseph Blow 59/101". While the change in itself may be valid, the contribution notes don't support it. The voters comments do not become part of the permanent profile record. IMO, I find it a bad practice on the part of the screeners to accept contributions based on voter comments like this when the contribution notes, when accepted, will only show the change made with no documentation. This sets a bad precedent.


How do you reconcile a "no" vote with this part of the Rules"?

Quoting The Rules:

Quote:
If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible.


That is simple, Hal and you are trying to rationalize. The Contribution Notes give you that answer. IF you have not properly documented your changes. Then by definition the Rule has been violated and the Contribution is NOT correct.

Skip
ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here

Billy Video
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorlyonsden5
Hello old friends!
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
Posts: 2,372
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
BTW, since I am thinking about it. The title of this thread Wit All Due Respect to All and the way in which i handled the first post also reflected that respect. It is a pity that i was not shown the same respect by some users and others would seem to wish to create an argument where none should exist. A real shame.

Quoting the very first response
"wow.. the protector of the DB strikes again."
If all of us approached this with the same degree of concern and genuine desire to get it RIGHT in both Contributions and Voting then such insulting remarks would not be necessary....would they.

Skip


Sorry. I have edited my original post. It now reads:

Quoting lyonsden5:
Quote:
wit all due respect to the original poster... wow.. the protector of the DB strikes again. I believe it is up to Invelos to decide if the documentation is appropriate not you.


 



(I fully expect to get a red zinger or two for this but it just might be worth it  )
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorhal9g
Who is John Galt?
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 6,635
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting Giga Wizard:
Quote:
on the other side, you do your research on the changes you are propossing, so it's only a small step to document your changes with the source. This is very easily done:
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=136607&PageNum=LAST


Try updating a TV Season profile that has potentially hundreds of changes to it and then tell me how easy it is to provide sources in the notes for each and every change including a screenshot of every cast/crew change.  Not everyone has a place to even host images to add to the notes.

Insisting on this level of documentation is NOT in the best interest the database!


I did it all the time, hal.

Skip


Let's face it...You are an exception!

I still think it is shortsighted to deny correct data getting into the main database for lack of "adequate documentation".  If the data is right, it should be accepted, even if the "documentation is supplied by a voter.

What the heck is the goal here?  Getting good data into the main database, or accumulating supporting documentation? 
Hal
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar ContributorBad Father
Registered: July 23, 2001
Registered: March 13, 2007
Posts: 4,596
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
I have to agree with Skip on this one. I find it quite annoying when a contributor, in his/her contribution notes, states: "changed common name: Joe blow>Joesph Blow [Joe Blow]" without any documentation to validate the change and yet everyone votes yes and some voters, in their vote comments say "The CLT would seem to support this change: Joe Blow 10/23, Joseph Blow 59/101". While the change in itself may be valid, the contribution notes don't support it. The voters comments do not become part of the permanent profile record. IMO, I find it a bad practice on the part of the screeners to accept contributions based on voter comments like this when the contribution notes, when accepted, will only show the change made with no documentation. This sets a bad precedent.


How do you reconcile a "no" vote with this part of the Rules"?

Quoting The Rules:

Quote:
If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible.


I "reconcile" my NO vote with the fact all contribution additions/changes must be documented. The fact that the data may be accurate is moot if it is undocumented, IMHO of course.
My WebGenDVD online Collection
 Last edited: by Bad Father
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantVibroCount
The Truth is Silly Putty
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 5,635
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
This is interesting (aside from the personal bickering, which is not... ). Does good data go bad if the documentation is weak?

By Skip's reasoning, only a No vote can correct the submission, because without the documentation in the contribution notes does valid data become good enough to vote Yes on.

I understand the request (it must be a request, because of the "especially" in the rule) is to provide voters a way of evaluating the submission. Skip takes this a step beyond, stating that the contribution notes must be complete for evaluating already accepted data in the future... days, weeks, months, years from now.

Yet (please correct this if I've missed it), nowhere in the rules is there a demand for perfect contribution notes on every submission purely for archiving the documentation for every change.

Full documentation is good, and written into the rules. But is it there to aid voting or to record permanently if Amazon.com (or another website) supports with the submission?
If it wasn't for bad taste, I wouldn't have no taste at all.

Cliff
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorm.cellophane
tonight's the night...
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 3,480
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
FYI, the user responded to my PM, so the attacks of m. cellophane and lyonsden5 were totally unnecessary, all they had to do was follow the Rules that Ken and Gerri have spelled out, instead of deliberately trying to subvert them. Angry, yes, I am. At the personal insult hurled by lyonsdsen5 and the less personal insult by m. cellophane, not to mention their attempts to rationalize deliberate violation of the Rules. Sorry, guys, if you are upse..., not half as much as I am.

All I needed was his documentation to change the vote to YES.

Case closed

Skip

If you think I have insulted you, please give me a red zinger on the post(s) in question so that Invelos can evaluate the appropriateness of your feedback.

I offered my opinion on the rules and what they say. No apologies for that.
...James

"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantAgrare
Registered: May 22, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 1,033
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
I still think it is shortsighted to deny correct data getting into the main database for lack of "adequate documentation".  If the data is right, it should be accepted, even if the "documentation is supplied by a voter.

What the heck is the goal here?  Getting good data into the main database, or accumulating supporting documentation? 


This coming from someone who admittedly contributed bad data to the database to 'prove a point'

-Agrare

(no offense meant, that's just how I see it)
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantAgrare
Registered: May 22, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 1,033
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:
Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
It's no different, Martin. The user need to be taught, I advised him to edit his notes so I can vote yes. If he asks how to edit notes I will teach him that.

We are not voting to teach, only to judge. It could be that the contributor is already aware of the things you are trying to teach him/her, which will only irritate him/her and maybe stop them from helping ever again. Someone is always innocent until proven guilty in my book.


What? what does innocent until proven guilty have to do with anything here. This isn't (or shouldn't be) about the contributor but about the data they are contributing. No one is 'accusing' the contributor of anything so how can they be guilty of something. Furthermore, if you do 'assume they are innocent' then aren't you also assuming that the previous contributor is guilty (of entering wrong data). If that concept applies at all, it would be to the fact that the existing data is correct unless documentation is provided that proves that it is incorrect.

The example in question does not prove or even provide any evidence that the data is wrong. Therefore, imho, a no vote is allowed because I don't know the data is correct and replacing wrong data without doing all the research myself. If you provide the sources the voter can go and check them and/or determine if they are valid if they desire.

A yes vote with comment in this case (as has been discussed in the past) is more likely to go unnoticed, by both the contributor and the screeners, and therefore unchanged, than a no vote.

-Agrare
DVD Profiler Desktop and Mobile RegistrantStar Contributorhal9g
Who is John Galt?
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
United States Posts: 6,635
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting VibroCount:
Quote:
This is interesting (aside from the personal bickering, which is not... ). Does good data go bad if the documentation is weak?

By Skip's reasoning, only a No vote can correct the submission, because without the documentation in the contribution notes does valid data become good enough to vote Yes on.

I understand the request (it must be a request, because of the "especially" in the rule) is to provide voters a way of evaluating the submission. Skip takes this a step beyond, stating that the contribution notes must be complete for evaluating already accepted data in the future... days, weeks, months, years from now.

Yet (please correct this if I've missed it), nowhere in the rules is there a demand for perfect contribution notes on every submission purely for archiving the documentation for every change.

Full documentation is good, and written into the rules. But is it there to aid voting or to record permanently if Amazon.com (or another website) supports with the submission?


And if a retail site is listed as a source for a currently available DVD, and that DVD goes OOP next year and is no longer listed on that site, just what value is there in having a reference eight years from now to a non-existent source? 
Hal
    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...9  Previous   Next