Quote:
Studios occasionally re-release titles with the same UPC, but with changed content – for example Cover Images, Case Type and Overview. All information in the main DVD Profiler database is to be for the Original Release version of the disc; do not contribute any information that is specific to a re-release. You can of course keep this re-release information in your local database profile, but do not contribute it to the main database.

Now what happens in the reverse case ?

My "Friends" collection is of three generations of releases : should I overwrite a profile with an earlier (original) release ?

(On a side note, the above rule has been overlooked by submitters : some of my "Friends" profiles have been updated with re-releases)

Basic question : if a profile is that of a re-release, is it okay to put the original release (back), and is there a way to prevent a submission war ?

Ok...

Now, is it really to me to prove my submission is that of the original release? How can I know for sure?
Shouldn't the assurance my version is of an earlier release be sufficient? I guess this can be proved by some copyright date on the packaging, I dont know, but I've a feeling it's doable.

But I know I can't prove my version is the first one. Nothing on the DVD says "first release".

Shouldn't the rule allow for re-submission of ealier release only? In this way, if everybody (re)submits the same way, profiles will hold, if not the first release, at least the earliest release owned by people who care to submit.

Quoting sxilderik:

Quote:
Ok...

Now, is it really to me to prove my submission is that of the original release? How can I know for sure?

Have a look at the back of your dvd cover. Most likely you find an earlier copywright notice at the bottom

Quoting Sxilderik:

Quote:
Of course I agree to prove my earlier release. My point was how can I prove mine is the earliest (this is what was asked at first, see above) ? And I was thinking submitting proven earlier release should be enough, doable, and in the right direction.

If you have an earlier release you can prove that should be sufficient, you don't have to prove earliest.  That's not really relevant.

Quoting Darxon:

Quote:
is only replacing bad data with other bad data

... Or bad data with better data, aiming, if everyone acts the same, to the best data that submitters cared to provide.

With the absolute position you support, nothing moves until someone, deux ex machina, comes with the definitive version. In the meantimes, users get tired of seeing bad data...

In my opinion, this is more than a simple gap. Should I dare "chasm" ?

Quoting Sxilderik:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
It is always up to the submitter to prove their update. If there is something you want to change... you need to prove it is right... no matter what it is. And in my eyes at least... that is the way it should be.

the way I seen a lot of people prove earlier releases is by the year for the artwork copyright on the back of the case. Of course then you need to see... by people's votes if the one already there has an earlier copyright year.

Of course I agree to prove my earlier release. My point was how can I prove mine is the earliest (this is what was asked at first, see above) ? And I was thinking submitting proven earlier release should be enough, doable, and in the right direction.

Giga Wizard gave me a good hint though...

ahhh... I see what you are saying now... that is what I get for coming here so early in the morning... before I wake up! Sorry about the misunderstanding!

but I think I would handle it the same way... I would check the back of my cover to see if I have a copyright year on the artwork... from there if I believe mine is earliest... or even just think it is earlier I would submit it with year from copyright artwork from back of case.  then watch the votes. If someone says what is there is earlier... or even if there is an earlier release then mine... I would withdraw my contribution (since it would be a wrong submission either way)... and then lock mine locally since it is what I have.

In this case, the threadstarter positively KNOWS there are three release editions (see first post), so he should make sure to submit the earliest releases's data. If he doesn't have that data, submitting what he only guesses to be the earliest or even KNOWS to be the "middle" edition (and as such containing the wrong data) only creates more work for other users and is NOT better data than the existing one, as it is still wrong.

And, we're talking about a possible multitude of wrong information between releases, starting at audio and video formats to completely changed cover art and packaging variations and so forth.

We are not setting up profiles according to "get as close to the correct data as possible". That way, upon finding an incorrect profile, you could enter all kinds of "semi-correct" data, just as long as your submitted data is getting a little closer to the correct data. If for example an overview is missing, isn't a self composed one closer to the correct data, as it's at least something and so better than nothing? Still, someone else would have to redo everything sometime down the road, and maybe it gets overlooked because the wrong data looks pretty good to the passing eye.

What's the problem of doing a correction to a single field in the correct way? If you don't know the correct data and only assume or guess, sending it in might be a way to determine if it's correct data after all (but IMO asking a question in these forums would be a better approach). If you KNOW your data isn't correct according to the rules, keep it local as you're only clogging up the voting queue and wasting other users' time by knowingly submitting bad data (half-bad is still bad).

I completely fail to see the necessetiy some people seem to feel to contribute data they are themselves doubtful of or even know to be incorrect, just because finding the correct data is too hard for them (for whatever reason).

What's the use of these actions and what are the reasons behind it, I'd really like to know.

Thanks for alerting me to your soft spot by also casting an unwarranted negative reputation mark for my post in which I solely express my opinion without any negative, derogatory, inflammatory or badmouthing content.

If I should be mistaken and it wasn't you who hit the red button, I apologize and pity whoever else did it.

To the subject you feel "hit" by:

I wasn't addressing you in particular, but rather posing a general question. If I didn't make that clear enough, I'm sorry. But usually I take my posts to be quite well understandable and self explanatory. I specifically said that IMO posting a question when in doubt here in the forums is preferrable to simply updating possibly or knowingly wrong data just to find out the majority's take on things. You did exactly that, so you should be able to understand that I am NOT badmouthing you in any way. I am especially not someone doing so in any kind of "hidden" way, I usually pretty straight forward and open about my take on things.

I also didn't accuse anyone of a hidden agenda, and frankly, I couldn't care less about the reasons somebody might have to contribute to the online db. I just wonder sometimes, but it doesn't affect my votes or behavior towards others. If the shoe fits you, however, by all means wear it. I don't care one way or the other.

If your skin is so thin even a valid question not directed at you personally upsets you, stopping to care for the online might actually do you well, as you might get yourself worked up too much about irrelevancies and misunderstood statements made by others.