With Ken's recent comments about voting only for profiles you own, I wonder if we could get something to distinguish between updates for our Owned/Ordered/Wish List profiles. Perhaps color coding? It would help me since the move to Blu-ray has caused me to have copies of the same film in both Owned and Wish List. Sometimes it's obvious with what's being contributed, but other times not. The UPC is listed in the update and one can check that, but a simple identifier would be helpful.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
In general, contributions should be made only for profiles which the contributor owns and can verify.  Similarly, contribution votes should be made only for profiles which the voter owns and can verify. 

However, there are exceptions.  Obviously, prerelease contributions do not require ownership.  They should be basic starter information (e.g. complete cast and crew is impossible to correctly contribute without having the disc).

Taking another case, if a particular locality has blank or limited cast info, and the submitter would like to fill it in with their verified cast from their own locality, I would tend to allow the voters who actually own the submitted locality to make the call.  However, the submitted contribution notes should clearly indicate that the cast is from the other locality, so that the voters and contribution evaluators can make an informed choice.

One additional reminder to please keep the contribution vote notes completely civil at all times.

+1. 

I'd like to see this.  I have a large list of owned titles and roughly the same sized list of wishlist titles.  When I look at the voting list, I don't always remember if it's one I own or not.  I don't spend as much time with the wishlist items as I do with those I own, since there's little I can check so I'd appreciate such an indicator.

I don't use 'Ordered' or 'Wish List' so it isn't something I would use.

Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
I agree with this 100%.  How can you vote on contributions of DVD's that you cannot look at the case and say yep that is the right cover or look at the film and say of yeah so and so was really in this film.  Kudos Astrakan.

Let's assume you don't own Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, but it's on your wishlist.  Now let's say I update it with the cover from Happy Feet, make Woody Allen the director, set the run time to 23 minutes, change the rating to G and list Winston Churchill as playing Mad Max.  Would you still feel unqualified to vote on my contribution?

These are obviously extreme examples, but the point is you don't always have to actually own the disc to vote on it.  You'll know when someone replaces a good cover with a postage stamp sized one.  Or when someone remove the entire crew except for the director.  Or when someone replaces an English overview with a French overview.

Most of the time I vote neutral on my wishlist stuff.  But I have caught some incredible errors even without owning the disc.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
I agree with this 100%.  How can you vote on contributions of DVD's that you cannot look at the case and say yep that is the right cover or look at the film and say of yeah so and so was really in this film.  Kudos Astrakan.

Let's assume you don't own Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, but it's on your wishlist.  Now let's say I update it with the cover from Happy Feet, make Woody Allen the director, set the run time to 23 minutes, change the rating to G and list Winston Churchill as playing Mad Max.  Would you still feel unqualified to vote on my contribution?

These are obviously extreme examples, but the point is you don't always have to actually own the disc to vote on it.  You'll know when someone replaces a good cover with a postage stamp sized one.  Or when someone remove the entire crew except for the director.  Or when someone replaces an English overview with a French overview.

Most of the time I vote neutral on my wishlist stuff.  But I have caught some incredible errors even without owning the disc.

Okay, as with some people who vote. I do not own the film, I have never seen the cover in person.  Someone changes it to a repackaged cover.  So I vote "yes" because it looks fantastic (excellent scanning great sizing).  Then I pop over to IMDB because I like the cast listing over there and, don't say it doesn't happen because we know it does.  I see their contribution doesn't match the cast list, which may not even be correct in the first place, so for that I should vote "no."  Finally I look at their Tech info and match it up and DVD Empire or Amazon and the info matches.  So screw it I will accept this contribution.  Skip now has a heart attack because all of the info that he meticulously entered has been screwed up by some ninny-hammer that doesn't even own the freaken disc.
I am sorry I stand by my belief that you should have to have physical control of a DVD to vote on it.

I agree that there are times where you could vote on a DVD you don't physically have (i.e. an obviously incorrect cover scan). But, if the rule is not to vote unless you actually have the DVD, then don't even show me the contribution. Yes, I can vote Neutral, but why do I even need to see the contribution. Let me concentrate on the DVDs that I do have.

I voted for something else : ignore each change. 

In fact, I promote complete first contributions, giving all other users a good start for their local profile. Then everyone can do what he wants "at home", then must lock everything. I personally work as that, contributing only profiles that do not exist in the database, then ignoring all changes, after seing that quite none ever brought any useful information to my local profiles (which are far to be the same as the contributed ones).

Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
... except if a new release of the programme starts offering new fields, as was the case recently with media companies, extended art crew and bold/italic features in Overview. 

(On a personal note: None of these extensions have been of any use to me. Who cares whether a word was bolded on the cover? - But that's very IMHO)