Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
And on that we can respectfully disagree, Pete. The bottom line is that I will not whine about it, I will do what Ken wants.

Skip

I agree... That is what is important. The online database belongs to Ken... so I believe that the online database needs to follow what Ken has in the rules. Then we can fix ours locally to suit us.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Mark:

You make a very interesting comment. what defdinition do you use for Good Data.

We could go round and round.  But at the end of the day, you ultimately have no faith in the users of this program or Hollywood to get things right.  That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.  I believe just the opposite.  I think in 99% of cases, the users are quite capable of reaching a consensus.

Unless one of us can change our basic beliefs on this subject, arguing about the minute details is a waste of time.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
I think VibroCount reads a certain cat_macros community I read.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting chibul:

Quote:
Oh, that's exactly what's going on here...and if anyone allows Skip to convince them otherwise, they're fools. It's saddening for a grown man to act in such a manner over something that, in the big picture, isn't the least bit important.

Who cares if that is "what's going on here"?  The contribution follows the rules and that is all that matters.  I voted 'yes' when hal did this and voted 'yes' when Skip did it.

As for it not being "the least bit important", how many profile changes are?  I mean, if we are looking at the 'big picture'.  I can't count the number of contributions I have voted on where the only change is, 'added widescreen to dist. trait'.  How important are those? 

I mean in the big picture as in life. You spend hours and hours fussing over this crap, which isn't even all that important.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
We have tried Guidelines, they don't work. And you know that, Mark. Or do i need to remind you "They are only Guidelines, we don't HAVE to follow them." And the database was a total wreck.

The guidelines by themselves were a bad idea.  Having guidelines with a voting system, more robust contribution system & partial acceptance of updates hasn't been tried yet.  I'm not saying that we throw all the rules out the window.  But I do sometimes question if we're making things too complicated.  I can't think of a better example at the moment than this very thread.  We're allowing the rules to back us into a corner where we're forced to make stupid contributions.

The rules should be a tool to ensure that the database is populated with good data.  Let me repeat that since so many seem to be missing the point.  The rules should be a tool to ensure that the database is populated with good data. Instead we're putting ourselves into a position where we're allowing the rules to dictate to us that we place bad data into the database.  How can that be considered a good thing?  And no, this isn't an endorsement of your theory that things were good before we had the rule changed and you tried to save us and we wouldn't listen.  The previous rule was just as bad.  It forced us to enter a small percentage of bad data just because the rules said so.

The solution to the problem isn't more rules.  So unless we can find the perfect wording to cover every conceivable problem that might arise, we're left with putting bad data in from time to time or allowing some room for common sense (combined with the voting system, robust contribution system and partial acceptance of updates) or some other idea that we’ve not thought of yet.

I was once told that if what you're doing isn't working, it's time to try something else.  I would say that rule upon rule upon rule is forcing us to put bad data into the database.  That isn't working to meet the goal of having a good database (I would hope we can all agree that that should be our ultimate goal).  So perhaps it's time to try something else.

Finally, someone with sense! Someone sticky this post. Better yet, I'll do something better.

Quoting chibul:

Quote:
Because this way is working so well, right?

It's working fine for me.  I have a 99.9% acceptance rate AND keep my local db the way I want it.  It's not rocket science.

Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
I want to thank Mark & Andy for their thoughtful remarks on this issue.

I agree wholeheartedly -- this slavish devotion to the "rules" no matter what the results is giving us a bad data here. I agree that the voting mechanism is a good way of incorporating common sense (in the form of limited exceptions) into the process. If the consensus of users is that a particular change is a bad one it Ken should feel free not to implement it regardless of the rules.

The thing that troubles me is that some people feel compelled to follow the rules. I also agree that people are not compelled to make a contribution that changes accepted data -- in this case I think the titles could have been left alone. I agree that a good set of rules are an important part of maintaining consistency (i.e. not listing 2-Disc Set as an other feature) but they should not trump the primary purpose which Mark summed up well --- populate the database with good data.

Fundamentally what we really need is for users to act in good faith and respect each others views -- i.e. not threatening voting or contribution bans, not submitting contributions out of spite, and avoiding name calling. We can disagree on these matters without being nasty.

Brian

Brian:

One cannot build a quality database with out Rules and Standards. The only way to be able to do as you suggest, which I completely understand, and have built many a database on this basis is when YOU control the data. Unfortunately we have no control over this data, the data source being Hollywood and as we all know the film industry is nothing if they are not inconsistent. We are subject to the vagaries of each of the filmmakers, who follow only their own standards, and even that may vary within their own catalogs. There simply and sadly is no way to create a system that will please everybody. You have made some not so veiled references to some of my comments. I find it deeply distressing that the people who are the most vocal (myself aside) are the very people who do the least. They seem to me to simply want the data handed to them on silve platter...to their specifications. We can all graphically see the results that are obtained when users are allowed to run amuck and Contribute whatever they choose, in whatever form they choose. Profiler pre-rules and IMDb are fine examples of this. Iwonder how many of you have noticed, that even the much-worshipped (by some) and much maligned )by others) has begun to all install a set of Contribution Rules which sound amusingly familiar. I don't envy them their task, because they have far more data to cope with and if our users are any example, they will find it very difficult to control their mob.

I truly do sympathize with everyone's wishes and even some of the logic, I don't sympathize with those wish to whine or worse yet, choose to ignore the Rules in either voting or Contributions. Unfortunately, everyone's wishes cannot be met through a single CENTRAL database...but that is why we have local control. IMDb offers users no autonomy of any kind, you deal with the data that they supply you with and if does not meet your purposes...tough luck. Everythin I learned in all the English Comp classes I took over the years tells me tha possessives are most of the time part of the title, I mention it in passing but i don't drone on and on about it, Ken made his decision and I will live with it and do whatever I wish with the my local data, as I always have. I simply do not comprehend why ALL of you do not adopt the same philosophy, why does the data have to meet YOUR criteria. Despite all the red herrings that can and no doubt will be thrown in the future, why do YOU believe that YOU (generic) have the exclusive on what is correct data, when dealing with data over which you have no control there will ALWAYS be multiple possibilities for correct data, it all depends on the standard that is chosen by...the programmer...not the users. perhaps my years in Db development have given me a bit more pragmatic view than most here. I will continue to voice my opinions and defend them vigorously based upon my experience, but in the end, just as with this issue, I will follow where Ken leads whether I LIKE IT OR NOT. Its not about where Skip wants to go, it is about where Ken wants to go, I would respectfully suggest that all you do likewise.

Skip

I still disagree, the Rules by my reading leave room for an outside reference, ala the Copyrighted title. It is not a simple section like Take the Cover from the Front Cover.

"nclude possessives if the front cover includes them, and if they are verifiably part of the title. If quotes surround the title in the credit block (generally on the back cover), check whether the possessive is within the quotes. In the absence of quotes to verify, check the font size used for the title on the front cover. Generally, possessives which use a significantly smaller font are not part of the title.

If the only source of verification is the description of wwhat follows it, then taht comment is NOT necessary, therefore outside references are allowed.

You guys like to interpret the Rules and sit and spin frequently, that sis my take on that section and Ken or Gerri are the only people that can tell me otherwise.

Skip