| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 951 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would disagree with that there are a number of profies that are wrong (bad data). Depending on who made the initial contribution into the new DB. I wouldn't assume that just because someone had the old version of DVD profiler that their profiles were up-to-date before they bothered to contribute them into the new system. | | | Are you local?
This is a local shop the strangers you would bring would not understand us, our customs, our local ways. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,022 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting Tracer:
Quote:
Quoting Doombear:
Quote:
I am almost done my CoO contributions. It's a compulsion to contribute them. I want all my DVDs to have CoO by the end of this week.
Have you thought about joining CoO Anonymous or some other 10 step program. 
I went cold turkey two days ago. I just vote Neutral on them now. With you on this John  | | |  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Tracer: Quote:
I would disagree with that there are a number of profies that are wrong (bad data). Depending on who made the initial contribution into the new DB. I wouldn't assume that just because someone had the old version of DVD profiler that their profiles were up-to-date before they bothered to contribute them into the new system. I don't assume this at all, I just meant there ARE lots of profiles which are correct so adding the CoO without changing anything else should not be considered wrong... Of course changing the CoO and not checking if there are other updates to be made is not wrong per se but I would agree with you that it is lazy and just doing the CoO without even checking for other updates should be discouraged. | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 489 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Tracer: Quote:
Quoting Doombear:
Quote:
I am almost done my CoO contributions. It's a compulsion to contribute them. I want all my DVDs to have CoO by the end of this week.
Have you thought about joining CoO Anonymous or some other 10 step program. Only if there is a >>| button to jump through the boring steps! Bobb | | | | Do Cheshire Cats drink evaporated milk? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Voltaire53: Quote:
Quoting Tracer:
Quote:
I would disagree with that there are a number of profies that are wrong (bad data). Depending on who made the initial contribution into the new DB. I wouldn't assume that just because someone had the old version of DVD profiler that their profiles were up-to-date before they bothered to contribute them into the new system.
I don't assume this at all, I just meant there ARE lots of profiles which are correct so adding the CoO without changing anything else should not be considered wrong...
Of course changing the CoO and not checking if there are other updates to be made is not wrong per se but I would agree with you that it is lazy and just doing the CoO without even checking for other updates should be discouraged. Exactly. This is a situation like Genres used to be at IVS with 2.5. Not wrong to update but heavily frowned upon updating by itself. Plus it is still a problematic field, and one which is supposed to be accompanied by documentation. People are not only updating just the one field, they aren't providing the documentation. I could be a real hard ass and vote NO on each one like that, but it just isn't worth the effort. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,022 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
I could be a real hard ass and vote NO on each one like that, but it just isn't worth the effort. Please do it John - it may just slow up the contributions a bit!! I've given up on voting on anything other than images or by contributors I know who have likely updated more than a CoO | | | |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,117 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm all done my CoO contributions now; it wasn't so bad. I hope I haven't turned some of you away from checking contributions forever.
Some of the joint productions were really tricky: Casino Royale (1967), Casino Royale (2006), Labyrinth, Watcher in the Woods, Walker, Terror Train...
The rules don't say anything about lone CoO contributions, but they do mention that picky little things like genre-shuffling shouldn't be submitted alone. It's a new field, so you should expect some catching up. I realize that some folks here get upset when users don't follow certain conventions, and with the vast amount of users, that's unavoidable. |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Posts: 30 |
| | Posted: | | | | I haven't minded much seeing all the CoO updates. I figure it this way - once all of my movies have been updated with CoO then there will be no need to keep clicking it anymore.  | | | | "It's gonna be pee-pee pants city here real soon!"—Negan |
|