 |
|
|
|
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  Previous Next
|
|
IMDB again |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 1,339 |
| | Posted: | | | | i would vote yes on this, strictly to try to help out invelos from a legal standpoint... removing bad (scraped) data, with partial correct data is an improvement.
despite only getting one vote and it being negative, each submission is manually reviewed by the invelos staff... it may still be approved. please post here and let us know what the result was, as i would be personally curious.
this forum and community is in fact one of the most diverse you will find... 5 Countries have been represented in this short thread alone... however, the company is American, and therefore it is programmed in English, and the rules are written in English... i would suggest if you have a question about the specifics of certain phrases, you could possibly make your request in your native language, in this case i would assume French, and see if a user that is fluent in both English and French could assist you further... I have seen many threads on this forum entirely in French, German, Dutch, and several languages that I could not even identify... | | | | -JoN |
| | Registered: August 22, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Graveworm: Quote:
I'm sorry but I would have voted no as well. Cast and crew info should come from the film credits NOT the Package and booklet.
I am definitley not saying IMDB is right but you are not just submitting to remove the IMDB you also want to add cast and crew data from the package and booklet which is not where it should come from. Exactly. Sorry sxilderik, but I would vote No too.  | | | | -- Enry |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree... I would vote no as well... as long as the info came from anywhere other then the credits I would have voted no. (of course other then well documented uncredited)
I can understand that you don't understand what is meant when the rule says only from the credits since English isn't your first language... but I would suggest if there is something you don't understand to come here and ask... there is always people here more then willing to help.
Either way cast and crew information taken from the case or booklet is against the rules and should be voted against. | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
| | Registered: March 21, 2007 |  Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | I speak English and I understand completely what sxilderik is saying. The rules say "film credits", even IMDB lists "film credits", and there are many other places where "film credits" can be listed, in books for instance.
The rules should say to take the credits only from the DVD, no other source is acceptable.
The short of it is that specifying "film credits" doesn't, in and of itself, mean taken directly from the DVD.
Sxilderik understands English far better than most. | | | | Graham |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | "The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself. Please don't submit content from a third party database, and always verify the specifications printed on the cover. In both cases, errors abound, so always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible." That is pretty clear, graham. To me the Rules are only unclear to those who wish to make them so, for what reason...who knows. I can understand translation problems, but as I have said before from a strcitly English language, I have seldom run into a genuine lack of clarity and have never run into all the problems that I continue to see users rant about. <shrugs> Back to the shadows Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
...
To me the Rules are only unclear to those who wish to make them so, for what reason...who knows. I can understand translation problems, but as I have said before from a strcitly English language, I have seldom run into a genuine lack of clarity and have never run into all the problems that I continue to see users rant about. <shrugs>
Back to the shadows
Skip If there is something I have learned by writing documentation for freeware software used by tens of thousands of users it's the following: 1) "Clarity" is not defined by the person/people who wrote it not being able to see it can be misunderstood. It is defined by lack of questions on the support forum.  If a section in the documentation is misunderstood by a noticable amount of people then it is per definition not clear. There is no point in arguing if it is clear the way it is written - the questions prove that it isn't. And no - people who misunderstand it are most likely not evil - they might not even be stupid. 2) If several people miss information available elsewhere in the documentation, then the information is placed the wrong place. People no longer read documentation from one end to the other - they look up the section related to what they are trying to do. While I agree it is a lot easier to write a document when you assume people read it all it just doesn't match the behaviour of users. A document not written to match the users behavious is per definition badly written. | | | Regards
Lars | | | | Last edited: by lmoelleb |
| | Registered: March 21, 2007 | | Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | To Skip
I wasn't saying to not take it from the DVD, I am aware of what you quoted, and am in complete agreement with the quote. All I said above was basically everyone's argument that the info should have been taken from the film credits just doesn't cut it. It isn't a full and conclusive rule in and of itself and therefore shouldn't be used in this argument. What you introduced is a good argument and is conclusive. | | | | Graham |
| | Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lmoelleb: Quote:
1) "Clarity" is not defined by the person/people who wrote it not being able to see it can be misunderstood. It is defined by lack of questions on the support forum. If a section in the documentation is misunderstood by a noticable amount of people then it is per definition not clear. There is no point in arguing if it is clear the way it is written - the questions prove that it isn't. And no - people who misunderstand it are most likely not evil - they might not even be stupid.
2) If several people miss information available elsewhere in the documentation, then the information is placed the wrong place. People no longer read documentation from one end to the other - they look up the section related to what they are trying to do. While I agree it is a lot easier to write a document when you assume people read it all it just doesn't match the behaviour of users. A document not written to match the users behavious is per definition badly written. 3) Ideally the software should be clear even without any documentation, whenever possible. For instance, name fields should speak for themselves and make clear what kind of data you are supposed to enter (e.g. "Cover Title", not just "Title"). Also, hint captions (like "Enter credits from DVD") and reminders (e.g. before contributiing a profile:"Please be sure that Cast&Crew data were taken from the DVD, not from third party databases") can help the user (of course, there would be a check box to tick in order to disable the reminder after you've read it). | | | | -- Enry | | | | Last edited: by White Pongo, Jr. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting EnryWiki: Quote:
3) Ideally the software should be clear even without any documentation, whenever possible. For instance, name fields should speak for themselves and make clear what kind of data you are supposed to enter (e.g. "Cover Title", not just "Title"). Also, hint captions (like "Enter credits from DVD") and reminders (e.g. before contributiing a profile:"Please be sure that Cast&Crew data were taken from the DVD, not from third party databases") can help the user (of course, there would be a check box to tick in order to disable the reminder after you've read it). I know - I just tried to keep it short. Obviously I was not completely correct when I wrote that users only read the section relevant for what they where trying to do. That is just in the rare case they actually read any documentation - typically they do not read any instructions at all.  While some people then choose to blame the majority of users for not reading the instructions, it is actually the software that isn't designed correctly as the developer is very well aware that the instructions will not be read. Besides clearing up the labels and descriptions as you mentioned it would also help to display the relevant sections of the rule directly on the dialog where data is entered (obviously the text should be updated over the internet - hard coding text like this in the program would make it impossible to make ongoving improvements). It's the task of the software to point the user to relevant information - never expect the user to go looking for it himself. | | | Regards
Lars |
| | Registered: November 11, 2007 |  Posts: 44 |
| | Posted: | | | | (silently listening and nodding...)
a quick pointer : "Enter credits from DVD", read by a french user (at least), is bound to be understood as the "enter credits from the DVD object", that is, the disc itself, and its container and packaging. We NEVER user the word DVD to mean the film as seen on screen. We would use the word "film"... but actually, this whole matter of taking infos from what is shown on screen is so unusual that it would need a specific wording, even if that wording would seem redundant and useless blabber to an english-speaking reader.
Next step would be a translation. | | | | Lernu la internacian lingvon | | | | Last edited: by Sxilderik |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting sxilderik: Quote:
Next step would be a translation. There was another user interested in doing a translation to French; it was discussed here. Maybe you can contact him, or pick up the discussion, to get started. | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | sxilderik,
I think it's important to view the rules in their entirety -- I agree that taking one small provision of the rules standing alone can leave room for interpretation but if you consider all of the relevant portions to an issue -- as has been pointed out in this thread -- virtually all of the doubt is removed.
Brian |
| | Registered: November 11, 2007 | | Posts: 44 |
| | Posted: | | | | Another thing that I think may have been overlooked: I'm not asking for anything for myself, I'm not complaining, or Teutatès forbids... ranting. I got it, right from post #3, all is clear for me. Thanks all.
From that point on, I was only concerned by the fact that other people might also skip that important part of the rule:
- people who never read rules anyway (or at least, not before something went wrong first) will probably fall into that trap. Better labels, tooltips or help messages will help tremendously (help the sanity of the database - I'm on a self-assigned DQM mission here, ever since post #3)
- but also, people who earnestly try to read the rules but are hindered by their insufficient proficiency of english (as mine was). (The problem here is not about the words we dont know, but about the words we think we know, so we don't look further). On that matter, apart from providing a full translation in the major languages (that task could be achieved collaboratively, it's been done before), bold font simple redundant english words in the right places might do the trick at a much lesser cost.
In short, the advices are (this result is collaborative too, that's the beauty of it)
- better labeling and general "intuitive" interface (one where the user doesn't need to read the manual!)
- extra warnings on some sensitive points, in plain simple english, with an option to tick them off. | | | | Lernu la internacian lingvon | | | | Last edited: by Sxilderik |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting sxilderik: Quote:
no UPC, it's a disc from a boxset
I7A9D727A8685787E
(Il était une fois en Chine) Am I right in guessing that the reason you are taking the film credits from the DVD cover/booklet is because the film credits are in Chinese? If so, I would recommend that you clearly state in your contribution notes that (1) the existing profile's data comes from IMDb and (2) the film credits are in Chinese; therefore, (3) you are adding the information found in the DVD package. All 3 points are important to make your case. This is a situation not covered in the rules and I have seen Invelos accept these many times under such circumstances. The alternative, per the rules, is to have no data. That doesn't help anyone, which is probably why Invelos accepts the alternative (in my experience). | | | ...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 |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yeah, we just had the latest Eclipse set of Kurosawa flims go through this way in region 1. I didn't contribute it, but I can certainly sympathise. The credits are presented in english on the back of the packaging or we could use the subtitled translations...neither of which is perfect. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |