North:

Like I said the Rules are the Rules. ther copyright date on the new scans is 2006, while the Copyright on the existing images is 2007. It is very clear, cut and dried, whatever you want to call it the existing images should have never been accepted.

Skip

Quoting snarbo:

Quote:
The difference is that the Re-Release should NEVER have been acepted in the first place, once it was pointed out by 3 NO voters that stated the contribution was of re-release covers.

Steve

That's what I mean - now that the scans are in the database, will Gerri overwrite them with inferior (an assumption based on your comments) scans or will she wait and see if better scans can be made of the original cover.
My rhetorical question is: do the rules override quality once an incorrect scan has been accepted or do the screeners keep the better scan?

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting snarbo:

Quote:
The difference is that the Re-Release should NEVER have been acepted in the first place, once it was pointed out by 3 NO voters that stated the contribution was of re-release covers.

Steve

That's what I mean - now that the scans are in the database, will Gerri overwrite them with inferior (an assumption based on your comments) scans or will she wait and see if better scans can be made of the original cover.
My rhetorical question is: do the rules override quality once an incorrect scan has been accepted or do the screeners keep the better scan?

The reason the scan appear inferior is because the original release are on Foil based material (ie highly reflective, I don't have any laminated pouches so the best I can do is as currently up for voting, if somebody else with this title has better ORIGINAL scans I will gladly withdraw mine, but at the current time those that are now in the online DB should never have been accepted "as per the Rules".

No slip cover, No inner cover image, I could if people prefer turn the artwork over and scan the plain white backing material.

I'm sorry if this looks like I'm getting-on-my-high-horse, but if I keep being quoted the Rules as to what is and isn't allowed, well now I'm doing the same, people can't have it both ways just to please themselves.

Steve

Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
I haven't seen the scans, but if they are superior in quality and almost identical I think this outweighs the fact they aren't from the first release.

Nope, it doesn't. You can interpret the rule this way locally, but for the online, the rules are crystal-clear, and your take on them is simply wrong.

Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
My comment was based on the question why opposing votes might have been ignored not to replace original scans with the ones of a re-release. I didn't meant to say that the rules for cover images could be interpreted that way.

Irrelevant, Martin. They were accepted in error and should not have been, it is just that simple. I can accept that an error was made and we are now fixing, I have a problem with any attempts by anyone at justifying it.

Skip

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I'm curious to know whether she would follow the same procedure for 1st release/re-release scans.

I know I would, because I rather see a high quality scan of a re-release that is almost identical than a low quality scan of a first release on which you can hardly see the differences.

Quoting Darxon:

Quote:
Problem with that is, however, where to draw the line for "hardly any difference".

Well that's for the screeners to decide. I don't think this is something users can exploit deliberately as it means getting a re-release scan accepted in the first place, as this one was accidentally.
However, now that the scan is in there, it's up to Gerri to decide if "hardly any difference" is enough or not.

Edit: on a personal note, I decided to go look at these scans and I have to admit there are very few differences to the two covers - I can see why they were accepted. The re-release obviously has a better front cover because there's no foil to worry about. Although personally I prefer Snarbo's back cover cos I think the text is sharper!