 |
|
|
|
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
|
|
U.K. rating details question |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 940 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
All of these things should have been discussed and sorted out and the new rules written before any contributions were allowed. If that were the case, I think the online db would be empty, given some of the "discussions" I've seen lately. | | | | Kevin |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | My only problem with the removal of "Contains" is that I've seen a few entries that are ONLY changing that. I have no objections to them being changed but surely it's better to wait until doing a proper update on the profile. It'll automatically be updated when it's next contributed so there's no immediate rush to do only that one "minor" amendment. |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Forget_the_Rest: Quote:
It'll automatically be updated when it's next contributed so there's no immediate rush to do only that one "minor" amendment. Again that misunderstanding: previously accepted rating details starting with "Contained" will NOT "automatically be updated". Of course there's nothing against doing it as part of a wider update, but they do need to be corrected, and it's not going to happen automatically. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Again that misunderstanding: previously accepted rating details starting with "Contained" will NOT "automatically be updated". Of course there's nothing against doing it as part of a wider update, but they do need to be corrected, and it's not going to happen automatically. Once again, I agree with T!M. I would also add that there is no guarantee that a wider update will ever be done. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yeh, who knows when a profile will have a huge update ? No one  I personally have no problems with so many contributions to vote on, I mostly do that during work  cheers Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:
Quote:
It'll automatically be updated when it's next contributed so there's no immediate rush to do only that one "minor" amendment.
Again that misunderstanding: previously accepted rating details starting with "Contained" will NOT "automatically be updated". Of course there's nothing against doing it as part of a wider update, but they do need to be corrected, and it's not going to happen automatically. I've just tested by simply submitting one of the entries in my database that currently has contains WITHOUT making a single change & the contribution screen automatically removed "Contains". No work on my part was required (other than ticking a box if that's what you meant). Regardless, there's technically nothing wrong with those already accepted and although not specifically mentioned in that part of the rules, there is the rule that states "Make sure your contributions add significant value to the database. For example, contributions that only re-order the information within a certain section should not be submitted." I personally wouldn't say that the removal of one word warranted a whole contribution dedicated solely to it. |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Forget_the_Rest: Quote:
I've just tested by simply submitting one of the entries in my database that currently has contains WITHOUT making a single change & the contribution screen automatically removed "Contains". No work on my part was required (other than ticking a box if that's what you meant). Indeed! But they do need to be contributed: that was my entire point. This is all very simple. I made a few U.K. rating details contributions starting with the word "Contains", someone pointed out to me that that might not be correct, I took it to the forums to be sure, and Ken personally clarified the matter. The logical result - well, logical to me at least - was to try and correct the erroneous contributions that I made earlier. I was able to withdraw and re-submit a few, but for those that had already been accepted, I'm submitting these fixes. Again: to me that seems like the one and only appropriate outcome of this thread. Now, people can vote in favour of those updates (after all, the change is "correct"), vote neutral, or even not bother to vote on them at all. Faced with these three options, I can't help but being baffled that multiple users instead take the trouble to go for option four: voting against this correction, which means they're also forced to type some half-hearted attempt at a reason why it shouldn't be accepted to go with their "no"-vote. Sure, we could wait until someone includes it as part of a wider update - even if we don't know whether that's gonna happen tomorrow, next month or a year from now. But the moment you see the pending contribution, the work is already done. Even simply ignoring it will probably get the the error fixed. I honestly don't understand what there is to gain by trying to get it declined? This is about an error and an contribution that fixes it. I can see how reordering genres doesn't warrant a contribution, but this is fixing an actual error. How is fixing an error not significant? |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 940 |
| | Posted: | | | | Significance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If the contribution is adding correct data, or correcting incorrect data it is significant IMO. It would be nice if all of the overview/rating details/MP updates also contained the new crew fields, but each user is free to contribute what ever they want. Voting NO to a correct contribution is in violation of the voting rules. | | | | Kevin |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting antolod: Quote:
Voting NO to a correct contribution is in violation of the voting rules. I agree with that & I'm sure T!M will back me up when I say that I have not voted no to any of the contributions, nor will I do so. I still stand by my original statement though that they will be automatically updated the next time someone makes a "proper" contribution as all these are doing is changing something that was correct a couple of days ago to a very slight variation of that. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting pauls42:
Quote:
and the sad thing is that it wouldn't have been done without Ken clarifying it. Gone is the idea that people can have some intelligence and initiative. The days when people would have made that assumption without having it done by Ken through a rule or program change are long gone.
That is a bit unfortunate, indeed. We still can apply all that intelligence and initiative locally, but for online purposes it's imperative that we're all the same page. And since we've all shown time and time again that we're completely incapable of reaching a consensus on just about anything, I'm personally happy whenever we see Ken stepping in and settling something - regardless of which side he chooses.
What I find even more unfortunate, though, is that you are now voting against a few of the corrections caused by Ken's clarification (removing the word "Contains" where it was previously entered). I even referred specifically to Ken's post in my contribution notes, yet you vote against it, saying: "no - he said future contributions would strip it" as your reason. Ken did say that, yes, but "future" really is a key word there. Previously accepted contributions still need to be fixed. The problem isn't with the change as such - it's the prospect of hundreds of changes coming through with this single change. After all - I'm sure that the changes with the next beta which is in testing will lead to lots of profiles being submitted with more changes - and this trivial change would have been picked up then. My intention was to make you think about the contributions - and for that I was successful. Also, the rules state "Make sure your contributions add significant value to the database. For example, contributions that only re-order the information within a certain section should not be submitted. These unnecessary changes are highlighted in the rules. Please do not make a separate contribution for them; however, they may be acceptable if you are making wider corrections to a profile." Does the removal of this single word add significant value? | | | | Paul | | | | Last edited: by pauls42 |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pauls42: Quote:
Does the removal of this single word add significant value? Yes. The current profile has an error, and my contribution fixes that error. Things couldn't get more significant, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |