I still find some of the covers the most challenging, midnit. I find the data entry to be very very easy and i mean that seriously, time consuming but easy. But I decided long ago to cut waay back on my own Contributions simply because i cannot deal with the some of the arrogance and laziness i see. I will never provide less than the detailed and completely sourced (with sources included) that i always have. And i cannot support those who refuse to provide their sources, I am sorry, if you directed that at me. I have never had a problem with your notes that i can recall. I thin Ken is bowing to the laziness and the arrogance of some at the expense of the quality of data, he has hinted as much, and frankly that makes me very sad. Profiler can be so much more than it is right now, I see that, and if i am the only one that is willing to stand up for Profiler being a truly great program then so be it, I will bear that cross all too gladly. But it won't happen with sloppy work on our part, that makes us no better than some others.

You may call me Don Quixote, if you wish and I will tilt at the windmills if i must.

Skip

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
I presume you are serious, Ace. I also guess you are would not be credited as Ace of sevens. This can get very sticky, very quickly, Ace. I have "known" you for many years, Ace. Here is a piece of known information users at another database had themselves inserted into cast list or (worse) Crew data of films and sometimes that data has been uncovered to be completely false and the names were removed. So while i don't wish to ask or challenge you, we need some safeguards of some kind to prevent possible abuse.  this causes me to rethink what I previously said, now the question is what sort of safeguards can be employed, if it's the only film in which you have appeared. Would a picture of you (or some other user making such a claim be sufficient) to compare against a screen cap, I don't know. THis suddenly seems to be rife with potential for fraudulent exploitation by users. This is one reason I have never listed myself in Tank, it's the only film I have ever appeared in on camera and I am just a face in the crowd, from a helo shot, no less. I could provide a time stamp and a description of where I was in the crowd, but I never believed that to be sufficient...only perhaps for those that KNOW me and what I look like.<shrugs>

Now this becomes a conundrum. Hmmmmmm

Skip

I have an uncredited appearance in 2 shots in the movie TORQUE. When I did an audit of my copy for the database, I didn't include it. I can be identified in the screen caps, as are many other crew members, who volunteered to be extras in a scene. The Director, Producer, and VFX Supervisor made more prominent appearances on screen in the same scene, and I added them while providing time stamps and links to images of each person for those uncredited entries.

Here I am

and again

Of course you take their word for it. That meets Invelos' requirements and that is all anyone needs to do.

Those who vote no are are voting based on personal preference to what their standards would be be, not what the actual rules require.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Of course you take their word for it. That meets Invelos' requirements and that is all anyone needs to do.

Those who vote no are are voting based on personal preference to what their standards would be be, not what the actual rules require.

Exactly! 

In fact all that's said about uncredited actors is this:

Quote:
Uncredited actors may be listed in alphabetical order following all credited actors. Use the "Uncredited" checkbox to indicate these. Uncredited actors are not required entries.

No word about necessary documentation at all! Cooool!!
Just one last question: Why does Invelos require extra documentation if you choose to contribute the uncredited cast members???

Oh and BTW, I think I'm uncredited in nearly all movies of the past century. Not that I would appear in any, but, hey, the rules don't mention that uncredited cast actually has to appear in the movie. I'm off for a little while, there are a lot of updates to do.

Interesting challenge here.  If the contributor were to give the timestamp and some description of which person to look at on the screen, I would trust that this was the person they said it was and vote yes.


Here is a variation:

There are two movies in the database that my wife was in.  In one she was an extra, and of course uncredited.  The other is a documentary and she is in a group that was not credited.  I have toyed with the idea of adding her as uncredited.

I could easily get the timestamps since we have both movies.  But, since she is not an actress, she doesn't have a web presence or any other sort of online documentation of the movies she has been in.  The only source I have is what I would consider the best one... the person who is in the movie.  But, it's not easily verifiable by other people.

What is everybody's opinion on this situation?  I know it's a little out there since nobody but a very select few would even care what movies my wife has been in.

Apologies I typed the post up just before going to bed. I meant to have "only source" in the subject.

The problem as others have said is that unless it's a well known person the vast majority of people probably wont know the person being added. I could very easily add myself to all UK films that have been made in my lifetime & following what most of you have said you would accept it. I'm hoping that I'm not the only one who sees the flaw in that?

Also as I pointed out in the OP, we don't allow for a single 3rd party source, why is it that people are allowing this when knowing the person is just that, a 3rd party source?


@jgilligan - That's pretty much what this contribution is & my objection is that "it's not easily verifiable by other people". Without something to back it up, I wouldn't accept it.

This is the "Is it OK to use an e-mail as a source?" all over again. I say "let's trust the contributor". Why would they lie?

And for the record, the contribution notes for this specific contribution reads as follows: "Added my old drama teacher, Mr. Morse. He appears as the 'Young Scientist' who invents the infinite improbability drive during episode two."

Needles to say, I voted yes

Quoting reybr:

Quote:
This is the "Is it OK to use an e-mail as a source?" all over again. I say "let's trust the contributor". Why would they lie?

And for the record, the contribution notes for this specific contribution reads as follows: "Added my old drama teacher, Mr. Morse. He appears as the 'Young Scientist' who invents the infinite improbability drive during episode two."

Needles to say, I voted yes

Let's take a look at those notes and see if they pass invelos muster.

These are the requirements set out by invelos...

You have personally identified the cast by viewing the film

-OR- The cast is copied from a previously accepted profile with documented uncredited cast

...since there is a huge 'OR', the contribution only needs to comply with one of them.  Since the notes indicate the role the person played, and the episode he was in, the contribution complies with the first.

Yes, I know, there is the part that says "Be sure to specify the source in your contribution notes."  Well, that was done.  The source is personal knowledge of the person being added.

Despite popular belief, there is no requirement that we supply a time stamp or screen shot...not that it would matter in this case as the odds of any of us knowing this person by sight are fairly small.

In addition, another popular myth, there is no prohibition on third party sources.  We can't copy a single third party db, but that isn't the same thing.

One last myth to bust, there is no requirement that the entry be verifiable by other users.  Yes, a source has to be listed but, that's where it ends.

Bottom line, while some may not like it, this contribution passes invelos muster.  Any vote of 'no', asking for further documentation, is based on personal preference and not the rules.