 |
|
|
|
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 3 4  Previous Next
|
|
Rate Invelos Support Towards the Contribution Community |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Ken has already set up a method to determine what will get in the online database, without any need of arguing in the forums or intervention by Ken--it's the contribution/voting/screening process. If we all contribute what we believe is per the rules, and the voters all vote according to their understanding of the rules, then Ken and his screeners can decide what will be in Invelos' database. There is little need for Ken to visit and referee our discussions.
--------------- Thanks! | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
I don't need any input from Ken on the rules. What I need is a set of guidelines from the leftovers on what is to be contributed. So why don't the handful of you pre-2008 get together and decide for us. Just as soon has you decide on the hot topic of with or With, maybe 6 pages and no resolution. Why do you need guidelines from anyone, other than the rules? You're capable of reading them just as I am, and coming to your own conclusions. So what if your contributions receive "no" votes, or aren't incorporated into the online database? Your local database would have been amended as you like and you move on to another profile. As to the hot topic of "with" vs. "With", it makes absolutely no difference that there isn't a resolution. --------------- | | | | Last edited: by scotthm |
| | Registered: December 27, 2009 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
I don't need any input from Ken on the rules. What I need is a set of guidelines from the leftovers on what is to be contributed. So why don't the handful of you pre-2008 get together and decide for us. Just as soon has you decide on the hot topic of with or With, maybe 6 pages and no resolution.
Why do you need guidelines from anyone, other than the rules? You're capable of reading them just as I am, and coming to your own conclusions. So what if your contributions receive "no" votes, or aren't incorporated into the online database? Your local database would have been amended as you like and you move on to another profile.
As to the hot topic of "with" vs. "With", it makes absolutely no difference that there isn't a resolution.
--------------- Well I can't disagree with your curl up and take it position. Myself I go buy measure twice and cut once. I don't like to revisit profiles ever week for the new this is how we're doing it this week thread. |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
I don't like to revisit profiles ever week for the new this is how we're doing it this week thread. Then don't. Just contribute (if you desire) according to your understanding of the rules, then hand it off to the voters and wash your hands of it forever after. --------------- |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | The thing is that if Ken occasionally spent just ten minutes answering a few basic "yes or no"-questions in the forums, that would make a world of difference. I'm guessing that the reason why he doesn't could be that he feels doing so would soon become some kind of neverending story, but I really don't think that it would. After all, there really aren't that many "hot topics" - instead we're mostly re-hashing the same things over and over (and over!) again. I think a lot of those could be put to rest for all eternity in a few minutes' time, and that would do us all a lot of good. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
I think a lot of those could be put to rest for all eternity in a few minutes' time, and that would do us all a lot of good. It will make no difference. Look how often we have posts about "spelling errors" in the database, long after Ken "put to rest" our questions about how to convert uppercase letters to lowercase letters. His intervention will not stop the arguments. --------------- |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Look how often we have posts about "spelling errors" in the database. Those posts generally come after posts concerning the "inaccuracy of IMDb data", and the "high quality of Invelos database". It is not a problem of support about needed clarification. I find it funny to see who opened once again this point  You miss it ?? | | | | Images from movies |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
I think a lot of those could be put to rest for all eternity in a few minutes' time, and that would do us all a lot of good.
It will make no difference. Look how often we have posts about "spelling errors" in the database, long after Ken "put to rest" our questions about how to convert uppercase letters to lowercase letters. His intervention will not stop the arguments. You're referring to Ken's "É=é and E=e" ruling. Well then: that's a great example of what I was talking about. It took Ken a few minutes to make that ruling, and it has worked wonders since. You say: "His intervention will not stop the arguments" - but there it has: that matter is no longer under debate, and rather than everyone interpreting the rules to their liking, there is a clear and concise ruling as to how we're to handle this. Of course, as in every settled debate, there are always going to be a few people who are disappointed, who would have wanted to see the ruling go another way. That's unavoidable, that's what deciding one way or the other does. This particular ruling has one enthusiastic opponent in surfeur51, but him voicing his disappointment over and over (and over!) again doesn't entail that it's still under debate - it's not. As far as the contribution process is concerned, we have a clear and concise ruling that works, whether everyone agrees with the ruling or not. Practical: before the ruling, someone like surfeur51 could (and did) vote against contributions that, say, converted a credit of ANDRE MARANNE as André Maranne, going by his own particular interpretation of the rules, but now that Ken has given us his "É=é and E=e" ruling, that's no longer possible. Instead, since the ruling, I have never had any problems entering, submitting and, if needed, correcting uppercase credits converted into lowercase letters - since then, I've been able to handle them consistently, not having to fight with someone like surfeur51 every week because he had a different "interpretation" of the rules. Instead, we have a ruling that works, and the matter has never bothered me again. Again: sure, he can voice his disappointment, but the matter is settled, and it has made things a lot easier. There's a difference between ongoing arguments and one person repeatedly beating a dead horse. Despite the latter, the matter is settled, and is no longer under debate. One person's disappointment doesn't change that. So yeah, I was perfectly happen with that ruling, and I wish Ken would make some more. I don't even mind if they don't all turn out the way I would have liked - I'd rather have something settled than having to run into these "interpretation-based" no-votes every couple of days. |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Of course, as in every settled debate, there are always going to be a few people who are disappointed, who would have wanted to see the ruling go another way. That's unavoidable, that's what deciding one way or the other does. This particular ruling has one enthusiastic opponent in surfeur51, but him voicing his disappointment over and over (and over!) again doesn't entail that it's still under debate - it's not. As far as the contribution process is concerned, we have a clear and concise ruling that works, whether everyone agrees with the ruling or not.
Practical: before the ruling, someone like surfeur51 could (and did) vote against contributions that, say, converted a credit of ANDRE MARANNE as André Maranne, going by his own particular interpretation of the rules, but now that Ken has given us his "É=é and E=e" ruling, that's no longer possible. Instead, since the ruling, I have never had any problems entering, submitting and, if needed, correcting uppercase credits converted into lowercase letters - since then, I've been able to handle them consistently, not having to fight with someone like surfeur51 every week because he had a different "interpretation" of the rules. Instead, we have a ruling that works, and the matter has never bothered me again. Again: sure, he can voice his disappointment, but the matter is settled, and it has made things a lot easier. There's a difference between ongoing arguments and one person repeatedly beating a dead horse. Despite the latter, the matter is settled, and is no longer under debate. One person's disappointment doesn't change that. Feel better now after vomitting all your venom ?? I see that I need to explain once more how bad this decision was for the quality of the database...  PS You seem more interested to follow contributions rules than forum rules  : Moderators will edit posts as deemed necessary, for reasons including but not limited to: ... Name calling or belittlingPlease try to be polite and respect others' opinions, even if you don't always agree with them. | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Feel better now after vomitting all your venom ?? No venom at all - just illustrating my point by stating the facts. No name-calling, no belittling, nothing like that. Surely you understand that stating that you have repeatedly voiced your disappointment about this ruling wasn't an accusation, but just a fact, right? Heck: if anything, it was an understatement. You seem to think that the mere mention of your username is some kind of an offense, but it obviously isn't. I just happen to agree with Ken's ruling on how certain credits in ALL-CAPS have to be converted into lowercase characters, and apparently that's enough for you to carry a grudge. Good luck with that. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
I don't like to revisit profiles ever week for the new this is how we're doing it this week thread.
Then don't. Just contribute (if you desire) according to your understanding of the rules, then hand it off to the voters and wash your hands of it forever after.
--------------- The problem with this thinking is that I think the on-line database is more important than my personal database. If I contributed data as often as you do it wouldn't brother me. But I would like the database to be as correct as possible for everyone that uses it. Maybe some day I'll have the same way of thinking as you do, just worrying about my own database and quit contributing for the on line database. But I will also walk away from the forums. I wouldn't want to be one of those people that just hang out in the forums. |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
I think the on-line database is more important than my personal database. Perhaps you should be on the payroll. --------------- |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Srehtims: Quote:
Some of you that question the contribution rules, get together via a email and rewrite them.
Then put it up for a vote in the forum, section by section. Some of us did exactly this several years ago. Obviously, lots of changes have been made to the application since then (although not nearly as many as are needed), and the Rules have not been updated since then. The problem is that the Rules cannot possibly cover every possible scenario for every possible release. They could definitely be tightened up, but they will never satisfy everyone. In the meantime, the app was designed so that this really is NOT an issue. If you don't like what gets downloaded to your local database from the online, simply edit it in your local, lock it and your good forever. If you submit a contribution that people vote no on, or gets rejected by Invelos (even wrongly), SO WHAT? Lock your profile and you will have it the way you want forever. It's really not a difficult concept......for most. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
If you submit a contribution that people vote no on, or gets rejected by Invelos (even wrongly), SO WHAT? Lock your profile and you will have it the way you want forever.
It's really not a difficult concept......for most. No, it is not a difficult concept, and what you say is quite obvious. But this is not the problem. You are speaking of the contributor's point of view, but what is important is what people who download data, and have no time to verify if it is exact or not, want. A contribution system is not made to please the contributors, but to please the users of contributed data. And I'm sure that a great majority of those downloaders want exact and usable data. They probably do not expect to have to search with "()" to find "Nymphomaniac" data. So people who want to have "a clear and concise ruling", just to increase their 49000+ contributions without effort, are just selfish when they populate the online with wrong data. I maintain a site to share images from movies, and I would consider as sabotaging the collections of people who use it if I had put photos of Mad Max 2 in Mad Max 3 folder, or photos of King Kong 1976 in King Kong 2005 folder. | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
A contribution system is not made to please the contributors, but to please the users of contributed data. And I'm sure that a great majority of those downloaders want exact and usable data. If it doesn't please the contributors there won't be very many contributions, and I doubt that you know what the "great majority" of DVD Profiler users will be satisfied with in regards to data usability/completeness/exactness. --------------- |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Actually Ken has said that he has to walk the fine line of making both the contributor and end user happy. He has also said he wasn't interested in doing a whole re-write of the rules. | | | | Pete |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |