| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | What caused it to be fixed was a discussion over the word "With".
It was found that the way it was worded in the rules was ambiguous, so I started a discussion in the rules forum. I thought to clarify the rules. A rule change was proposed, that had consensus in the rules forum, and was proposed to Ken.
Ken decided to take it further, and implement an on-line style checker, that uses AP style format. Unfortunately, the online style checker cannot tell the difference between parts of speech (i.e. difference between an adverb and a preposition). While not perfect, it does eliminate the discussions online concerning capitalization of prepositions, for the most part.
Charlie |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Grendell: Quote:
Quoting samuelrichardscott:
Quote:
Whose idea was this ridiculous tool that some users are now using to change titles from what they should be according to the actual rules of English, to dumb lower cased versions?
Bringing up Baby? Really?
By the way, not meant to be an attack on users following the rules, but the rules themselves. The automatic name filters for capitalisation have also been a disaster IMO.
What tool is it, is it this one? -> http://llbest.com/?P=75 There is a tool that Ken made right in the title rules... In the title rules you will see... Quote:
English titles will be automatically capitalized by the contribution system per the Associated Press style title standard. Capitalization Tool Clicking on Capitalization Tool will open the tool. But as I said... I believe it just shows you what the automatic filter will automatically do...so I never bother with it. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 1,639 |
| | Posted: | | | | It becomes really ridiculous when contributions are simply being made, for existing titles, just so that the "online system" can incorrectly capitalize the title.  |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting rdodolak: Quote:
It becomes really ridiculous when contributions are simply being made, for existing titles, just so that the "online system" can incorrectly capitalize the title. Since it is not a significant change to the profile. Just vote no. from the contribution rules. 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. | | | | Last edited: by ateo357 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | The problem with that is the rule also says Before where you bolded... "These unnecessary changes are highlighted in the rules." Before you can rightfully vote no you need to show where this type of title change is highlighted in the rules as unnecessary.
Some may see it as necessary... others may see it as unnecessary. It is a subjective thing on deciding what may or may not be necessary from one person to the next. | | | | Pete |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
Since it is not a significant change to the profile. Just vote no.
from the contribution rules.
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. How is this "not significant"? Like Pete, I have to ask: where is it "highlighted in the rules" that this particular change is "unnecessary"? It's not. It just happens to be something that you don't like - but that alone doesn't make it insignificant. Instead, it's grasping at straws: "I don't like this, but how can I justify voting against it?" So you've come up with this. Clearly though, this isn't something subjective like genres. Instead, Invelos apparently deems consistent capitalization so important that it even warranted the implementation of an automated contribution filter. That doesn't exactly shout "insignificant", does it...? Not to me. Again, while I appreciate that not everyone *likes* every single bit of the contribution rules - I don't either - there's no denying that any rule change *will* result in contributions "fixing" existing data to comply with those changed rules. Which is exactly what happened: corrections fixing title capitalization to comply with the updated rules have been done since the moment this rule change was published (back in March 2015) - so they're nothing new. Certainly for U.S. profiles the automated contribution filter makes it pretty much inevitable that someone'll get around to it eventually. I expect that a large part of titles have been fixed by now. As such, I don't really understand why we're suddenly talking about it again seventeen months later. There are no new developments. The voting system really isn't the place to voice your disapproval of a certain part of the contribution rules - which is why such votes will undoubtedly be ignored. Instead, if you really don't like this particular rule, you should campaign to get it changed. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have always locked my Title field so this filter doesn't impact my collection.
The new tool does make the contribution process easier since it removes personal preferences.
As far as whether or not a contribution is "significant" - I've always believed every contribution is "significant". What is important varies from person to person. | | | | Last edited: by Kathy |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Before you can rightfully vote no you need to show where this type of title change is highlighted in the rules as unnecessary. Since you're under no obligation to contribute, no change is "necessary". Some people just let their OCD get the best of them. --------------- |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
...
Since you're under no obligation to contribute, no change is "necessary"...
--------------- If everyone felt that way then nothing would be contributed. |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
...
Since you're under no obligation to contribute, no change is "necessary"...
If everyone felt that way then nothing would be contributed. No, there would just be a lot fewer insignificant contributions made. --------------- |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
Since it is not a significant change to the profile. Just vote no.
from the contribution rules.
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.
How is this "not significant"? Like Pete, I have to ask: where is it "highlighted in the rules" that this particular change is "unnecessary"? It's not. It just happens to be something that you don't like - but that alone doesn't make it insignificant. Instead, it's grasping at straws: "I don't like this, but how can I justify voting against it?" So you've come up with this. Clearly though, this isn't something subjective like genres. Instead, Invelos apparently deems consistent capitalization so important that it even warranted the implementation of an automated contribution filter. That doesn't exactly shout "insignificant", does it...? Not to me.
Again, while I appreciate that not everyone *likes* every single bit of the contribution rules - I don't either - there's no denying that any rule change *will* result in contributions "fixing" existing data to comply with those changed rules. Which is exactly what happened: corrections fixing title capitalization to comply with the updated rules have been done since the moment this rule change was published (back in March 2015) - so they're nothing new. Certainly for U.S. profiles the automated contribution filter makes it pretty much inevitable that someone'll get around to it eventually. I expect that a large part of titles have been fixed by now. As such, I don't really understand why we're suddenly talking about it again seventeen months later. There are no new developments.
The voting system really isn't the place to voice your disapproval of a certain part of the contribution rules - which is why such votes will undoubtedly be ignored. Instead, if you really don't like this particular rule, you should campaign to get it changed. Database is not case sensitive. Whether it is upper or lower case doesn't make a difference (to me this means it's not a significant issue). The problem I have is the lone auto-filtered title update when the the rest of the info for the profile is 5+ years old and doesn't contain updated crew or still has IMDB mined cast, but isn't updated. I know you are not obligated to update info, so don't waste the time for a title update (it is a change that you actually don't have to confirm from watching the film credits). And as for campaigning to get it changed, Why would I want to waste my time taking a suggestion to a committee whose biggest issue recently was whether or not to capitalize 'with', not to fix any other outstanding serious rules issues. It is messed up just the way they want it. |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | If my no votes are not in line with the rules, Invelos can send me a PM or they can ban my voting or contributing rights.
Until that happens, I'll continue on. | | | | Last edited: by ateo357 |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
If my no votes are not in line with the rules, Invelos can send me a PM or they can ban my voting or contributing rights.
Until that happens, I'll continue on. Luckily, there's already a system in place for that, so yeah, by all means, continue on: Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
Inaccurate votes are already handled by our contribution evaluation system. The contribution evaluation system learns based on prior contributions and votes. Votes cast by users who routinely vote inaccurately or against the contribution rules are given less weight than those by users who vote accurately. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
Inaccurate votes are already handled by our contribution evaluation system. The contribution evaluation system learns based on prior contributions and votes. Votes cast by users who routinely vote inaccurately or against the contribution rules are given less weight than those by users who vote accurately. Which means as long as you vote like the dumb masses you're okay. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,715 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
If my no votes are not in line with the rules, Invelos can send me a PM or they can ban my voting or contributing rights.
Until that happens, I'll continue on.
Luckily, there's already a system in place for that, so yeah, by all means, continue on:
Quoting Ken Cole:
Quote:
Inaccurate votes are already handled by our contribution evaluation system. The contribution evaluation system learns based on prior contributions and votes. Votes cast by users who routinely vote inaccurately or against the contribution rules are given less weight than those by users who vote accurately. This system, if installed, doesn't work at all. It is up to the screeners. In fact it depends on the mood of the screeners, if they even read the voting commentaries  | | | | Complete list of Common Names • A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1) |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Do we take into consideration how the title actually appears on the cover?
For example: "2 Brothers & a bride: A Foreign Affair" or "2 MILLION Motorcycles 24 HOURS OF STURGIS"
I know in other fields, if the data is mixed (upper and lower cases) we write it the way it is written.
Do we change the title to match the cover or does the filter override the actual data?
Please note I am not discussing data that is written entirely in capitals. | | | | Last edited: by Kathy |
|