Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2  Previous Next
|
|
Inconsistent screening |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 24, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,229 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Nosferatu:
Quote:
the point of this thread was to see if it was only happening to me or whether others had done something similar, contributing a number of identical changes with identical contribution notes to find that one has been declined when the others have been accepted and released.
No, it's not just you, I share that experience. Again, it seems like at least the first-level screening process is purely an automated process these days, just an algorithm. That's both reassuring and disillusioning! |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,715 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
... it seems like at least the first-level screening process is purely an automated process these days, just an algorithm. Can't agree. - Remarks for the screeners (e.g. to change the spelling of an actor/crew member) are followed. I can't trust in the (AI) competence of Invelos enough to believe that they are using such an intelligent bot. - From my experience contributions with yes and no votes are always escalated. | | | | Complete list of Common Names • A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1) |
| | Registered: March 24, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,229 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting AiAustria: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
... it seems like at least the first-level screening process is purely an automated process these days, just an algorithm.
Can't agree.
- Remarks for the screeners (e.g. to change the spelling of an actor/crew member) are followed. I can't trust in the (AI) competence of Invelos enough to believe that they are using such an intelligent bot.
- From my experience contributions with yes and no votes are always escalated. I agree with your last point as I've noticed that contributions without any votes take three or four days longer to be processed and those with at least one vote. |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting AiAustria: Quote:
From my experience contributions with yes and no votes are always escalated. That's my experience as well, which is why I wrote that I suspect first-level screening to be a largely automated process, not second-level screening. Having said that, the quality of second-level screening has dropped significantly, too - it would be nice, for instance, if those doing the second-level screening would have at least a basic knowledge of the contribution rules, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be a requirement. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,638 |
| | Posted: | | | | The screeners are only a part of the equation with the voters being the other part. The question is why do we have such disparate differences across the voters. Yes, a piece of it comes down to some no voters having certain titles and not others, but that isn't the full picture.
I really do think some voters have gotten complacent and just vote "yes" most of the time. What's even more perplexing are some voters that consistently vote on changes to long released titles that they don't even own. You'll be surprised at those that keep tens of thousands of titles in their ordered or wishlist so they can vote on all changes. Yes, some changes you can be confirmed by the cover art, but not all thus a lot of those votes for other information are just vote padding. |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting rdodolak: Quote:
The question is why do we have such disparate differences across the voters. The anwer to that is, largely, the fact that the contribution rules haven't been updated or otherwise clarified in years. By now, interpretations are varying wildly, and as a result, the votes do, too. By choosing to no longer update the contribution rules, to no longer participate in the forums, to no longer answer support tickets and so on, Invelos knowingly went down this path. I still don't understand why Invelos keeps paying for the server, but flat out refuses to give any other sign of life. Even without doing any actual programming work, if Ken was willing to spend one afternoon a year on updating and/or claryfing the contribution rules, settling a few ongoing debates, that could do a world of good. One afternoon a year - is that really too much to ask? I'd have no problem to pay for a minimal bit of input like that in the form of some kind of yearly subscription fee. Heck, by this point I'd be willing to pay him a handsome hourly rate just for those hours in that one afternoon. Just do something! But alas... | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree... most the blame is on Invelos as they done nothing to help us in way for too long.
It is impossible to write all the rules so that they can not be interpretated in multiple ways. And Ken has clarified many rules in the forum over the years that most the long term members know... and they can be brought up if we can find them in years of forum posts.
But I also blame people in general for contributing and voting on how they want and not per the rules and Ken's clarifications. I still see a lot of cast and crew from IMDB and many other things that has been clarified in the past. So there is a lot of blame to be had... which really makes it hard to keep it all straight.
Considering that you need to also consider how hard it is for the screeners as well. | | | | Pete |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|