| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Grave:
Of all the information I have logged in the last two years, I have put in precisely ONE (uncredited) actor and that is because I know the kid and knew he was in the movie and provided the time stamp where he could be found. The documentation was that easy, to make it even easier, since he had the DVD he told me which chapter to look at.
We all recognize the potential value involved in (uncredited) data and we aren't trying block it. We also recognize at the same time that it is an area fraught with all kinds of possibilities from fraud to using (uncredited) to hide tracking data, what a perfect place for it don't you think.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: April 7, 2007 |  Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | Skip,
I completely agree I never made the contribution in the first place so have no allegiance to the data. I took the time to find one of the uncredited in this film to assuage any doubts I had to vote no. If any new changes come up to include uncredited in other films then I'm there wanting data to support it.
This is the opposite it is undocumented removal of data from the database at least one part of which is correct. I'd hate to see what hitchcock's films would look like if we butchered them by taking the uncredited actors out for no good reason (including the man himself many times) |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
If it were my call, it would be gone - or at least 80% of it would be. But luckily for most of us... it isn't your call.  Seriously: it has been established time and time again that both the software and the contribution rules specifically allow for (uncredited) cast to be added. There has never been any indication from Invelos that wholesale removal of undocumented (uncredited) cast is preferred or even okay - instead, Ken has gone on record as saying that he doesn't want wholesale removal of already present (uncredited) cast. IMHO, there's nothing more to it. You're free to strip all (uncredited) cast from your local database, but leave them in the master database. |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 823 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Grendell: Quote:
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
On the contrary, the myth that it is required by the rules needs to be exposed. I am still waiting........
No one ever said it was in the rules.
Use your eyeballs to read the seventh post down in the thread below:
http://www.intervocative.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=104958&PageNum=4 Read my posts. I am well aware of the prohibition on using IMDB as a source for uncredited cast data. Use your eyeballs and sharpen up your reading and conprehension skills. The issue under discussion is the fact that the rules do require documentation in order to contribute uncredited cast. Do you have anything to add to that discussion? |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | It says in the rules for the contribution notes that you must:
"Use the space to enter full explanations for all changes and/or additions that you make."
To me, that means that if you want to add uncredited cast (or even remove them), you have to explain where that info came from. That means documenting a source. |
|
| Registered: April 7, 2007 | | Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
It says in the rules for the contribution notes that you must:
"Use the space to enter full explanations for all changes and/or additions that you make."
It goes further Quote:
Use the space to enter full explanations for all changes and/or additions that you make. Make special reference to any changes where: <snip>
You are removing incorrect information. So it's actually highlighted in respect of the removal of information. | | | | Last edited: by Graveworm |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
It says in the rules for the contribution notes that you must:
"Use the space to enter full explanations for all changes and/or additions that you make."
To me, that means that if you want to add uncredited cast (or even remove them), you have to explain where that info came from. That means documenting a source. I don't think that an explanation is the same thing as documentation. | | | | Last edited: by Telecine |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | No, the rules say a full explanation.
And if you can't or don't explain where certain information came from, then it's not a full explanation. Especially when we're talking about uncredited cast, because we already know the film credits weren't used as a source. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Graveworm: Quote:
Skip,
I completely agree I never made the contribution in the first place so have no allegiance to the data. I took the time to find one of the uncredited in this film to assuage any doubts I had to vote no. If any new changes come up to include uncredited in other films then I'm there wanting data to support it.
This is the opposite it is undocumented removal of data from the database at least one part of which is correct. I'd hate to see what hitchcock's films would look like if we butchered them by taking the uncredited actors out for no good reason (including the man himself many times) Grave: Some input from Ken would be useful in this area. It's a sticky situation, granted, we have to keep from painting ourselves into a corner as some users have in the past. "If it's there then you have to document it to remove"(generally a good statement) BUT what about the new release, that was put in just yesterday and the user included (uncredited) and it wasn't caught, that data should be summarily removed. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Telecine: Quote:
Quoting Grendell:
Quote:
Quoting Telecine:
Quote:
On the contrary, the myth that it is required by the rules needs to be exposed. I am still waiting........
No one ever said it was in the rules.
Use your eyeballs to read the seventh post down in the thread below:
http://www.intervocative.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=104958&PageNum=4
Read my posts. I am well aware of the prohibition on using IMDB as a source for uncredited cast data. Use your eyeballs and sharpen up your reading and conprehension skills. The issue under discussion is the fact that the rules do require documentation in order to contribute uncredited cast. Do you have anything to add to that discussion? Telecine: In my book it is common courtesy. I don't know you and vice versa. Why should i be willing to accept anything just on your say so, that to me is simply disrespectful to all members of the community and says "I was too lazy too verify it". That is why my notes are as comprehensive as they are, I do not expect ANY member to just say oh that's Skip, then it must be OK, I make mistakes and I supply the documentation so that it is part of our record and so you can, if you choose check it out.. It's funny I am accused of disrespecting people here, but in my book I am probably the most respectful user, I will never tell you to take my word, or that I am too lazy to do the work. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: April 7, 2007 | | Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | A full explanation is whatever the voter accepts as a full explanation IMHO, most from what I have seen are happy with no more than added cast and crew but others like those here (and I include myself) want a bit more. However some times the rules actually specify that a source has to be given... eg. from Audio Formats: Quote:
When contributing accurate, DVD based Audio, include your verification method in your Contribution Notes. In that case the rules are unambiguous elsewhere it's an individual choice. | | | | Last edited: by Graveworm |
|
| Registered: April 7, 2007 | | Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Grave:
BUT what about the new release, that was put in just yesterday and the user included (uncredited) and it wasn't caught, that data should be summarily removed.
Skip Skip I agree in principal but not unless there are notes for initial submissions it's tough on anyone who made the effort in the first place to get their contribution correct. Eg if there is a well documented region 1 uncut profile, in the database with everything correct then an uncut Canadian release would be able to rely on that wouldn't it? How could we know where it came from or if it wrong or right? It must be hard enough for Ken to get them out as it is, without the problems of having to check contribution notes. For new disks we want something out there ASAP. I contribute far less than you do and I know I have many times been busily checking cast and crew etc only to submit and find that somone else has done the same. Frustrating, but good for movie trivia quizzes bad for RSI. | | | | Last edited: by Graveworm |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Grave: It's not that hard, there are things I will not do with most new Contributions because I can't leave notes. (Uncredited) is one of them. All that calls for is users to exercise a little common sense and self-control. The Rules were designed to be as simple as possible, and cut down on forum arguments and users submitting data which did not belong in the Online, but was the sole pervue of their local. My concern at the moment is that we are trying to nit-pick literally every aspect of the Rules, some for justifiable reasons, others for reasons which quite frankly I don't get. We can't right a Rule to cover everything it's impossible. Most of the Rules are even in retrospect seem pretty clear to me. The biggest issue I see is sorting the occasional rogue credit that fits our system but because none of us seen it...yet, had not been accounted for. One such that comes to mind is Supervising Sound Mixers, huh, who was the bright boy that dreamed tha one up.  One thing I have learned is to try and avoid painting myself in a corner, everytime I have thought I have this problem figured out and this IS the solution, the very next movie I audit says...Oh, you think so!!!!!!!!!!!! Forget it, bub.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Graveworm: Quote:
A full explanation is whatever the voter accepts as a full explanation IMHO, most from what I have seen are happy with no more than added cast and crew but others like those here (and I include myself) want a bit more. However some times the rules actually specify that a source has to be given...
eg. from Audio Formats:
Quote:
When contributing accurate, DVD based Audio, include your verification method in your Contribution Notes.
In that case the rules are unambiguous elsewhere it's an individual choice. Grave, I don't think a "full explanation" is ambiguous at all. In order for documentation (or a full explanation) to be worth anything, it must be able to be replicated by another user. If someone claims such and such is the source, and nobody else can verify it, what good is that info? When data is removed - such as uncredited cast - saying that it is verbatim from IMDB is fully verifiable, thus a full explanation, because all one has to do is compare them. When adding, a time stamp of the scene they are in is the ultimate verification, etc. I would also say that if you think the rule (any rule) is ambiguous, you should not assume that it means whatever you think it does. Best case is to do nothing. No harm, ho foul as they say. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | All the Rules say is "a full explanation", whatever that means.
If the contributor includes an explanation in the contribution notes, it is then a matter for the voters to decide if the explanation is sufficient.
Fortunately, you only have to convince the majority of the voters, and not every single nit-picking one of them! | | | | Hal |
|