Here is where I stand with some of this.  It depends on what is being contributed/fixed.

One example is a while back I noticed a bunch of my movies had actors that should have linked various profiles.  Did all the work and research and created the links with credited as.  Did the contributions and gave my notes and reasoning.  Some I had trouble with No votes.  Not because my changes where wrong, but because there were existing errors and some felt since I took the time to makes the corrections I worked on then I should fix all the errors.  I did make the corrections that were pointed out, but when I vote on what the person is presenting.  If someone makes a correction with Actor A that is what I am going to look at.  I am not going to vote no because something is wrong with Actor B because that is not what the person is trying to contribute.  Overviews are a little different because I see them as one item as a whole being contributed.

I have a few of the later Star Trek movies... but none of the early ones yet.

LOL... yeah I will have to!

My position is that bad data is just that: bad data.  I (we) do my (our) best to be as complete and accurate as possible when making contributions, BUT we are only human.  Mistakes do happen (not only during profiling, but during voting as well).

One thing that I do is keep a notebook beside my PC and keep track of all of my NO votes (and why I voted no in case only 1 or 2 things are wrong with the contribution) and if one of the DVD's that I have gets an update and it's also on my list of NO votes, then I approve the correct parts of the update and then resubmit with the correct info.  I must admit that this is not the most eloquent manner to do this, but it works.

Quoting mwkirchner:

Quote:
I went back and changed my vote (which I had second thoughts about) and then after thinking about it more went and contributed the the corrections myself. I got NO votes that mentioned things that I had missed. WHY? I fixed some words that the other contributor missed. Why did mine not get voted on the same way?

This was mainly me so I'll try to explain my reasoning for this particular case..    There's never enough room in the vote comments to explain.   

Along with some others here, I'm of the opinion that we should be voting on what the person changed, not what we think they should have changed.  They didn't make the original errors, so why vote No against a contribution that is trying to correct some of those errors.  This is where I see voting Yes but leaving a comment mentioning the other spotted errors comes in handy.  Or even PMing the submitter and pointing out they missed some things so they can edit their profile and resubmit.

The other alternative, since if we're voting on the submission then obviously we own the same movie, is to submit the fixes that they missed ourselves.  This is usually okay for Cast/Crew fixes or other small field updates.  But it presents a problem when the field being updated is just one big giant field, like the Overview or the Easter Eggs.

So, here's our situation.  The first contribution by Person A fixed 4 misspellings in the Easter Eggs but missed several others.  A day later a second submission is made to the Easter Eggs by Person Z that fixes everything Person A missed, but doesn't fix the 3 of the 4 misspellings Person A did.  Both contributions will be in the system for 3-4 days while they get voted on.  Now, here's why I voted No on Person Z's submission.  If Person A's submissions gets Accepted then their misspellings are corrected in the online DB.  Person Z's submission still contains the original misspellings, but has the other corrections.  So the next day when Person Z's submission is Accepted, it corrects the other misspellings but it puts back into the online DB the original misspellings that Person A corrected.

So, that is why I could vote Yes for the original submisson but had no choice but to vote No for the second submission.  If Person Z's submission had been made all by itself, only correcting some of the mistakes, then I would have easily voted Yes for it just like the other.  When there's two submissions up for the same profile at the same time, you have to be careful with the order they're going to get processed.

I hope that made sense.  For what it's worth, I agree that if you're going to correct something, correct all of it.  If you're going to submit an update, follow through with it, and check on the votes for comments.  You never what you might have missed and someone else may catch and you can fix it and resubmit.  But as voters, all we can really vote on is the changes that are being submitted.  Otherwise, what's next?  If someone fixes some Overview typos and the current cover scans happen to be crappy are we going to vote No because they should have fixed the cover scans while they were at it?  We're all just trying to make the database better. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I agree with Pete and Skip.  Wrong is wrong.  If I see something wrong, it will get a 'no' vote.

Same here

Everybody who says, bad data is bad data, should think about the consequences of your no votes. Let's assume that you vote no on a contribution with some valid new data but one error which has been there before is not corrected. The contributor refuses to correct the error for whatever reason. As a consequence the contribution is declined. The result is a profile which still features the error but is missing some valid data.

also it should warn the contributer to adjust his contribution accordingly to have it pass.