Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
What I do have a problem with is someone trying to overturn a "user convention" without a change in the Rules, based on a "newly discovered" hole in the Rules or by asserting that it is not "excluded" by the Rules.

Just to be clear, I am not trying to overturn a 'user convention' based on a 'newly discovered' hole in the rules.  First, I am a user and I don't follow that convention.  The convention that I follow is the one I outlined in the other thread.  It may be a convention that you and Skip and several others follow, but it is not a convention every user follows.  How do I know?  Because there are profiles with 'special edition crew' in the database.  Those had to be entered by someone who doesn't follow this 'user convention'.

Second, I pointed out this 'hole' in the rules a long time ago.  Long before the move to Invelos.  Nothing new here.

I still disagree... because that means if nothing else that can be found to do on a profile... that means that profile can not be updated per the new rule(s). Which I definitely feel it needs to be able to do.

It depends on what you consider to be significant... In my view if you are changing something that does not follow the rules to something that follows the rules... that adds significant value. No matter how big or small the contribution is.

I don't read it as a small change is not allowed per the rules at all. After all... what happens if you have a title that a complete audit was done for... all fields basically right except 1 small thing missing. (say they missed a single actor or missed 1 extra... something like that) It is only 1 small change... but would be correct info for the profile. It can not be added because there is nothing else that can be done for the profile? I don't think so.

In my opinion something is significant if it is correct per the profile. Especially if it replaces wrong info with correct info per the rules... or per the data.

Now whether Gerri/Ken find that one small piece of data that is missing or wrong... that is up to them to decide. And they can either approve or decline it.

OK... the reason I said that is because you said...

Quoting EnryWiki:
[...]

Quote:

I take that rule to mean: hold on and submit more changes together, not just one little tiny change at a time.

[...]
because if something had to be on hold and submitted with more changes... that is not always possible. Could be nothing left to do... or nothing left to do that a person feels comfortable with. Like I personally won't mess with crew data as I don't care about or understand it.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Thinking about this... I think it all boils down to what you consider significant to mean. In this instance significant to me would be...

If the info being added is correct and follows the rules... than it is a significant contribution.

ok, by that definition any contribution would be significant because you shouldn't contribute wrong information or something that doesn't follow the rules.

I've always taken the significant statement to be a way to reduce the amount of contributions that Gerri needs to check that are only making a little\minor changes. Yes it should hopefully get to the point where the profile is totally correct (or just about), and as other changes are made it may be necessary to make a small change (adding 1 missed actor or an extra to use your example) to correct the profile and nothing else needs to be done. In that case make the change, its the only way it will get in there, and it 'completes' the profile so I would say that is significant.

I think the meaning however is pretty clear if you read the whole part of the rule and not just a paraphrase

Quote:
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.

To me, that rule (statement) isn't talking about not adding a single actor or even consolidating your many small contributions into one larger one, though thats not a bad idea if possible to make Gerri's life easier (if she has less to contributions to check, logic would follow that she could more easily avoid making errors when evaluating the profile). It specifically says unnecessary changes, and they are highlighted in the rules. It doesn't say you can't make them, it just says that if you make them, they should be part of a larger update. I wouldn't call adding a missing actor or feature an unnecessary change. But all this isn't even the topic of the post and my impression with why Pauls42 even brought it up was to make the point that making a contribution that only removes data that 'arguably' isn't forbidden by the rules is a waste of time for voters and screeners as its not really adding anything of value (rather its taking away something of value (again, its value and allowance are, or can be, arguable).

In reference to the actual thread title, one of these pending changes, the data was only put in a week ago, and the contribution notes clearly state that this is being added and it was the only change made.  Seems a lot like ping-ponging to me, Anyway, just some food for thought.

-Agrare

Quoting Agrare:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Thinking about this... I think it all boils down to what you consider significant to mean. In this instance significant to me would be...

If the info being added is correct and follows the rules... than it is a significant contribution.

ok, by that definition any contribution would be significant because you shouldn't contribute wrong information or something that doesn't follow the rules.

I've always taken the significant statement to be a way to reduce the amount of contributions that Gerri needs to check that are only making a little\minor changes.

That's how I see it as well.
Let's say I notice  a single minor correction, for instance missing single quotes for one bold formatted name in the Overview, I would edit my local profile but I would wait for some wider audit before contributing it (I use a "To be contributed" tag as a reminder).
If I don't find anything else, then yes, I would contribute that small change alone.

Quote:
Yes it should hopefully get to the point where the profile is totally correct (or just about), and as other changes are made it may be necessary to make a small change (adding 1 missed actor or an extra to use your example) to correct the profile and nothing else needs to be done. In that case make the change, its the only way it will get in there, and it 'completes' the profile so I would say that is significant.

Yep. I don't think we are not allowed small changes, but I take it as a recommendation not to make too small contributions, whenever possible.

Quote:

I think the meaning however is pretty clear if you read the whole part of the rule and not just a paraphrase

Quote:
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.

To me, that rule (statement) isn't talking about not adding a single actor or even consolidating your many small contributions into one larger one, though thats not a bad idea if possible to make Gerri's life easier (if she has less to contributions to check, logic would follow that she could more easily avoid making errors when evaluating the profile). It specifically says unnecessary changes, and they are highlighted in the rules. It doesn't say you can't make them, it just says that if you make them, they should be part of a larger update. I wouldn't call adding a missing actor or feature an unnecessary change.

You are probably right, the only example is about unnecessary changes and the Rule then goes on talking about unnecessary changes, but from the first statement "Make sure your contributions add significant value to the database." I also gather that consolidating your many small contributions into one larger one is a good idea...   
Well, at the end of the day we are saying pretty much the same thing, aren't we?

Quote:
But all this isn't even the topic of the post and my impression with why Pauls42 even brought it up was to make the point that making a contribution that only removes data that 'arguably' isn't forbidden by the rules is a waste of time for voters and screeners as its not really adding anything of value (rather its taking away something of value (again, its value and allowance are, or can be, arguable).

In reference to the actual thread title, one of these pending changes, the data was only put in a week ago, and the contribution notes clearly state that this is being added and it was the only change made.  Seems a lot like ping-ponging to me, Anyway, just some food for thought.

-Agrare

Agree. Seems like ping-ponging to me as well, and that's why I started this thread in the first place.

Quoting skipnet50:
[...]

Quote:
relax and let's see if we can get an answer. I'll let you know how it shakes out.

Skip

I just hope you will relax yourself and live with it if the proposed removals are declined.