| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:
Quote:
If so, you are forcing contributors to do full audits on cast lists which is NOT part of the contribution rules.
I respectfully disagree.
The Rules say to enter the cast list exactly as they appear in the credits.
Entering a partial list does not meet the requirements of that Rule. The rules state: "For any film with standard credits, take the actor information from the end credits only, with names and roles listed exactly as they are in the credits and in exactly the same order credited." Where does it say that ALL the cast must be added? It doesn't. If someone adds 3 entries from the end credits they have met the requirement set out in the rules. If the rules stated "ALL cast from end credits MUST be added to the profile as they appear" then that would be a different matter entirely. When I vote on a contribution I vote based on what I can see - not what I WANT to see. Ok, so if someone submits a partial cast then I usually think "Why didn't you do the rest"; but I don't vote NO as that would be wrong. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Come on!
"..exactly as they are in the credits and exactly in the same order credited"
Most reasonable people would agree that the definition of "exactly" means they must be complete in order to be "exact".
If all the cast is not listed then they are NOT "exactly as they are in the credits".
It does not say "...of the ones you pick and choose to add from the credits, they must be exactly as they are in the credits....." | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | yes I do think it is against the rules as the very first thing the rules say for credits is... Quote:
Take Crew Credits from the film credits only; list names exactly as they are in the credits. Exception: If the credit information is entirely capitalized, use standard capitalization rules instead. bold by me... So if a contribution does not list all the credited names in the list then the names are not listed exactly as they are credited. There will be omissions and the names will not be in the correct order. So they are definitely not exactly as credited. That is how I interpret the rule... and how I base my contributions and my votes. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 742 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Where does it say that someone has to add ALL the cast. Exactly there (bold added by me for emphasis): Quote:
The rules state: "For any film with standard credits, take the actor information from the end credits only, with names and roles listed exactly as they are in the credits and in exactly the same order credited." You can't list the names and roles exactly as they are in the credits if you don't enter all of them. If you do, you create an abbreviated version of the end credits, that - in its abbreviated form - is correct and a copy of the credits listing, but does not qualify as an exact reproduction of the cast list available. You wouldn't call an excerpt from a book (like the first couple of chapters of a writer's newest soon-to-be-released work included at the end of the one you're reading now) an exact copy of the writer's work, now would you? It's quite the same regarding shortened cast lists, an exact copy is only achieved if you're copying everything. And yes, that does mean a submission for cast must include everyone listed in the end credits. Otherwise it's incomplete and does not comply with the rules. | | | | Lutz | | | | Last edited: by Darxon |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | So, following on from the last few posts....am I correct in thinking that it is ok to vote NO to any contribution that has missing information in ANY of the required fields?
So - if there are cast missing vote NO?! (No more pre-release cast lists then as they are invariably incomplete and NOT taken from the end credits).
So - if there are subtitles, audio tracks, crew missing then vote NO?!
In effect do a full audit on every profile...and if you don't, then don't contribute as you will get no votes?
Don't get me wrong, I personally don't agree with any of the above. I will fill in everything in a field/profile as per the rules (and my interpretation of the rules).
I think it is unfair to expect everyone to do a full audit. If someone adds information that is correct and taken from the disc/credits then to vote NO is surely against the rules. | | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | No, a full audit is not required, just complete and accurate data for the fields that you check the box to contribute. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Come on! Most reasonable people If that is meant to imply that I am being unreasonable then please rest assured that on this particular issue I am merely playing devil's advocate. Do not make this personal. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
No, a full audit is not required, just complete and accurate data for the fields that you check the box to contribute. Which contradicts: "So - if there are cast missing vote NO?! (No more pre-release cast lists then as they are invariably incomplete and NOT taken from the end credits)." I think what you're saying is this: If you're not going to add all the cast then don't add any at all. Is that what you meant? | | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Once again what your opinion of a full audit is.. is not what everyone's opinion of a full audit is. I think it is fair to say (from posts here... and previous threads) that most people see full audits as every field being completed... not as a complete audit on each field. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Once again what your opinion of a full audit is.. is not what everyone's opinion of a full audit is. I think it is fair to say (from posts here... and previous threads) that most people see full audits as every field being completed... not as a complete audit on each field. My opinion on what a full audit is, is this: Every possible piece of information has been added to the profile. Meaning that, barring human error, the next person doesn't have to submit further amendments to the profile. And, following your final statement: "not a complete audit on each field" then adding a partial cast list would be acceptable. Am I misreading your statement? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
No, a full audit is not required, just complete and accurate data for the fields that you check the box to contribute.
Which contradicts: "So - if there are cast missing vote NO?! (No more pre-release cast lists then as they are invariably incomplete and NOT taken from the end credits)." I agree... as I have seen others agree that cast lists on prereleases shouildn't be done. that the cast lists should wait till you have the movie/show in hand. But at the same time it is possible if you have a previous release of the movie/show or if it is a show you record to have access to the cast list that way... so I won't say it is impossible to have. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
Once again what your opinion of a full audit is.. is not what everyone's opinion of a full audit is. I think it is fair to say (from posts here... and previous threads) that most people see full audits as every field being completed... not as a complete audit on each field.
My opinion on what a full audit is, is this: Every possible piece of information has been added to the profile. Meaning that, barring human error, the next person doesn't have to submit further amendments to the profile.
And, following your final statement: "not a complete audit on each field" then adding a partial cast list would be acceptable. Am I misreading your statement? you are definitely misreading me I completely believe that if you check a box to contribute to a field then if that particular is missing info or has wrong info.. that field is wrong and voters do have the right to vote no with that reasoning. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:
Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
Once again what your opinion of a full audit is.. is not what everyone's opinion of a full audit is. I think it is fair to say (from posts here... and previous threads) that most people see full audits as every field being completed... not as a complete audit on each field.
My opinion on what a full audit is, is this: Every possible piece of information has been added to the profile. Meaning that, barring human error, the next person doesn't have to submit further amendments to the profile.
And, following your final statement: "not a complete audit on each field" then adding a partial cast list would be acceptable. Am I misreading your statement?
you are definitely misreading me I completely believe that if you check a box to contribute to a field then if that particular is missing info or has wrong info.. that field is wrong and voters do have the right to vote no with that reasoning. Ok...so what you're saying is this. You don't have to complete EVERY field in a profile.....but, if you do, THAT field must contain fully audited information. Is that correct? If I am correct (and I think that's possibly what Hal was getting at too) then I've obviously been WAY too lenient in my voting. Do you think this is unfair on contributors? It is forcing them to add all information for any given field which they may not want (and, yes, I realise they could delete it later; but that's hardly the point). Sound crew is a good example of this. I see numerous contributions where every EXCEPT the sound crew has been added; simply because the contributor didn't want that information. More importantly, the rest of their contribution is correct. I simply don't understand this 'all or nothing' attitude. Ok - well everything seems clearer now. And, I think I know where you're all coming from. I will continue to vote based on the information presented and not some unreasonable expectations. And don't worry....I won't be submitting any more updates for Bewitched  |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | From my point of view it will be imposibble to ever complete full cast and crew lists if users do not want to cooperate with eachother. If you can take the time to check what the contributor may have forgotten or intentionally left out of those lists, how hard can it be to complete them yourselves once the contribution has been accepted. It's not a building must be build by one man, because the rest only want to help if he completed most of it by himself. We have to work together people, it's not a competition who's the best in understanding the rules. They are made to avoid discussions not to create them. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Sounds like you are understanding me now.
Now I don't do or vote on crew myself... so I don't particularly have an opinion on that matter.. but from what I understand since the crew in profiler is broken up into sections it seems that some say it is ok to do just the sections of the crew. I don't know if I agree I haven't even taken a very long look at the edit crew section. But I can see where they are coming from there. And this is something we do not have with cast. There is no sections that you can pick and choose which section to work on.
I will say this... I personally always do complete field additions when I contribute to a field. If there is something I personally do not agree with the rules on I will do it by the rules and then change it locally afterward. I do this because I want to contribute the information... and because that is how I understand it to be done. So no I don't think it is unfair.. as I actually think it is the way it is meant to be done.
It in my case is not an all or nothing attitude. The way I see how I am voting is if I see an error/info missing I will vote no with given reason. As I believe that if info is missing it can't be correct. From there it is up to the screeners if there is enough new info to approve the contribution with either info missing or minor errors. And yes.. I have seen this happen many times. My no vote is not saying no to the data that is there... but (what I believe to be the point of voting) bringing errors/missing info to the attention of the screeners. No more and no less then that. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Now I don't do or vote on crew myself... so I don't particularly have an opinion on that matter.. but from what I understand since the crew in profiler is broken up into sections it seems that some say it is ok to do just the sections of the crew. And this is something we do not have with cast. There is no sections that you can pick and choose which section to work on. 1. Not 'doing' a particular section should not mean that you don't vote on it. Following on from your previous statements - incorrect data is incorrect data; and therefore should get a NO vote. You don't have to want the information locally to be able to vote on it. 2. Yes, the crew can be broken down into sections; but the heading is still CREW. Therefore should be completed as a complete unit surely. Otherwise, the same argument could be used for TV shows - each episode is a 'unit' and therefore not all episodes have to be profiled (I obviously don't agree but I can see it being looked at that way). 3. By voting NO to information that is incomplete your are saying 'All or Nothing' to the contributor/screeners. The very fact you vote no is an indication that there is something 'wrong' with the data. And it is on this point we part company - someone can add a single name to cast list and I will vote yes if that name is taken from the credits and correctly formatted. As Martin stated - we all need to work together here; not hinder each other. I guess my viewpoint comes down to the fact that I personally audit every title I have; and never leave the work up to someone else to do. BUT - I am always grateful if someone else has done the majority of the work for me. So, if I come to a profile that is 50% done then that's 50% less work for me to do. I don't think that's how you and other people here view it. You're all 'glass half empty' kind of people I think!  | | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
|