Gerri:

My view as a Contributor is as I stated. Anything datafield I Contribute will be as completeand accurate as I can make it at that point in time (obviously pre-releases bring their own interesting issues). I do those out of consideration for every other user in the Community...but that's me. I also recognize that at least in terms of cast and crew, some user might not be interested in Sound AT ALL...so I bite my lip and add it.

My objective in a perfect world and i am not perfect, is to set it up once and not have to touch  again until ken makes the next set of program mods which might call for some new things. Unfortunately i am not a good typist, so there are occassional typos in what i do, but not as often as forum writing.

Like I said that's just me and the philosophy my father taught me. Do it right or don't do it at all...don't leave it for someone else to clean up. This is also why I correct errors even if there is ONLY one No, if some one catches a mistake why should I ignore and leave it for them to correct just because everyone else missed it.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Gerri Cole:

Quote:

So is there anything wrong with only contributing part of the overview - if there isn't one there to begin with?

I think there is.  It creates more work for everybody else.

Prior to this new policy, I could tell...at a glance...which fields needed to be contributed.  If the profile didn't include an overview, I knew I had to contribute one.  If it didn't have a cast list or crew credits, I knew I had to contribute them.  I didn't need to do anything more than download the profile and I knew.

Under this new policy, I will have to look at the contribution notes for every profile I add to my collection.  If I don't, I will not know whether or not the overview is complete.  I will not know whether or not the cast list is complete.  If I have to verify that each section of a profile is complete, why do I need an online db?  I might as well just enter all the data myself.

I understand that not everybody wants to do a full and complete audit.  But, if you are going to contribute the cast list, why not contribute the entire thing?  If you are going to contribute the overview, why not contribute the entire overview?  If I have to go behind you and complete the job, what value has it given me?  None as now, not only do I have to finish the job, but I have to make sure that your part is correct as well.  As I said, I might as well just do the whole thing myself. 

Given the number of short, incomplete or just plain wrong overviews I've corrected, you really need to to be doing this already.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

And I appreciate it.  Maybe it is just me, but when I do a job I do a complete job.  I do not understand the concept of doing half a job and leaving the rest for someone else and I do not understand a policy that allows for that.  But, again, maybe it is just me. 

As Gerri said, that's the policy now, not a "new road", so nothing would change.

As to the reasons, I think there are distinct situations:

-Cast & Crew: entering the complete Cast & Crew can be a long work, that's why some users just submit a partial contribution. Besides, many users are interested to know the Director and the Writer but not the Sound crew, with all those complex roles.
So, do I prefer the complete Crew? Of course I do. But then, do I prefer a blank Crew or a partial Crew? I'd say the latter.
Not to mention TV series, where the complete Cast & Crew for all episodes is not a piece of cake for anybody!

-Overviews: I don't think that there are people who deliberately contribute a partial Overview, I've never seen such a thing. But, it can happen that you copy the entire Overview and you miss a tiny bit, let's say a "TM". Again, do I prefer a perfectly complete Overview? Of course I do. But do I prefer a blank field or the Overview with a missing "TM", that I can easily add? I'd say the latter.

-Other fields: when I audit a profile, I check everything anyway. If, let's say, someone entered nine languages and omitted the tenth, I will add the missing one, and I think it's easier than adding ten languages from scatch. Same goes for features and other fields.

Quoting Gerri Cole:

Quote:
So is there anything wrong with only contributing part of the overview - if there isn't one there to begin with?

No, it isn't.

While it clearly is not an ideal way to do things, it is still better than to have no data at all. Not all DVDs are blockbuster releases where ten or more people stumble over each other to submit data.

I only can repeat myself: If a contribution improves a profile, it should be accepted. If it only adds partial data (and doesn't introduce blatantly wrong data), so be it. From your posts in this thread, as well as from statements you and Ken have made in the past, I always gathered that the overall improvement of a profile was the main objective. I wouldn't have thought that this needs to be spilled out more clearly in the rules, but apparently I was wrong.

I'm sure you're experiencing a completely different take on the accuracy of contributions.

But judging from my experience with now 1900+ titles, I don't really recall encountering an overview being incomplete without a possible argument regarding the "missing" part being a review, a tagline or some other stuff printed on the back not belonging to the synopsis of the movie contained.

I also don't remember cast lists that were incompletely done that did NOT get barraged with 'no' votes from the users with a keen interest in these fields, and only very rarely do I remember such updates showing up in my queue.

And I don't remeber anyone in these forums claiming an incomplete field with deliberately left out information was a contribution conforming to the rules.

Even Pantheon's contribution that started this discussion was an extraordinary case and only brought to the forum's attention because of the aberrance from the normal layout.

But like I always said, this is your (yours and Ken's) baby. You're the ones deciding which way this thing will go. If I don't like the way it is too much anymore in the future, I'll just drop by a little less. No harm done.

some of this has been touched on by others but my thoughts:

Partial contributions, in the sense that the entire section (section being one part that is grouped together by a check box on the contribution screen) is not complete, lend themselves better in some areas than others.

This exremist point of view that the opponents to these type of partial contributions are taken can easily be reversed, and i have done it in the other two discussions that this one stemed from, and will give some more examples here. For instance, any simiple typo, wrong common name, or even different interpretation (the whole are footnotes part of the overview anyone?) would then be seen as an partial/incomplete/wrong contribution. So should be voted no. well if the overview is completely accurate except I typed teh instead of the should that be declined? ok, you'll say I should fix it, and i would, but not eveyone checks their contributions (i do as i like to know the status and make sure its approved). but say i contribute that teh spelling error and then go on vacation and can't check so don't correct it. Is it really more work for someone to simply recontribute it correcting teh to the after it gets accepted? No its not, the only person its more work for is Gerri who has to check every contribution (thats a whole lot more profiles than even the top 10 people with the biggest collections combined) and she seems to be fine with it.

Give Gerri some credit, if someone contributes every other word of an overview, its going to get noticed. And i would think that Gerri would decline it because she seems like a resonable person to me. But based on principle, I would expect one of you vehement no voters, who are so opposed to these wrong contributions, to submit it correctly yourself.

As far as it creating more work, this was also addressed (by me and others) in the two threads that spawned this. To put it simply, it takes a lot less time to verify information than enter it. So any information, as long as its not 100% wrong, is better than no information. Thats also the point of a user created database: "Many hands make little work". By the attitudes of some people here, I am suprised that you would accept any data as 100% correct/complete unless you verified it yourself. So much talk about full audits, you people must spend all your time checking your collections profiles for accuracy rather than enjoying your collection. Why are you doing audits in the first place unless its to verify that the data is correct. If the data is correct, are you checking off the online locks?, if not all your hard work is going to waste. Sure you probably lock your local, but your high and mighty attitude of 'for the greater good' becomes complete horse s**t.

I think everyone is so obssessed with disagreeing with each other that you refuse to work together to come up with answers. And I can come up with a pretty simple answer. why not just a section on partial contributions where it states, (something along the lines of) if you are only contributing partial data make note of that in your contribution notes (so it is available for the next persons reference).

-Agrare

p.s. Sorry about the harsh language towards the end. I fully expect to get my first red arrow(s) for this post. But I firmly believe in what I said and as my parents taught me, you need to stand up for what you believe in (as well as, if you want a job done right you gotta do it yourself).

p.s.s. Gerri, I would just like to say thanks. I appreciate all the hard work you (and Ken) must put into this program/site/databse and you probably don't get the credit your deserve. If I may make a minor request however, it would be that you comment on some of these discussion (as they sometimes tend to go on way longer than necessary) and incorporate the resultes into the rules. Though as a programmer myself (also one man on a full size application) I fully understand that you are not able to devote time to every problem/issue as soon as it comes up.