Quote:
Quoting Giga Wizard:

Quote:
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
It also says "be sure to provide explanations where needed", so a user does not have to source his/her changes, with the exception of cast and crew, if he/she thinks it's not necessary.

it is marked in RED: "For all contributions, indicate the source of data, especially cast and crew additions."
I don't see anywhere an exeption where you should not comply to this. Additional you should provide explanations where needed. this is how i understand this.

The meaning of that sentence in the Rules is not very clear, to say the least.
"Especially" seems to contradict "all", unless you read it to mean that longer explanations are needed for Cast and Crew but some documentation is necessary for all data anyway.
It seems to me that the Screeners are strict on the documentation of Cast and Crew but not on other fields, so I guess that is the (sort of) "official" interpretation.
While I personally like well-documented contributions and try to do so myself, I don't see the Screeners ask users to document *everything*.
Again, I would love if all contributions were fully documented in every detail, but I also think a compromise is necessary if we want a large number of users to contribute and new users start contributing. Maybe that is not a concern for R1, where there are many contributors anyway, but it is a concern in other regions, where I see many empty profiles and few contributors.

Quote:
If you aren't talking about pre-release, then you have no argument. Ken and Gerri say to provide documenntation for your changes, especially cast and crew. You have watched me do this now for years, truts me, my friend it isn't hard.

Studios corrected per film credits

Runtime verified via PowerDVD and DVDDecrypter

Features updated and verified per Menus

Same with every field it isn't hard, I don't understand why you think it is.

It takes me maybe 5 minutes to type Contribution Notes and I document each and evrything I do.<shrugs>

Skip

Quote:
I have to agree with Skip on this one. I find it quite annoying when a contributor, in his/her contribution notes, states: "changed common name: Joe blow>Joesph Blow [Joe Blow]" without any documentation to validate the change and yet everyone votes yes and some voters, in their vote comments say "The CLT would seem to support this change: Joe Blow 10/23, Joseph Blow 59/101". While the change in itself may be valid, the contribution notes don't support it. The voters comments do not become part of the permanent profile record. IMO, I find it a bad practice on the part of the screeners to accept contributions based on voter comments like this when the contribution notes, when accepted, will only show the change made with no documentation. This sets a bad precedent.

Quote:
If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible.

Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
I have to agree with Skip on this one. I find it quite annoying when a contributor, in his/her contribution notes, states: "changed common name: Joe blow>Joesph Blow [Joe Blow]" without any documentation to validate the change and yet everyone votes yes and some voters, in their vote comments say "The CLT would seem to support this change: Joe Blow 10/23, Joseph Blow 59/101". While the change in itself may be valid, the contribution notes don't support it. The voters comments do not become part of the permanent profile record. IMO, I find it a bad practice on the part of the screeners to accept contributions based on voter comments like this when the contribution notes, when accepted, will only show the change made with no documentation. This sets a bad precedent.

How do you reconcile a "no" vote with this part of the Rules"?

Quoting The Rules:

Quote:
If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible.

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Giga Wizard:

Quote:
on the other side, you do your research on the changes you are propossing, so it's only a small step to document your changes with the source. This is very easily done:
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=136607&PageNum=LAST

Try updating a TV Season profile that has potentially hundreds of changes to it and then tell me how easy it is to provide sources in the notes for each and every change including a screenshot of every cast/crew change.  Not everyone has a place to even host images to add to the notes.

Insisting on this level of documentation is NOT in the best interest the database!

I did it all the time, hal.

Skip

Quote:
I still think it is shortsighted to deny correct data getting into the main database for lack of "adequate documentation".  If the data is right, it should be accepted, even if the "documentation is supplied by a voter.

What the heck is the goal here?  Getting good data into the main database, or accumulating supporting documentation? 

Quote:
This is interesting (aside from the personal bickering, which is not... ). Does good data go bad if the documentation is weak?

By Skip's reasoning, only a No vote can correct the submission, because without the documentation in the contribution notes does valid data become good enough to vote Yes on.

I understand the request (it must be a request, because of the "especially" in the rule) is to provide voters a way of evaluating the submission. Skip takes this a step beyond, stating that the contribution notes must be complete for evaluating already accepted data in the future... days, weeks, months, years from now.

Yet (please correct this if I've missed it), nowhere in the rules is there a demand for perfect contribution notes on every submission purely for archiving the documentation for every change.

Full documentation is good, and written into the rules. But is it there to aid voting or to record permanently if Amazon.com (or another website) supports with the submission?