Meanwhile in a galaxy far, far away....

Looking over the name of those who voted yes and those who voted no, I looked for names of those who I have on my "Smart People" list - a list of those I feel know their schitt and consistently put forth good contributions and contribution votes - half of them voted yes, the other half voted no.  Clean right down the middle.

However, there are more names I recognize for contribution voters on the Yes side than on the No side.

Then there's the couple who always vote yes.  They're special.

Just sayin'

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
Meanwhile in a galaxy far, far away....

Looking over the name of those who voted yes and those who voted no, I looked for names of those who I have on my "Smart People" list - a list of those I feel know their schitt and consistently put forth good contributions and contribution votes - half of them voted yes, the other half voted no.  Clean right down the middle.

However, there are more names I recognize for contribution voters on the Yes side than on the No side.

[...]

I noticed that even among the Yes voters there's one who is not happy with ping-ponging.

However, I also noticed the same as you did, about the Yes voters.
But I remember a discussion not long ago about "partial contributions of fields", where some of the users I trust the most objected to partial contributions and seemed to think there was some sort of policy against them. Then came Gerri and said there was no such a thing.
I mean, the best contributors are somewhat perfectionists. That's very good for accuracy, but it can sometimes lead to overdoing, for instance wanting to remove something that arguably isn't forbidden, as others put it, and has just been approved. The pursuit of a "perfect" database is all very well and good, but if it's taken to the extremes can lead to problems like ping-ponging, and that's no good.
IMO.

Note that I said in my opinion that is what I consider significant. What I consider significant could be totally different compared to what the next person feels is significant... and I have no way to gage what Invelos will consider significant (other then the couple of examples they gave) or not... so all I can do is try to put it through to see.... in the case of reordering something.... that is not in my opinion significant since all the info is already there per the rules and the data. So that isn't something that I consider significant.

What I am saying is you can't put something in the rules to say it has to be a certain size submission... or there will be good data that can't be added when there is nothing else to fix to go with it.

Now... when I do a submission I check all the fields I am comfortable with submitting to (most the fields)... if I see more then 1 thing I fix them all as needed... but if I see only 1 thing that I am comfortable with fixing... I don't hesitate to fix it and put it through. And that is something I never had any problems with before... all my contributions goes through just fine with the way I been doing it.

So while I think it is a good thing to encourage everyone to check over all the fields they feel comfortable with when contributing... I can't see there being a rule that so much has to be done to contribute.

Quoting tarantino:

Quote:

Finally... the change has been declined yesterday.
However, I don't think, it was a screener "decision"... Any contribution with so many No votes is likely to be declined, whatever the screener think of the change.

Agree. But ping-pongs on arguable issues get No votes, don't they? 
I'll bet the Screeners themselves are not very fond of ping-pongs on freshly approved data, especially on issues that are not totally black or white in the Rules and are thus subject to some interpretation and personal preferences. If someone has a "strategy" in order to have his way in the online db, that will end up almost certainly in a waste of time and energy.