Well, I remain convinced that "most-credited form" can only refer to the number of different credits, not the total number of profiles. Any interpretation that may succeed declaring a name variant that is only used three times out of 21 different credits to be the "common" one, is utterly ridiculous, IMHO. In my experience both the vast majority of the voters AND the screeners share my interpretation of the term "most-credited form", and until Ken tells me otherwise, that's the way I'll work.

Again, in my experience, the users that I regularly see working at correctly linking cast and crew entries, the ones that are actually concerned about accurate data, those users do all seem to know how to correctly pick the most "common" variant out of 18 "Bobby Jacoby" credits vs. 3 "Robert Jayne" credits. I can't help noticing that the conflicting opinion mostly seems to come from those that tend to talk a lot, but don't actually do much of this kind of work. Don't misunderstand me on this: nobody's required to do anything, obviously, and I'm certainly not keeping score - I'm just always a bit wary of users whose post count is higher than their number of approved contributions. I am that way in real life as well: I like people who actually get things done, as opposed the ones that mostly just talk about it. So if all the "doers" and the screeners apparently share my interpretation of what "most-credited" means, I'm not going to keep spending time on convincing a few of the "talkers". There's just too little to gain.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank CubbyUps for quickly withdrawing his "Robert Jayne [Bobby Jacoby]" updates. By now, a number of incorrect, IMDb-mined "Robert Jayne" entries have been fixed, so that "Bobby Jacoby" currently not only has the vast majority of the credits (again: 18 vs. only 3 !!), but also, despite the huge number of 'Pearl Harbor' copies, the largest total number of profiles. That should end the debate for this particular example, although I'm sure we'll be doing this all over again real soon, like we usually do.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I'm just always a bit wary of users whose post count is higher than their number of approved contributions. I am that way in real life as well: I like people who actually get things done, as opposed the ones that mostly just talk about it. So if all the "doers" and the screeners apparently share my interpretation of what "most-credited" means, I'm not going to keep spending time on convincing a few of the "talkers". There's just too little to gain.

I resent those comments in your last post. I even contemplated a red arrow for a while.
So you're saying that someone who doesn't contribute as much as you do isn't allowed to disagree with you or shouldn't have as much of a say? 

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I'm just always a bit wary of users whose post count is higher than their number of approved contributions. I am that way in real life as well: I like people who actually get things done, as opposed the ones that mostly just talk about it. So if all the "doers" and the screeners apparently share my interpretation of what "most-credited" means, I'm not going to keep spending time on convincing a few of the "talkers". There's just too little to gain.

I resent those comments in your last post. I even contemplated a red arrow for a while.
So you're saying that someone who doesn't contribute as much as you do isn't allowed to disagree with you or shouldn't have as much of a say? 

It probably should just have gone unmentioned.  The bottom line is if all the folks who are actually contributing seem to have tacitly agreed to use titles, it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks...in a practical sense, that is.  It's pretty much self-evident.