Quote:
Very interesting!  I recently submitted contributions updating the profiles for three Region 3 DVD releases of Shaw Brothers movies. 

I note today that they have been declined on the basis that I did not provide the source of the information I inserted, which seems to relate to cast and crew. 

IN fact, my Contribution Notes for all three noted the source, CINEMASIE. 

I can accept that a panel member might not recognise the name.  But, it seems to me, an email to check the reference would have more easily resolved the matter than outright rejection.

Not that it worries me. 

I am happy to contribute from time-to-time as the quid pro quo for the Profiles I download.  I do my best to follow the rules and, if my contributions do not conform for some reason, then I expect rejection. 

If they are not wanted so be it!  But on one uninformed vote?

Quote:
This is not a wink wink, nudge nudge "rule".  We do not want IMDB data, or data from any third party database, entered into DVD Profiler.  The reason for this is that they have invested much time and money (as we have) into generating and maintaining their database.  Copying their database is theft.  If that weren't enough reason, third party databases routinely spike their data with "poison" data - false data designed to identify and prove cases of theft.

The requirement for naming the source is not designed to allow Invelos plausible deniability.  If the submitted data came from the IMDB or another source, we need to know that so we may properly decline the submission.  Falsely stating the source of data in an attempt to bypass this will result in an immediate and permanent ban from contributing.

Quote:
The only frustration I have, is when an image contribution is declined, despite there being up to a 20-1 yes vote.
As it is basically a subjective element of a profile, surely such a great majority should dictate that it is a preferable image?
But it appears the screener/autobot follows the 1 no vote.

Frustrated 

Quote:
Quoting kahless:

Quote:

You remember my 1st answer to you at the beginning of this thread? Take it easy! 

Well, in fact I knew that from the beginning, since I've read many topics in these forums.
I just regret that it seems impossible to have a quiet discussion where everybody tries to understand the arguments of the other party.

I have personnally no problem, I'm very happy with dvdprofiler. But I think the system is going wrong and I tried without any success to alert about it.

Thank you for your support 

Quote:
I think that this is being blown out of proportion. This thread is not about following the rules or not following the rules, it's about proportionate response. If you have a profile that is 'owned' by 1000 people, you might expect more updates and challenges to get the information right and the application of very strict rules becomes important. If, however, you have a profile that is 'owned' by only 10 people and possibly only two people who will ever contribute to it, then you need to be more realistic about the quality of information you're likely to get and the level of scrutiny you can apply. As has been said more than once, some information is better than none!

As for alternatives, I think the argument is that the 'new', hard-line is a change, and the alternative is simply to go back to what it was before. And what was before? The voting systems! If you have a well maintained profile that may expect 100 votes on a change, chances are that profile is going to adhere well to the rules because of the amount of scrutiny it is put under. If you have a less owned profile which may attract only three or four votes and only two or three changes in its lifetime (e.g. vast swathes of minority interest and non-R1 profiles), you tend to be less discerning.

Quote:
My concern (and it would seem, many others) is that the submissions I make (which rarely contain more than a few words of contributions notes) will receive single-figure yes votes and no no votes, but will now be rejected where it wasn't in the past. I.e. that balance of credibility has moved further away from the voting systems and towards the nameless, faceless bots.

Quote:
I think the argument is not to do with the detail or the strictness of the rules, but that their implementation in a given circumtance is best suited to a jury of the submision's peers.

Quote:
I'll put it another way.

We tried it without rules and the DB was a complete mess regardless of the number of arguments in the forums. We have just as many arguments now but the DB is much better.