| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Darxon: Quote:
A lot of the data you submit is correct, I'll give you that, but in your case, I can't believe a single word you write in your notes because you admitted to lying in your notes. That creates a lot of extra work on the part of those casting votes, as your notes and your character can't be trusted and your data absolutely has to be crosschecked. There are a lot of users I know to work correctly and to their best knowledge, you are not one of them. I appreciate that you try to ensure objectivity. You want to speak about trustworthiness? Okay, on the 19th of August I contributed 17 profile-corrections, they got 0 (!) no-votes, all were released. On the 13th of September I contributed 23 profile-corrections ( about one you certainly could discuss), declined were 7 (!), here some examples: Spider-Man (+Booklet): 30 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED, Spider-Man 2 (+Booklet): 31 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED, Spiel mir das Lied vom Tod (+Subtitles): 27 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED, Team America - World Police(+Outtakes): 23 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED. Does that seem right to you? You really want to tell me something about credibility here, or an functioning voting-system? Think again. Quote:
This is probably not what you intended to achieve with your posts originally, but that's the situation you're in right now. Maybe you should try to rebuild your reputation and trustworthiness amongst your peers first before attempting your 1000 contributions per month run... I already made that decision some days ago, my last contributions ever will be the 17 from the 14th of September. Now the Funny-No-Voters rincewind, SpaceFreakMicha and Lexxx work for me again, like it was before, but boys, a little more accuracy in your future contributions, please! | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Wasserglas: Quote:
You want to speak about trustworthiness? Okay, on the 19th of August I contributed 17 profile-corrections, they got 0 (!) no-votes, all were released.
On the 13th of September I contributed 23 profile-corrections ( about one you certainly could discuss), declined were 7 (!), Most of the time a single No vote, with valid reason will be enough to get a Decline because so many people Vote Yes without checking and even a single No vote is enough to make the screeners look at the reason for it and see if they agree. It's happened to me quite a few times, and to prove it is often with good reason, I had an 18 Yes, 1 No recently which I withdrew because there certainly was a contentious issue with it that I hadn't considered and I wanted to get it discussed before continuing even though I could possibly have got it through. FWIW the Screeners also take into account past contribution history and, possibly, what has been said on these Forums so by brazenly stating you sometimes lie about the source and having been caught out is it any wonder you have put yourself in a position that the Screeners are not likely to give you the benefit of the doubt if more reputable voters give a good reason to vote No? | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 742 |
| | Posted: | | | | @Wasserglas:
I don't have to think again on this matter, and it doesn't matter if it's fair your contributions got shot down or not or if the declines were justified or not. However, the voting system works perfectly, and your contributions are fine examples of the system working. If a source is unreliable - for whatever reason - and the vote says so, it's up to the screeners to decide. And apparently, in case of some of your contributions, the screeners shared the opinion voiced by individual users, that the contribution lacked sufficient documentation or was just flat out wrong (which seems unlikely with the examples you provided, agreed).
You seem not to understand that you yourself are responsible for shattering the initial trust this community regards every new user with. You were the one proclaiming and advising others to just enter "All data from DVD" to get contributions through even though the data was not obtained by using this source. Your first effort after this discussion ensued should have been an attempt to rebuild your reputation and trust. Not by submitting correct profiles, but by addressing the issue of mistrust you brought unto yourself. Unfortunately, you either did not deem this necessary or simply refuse to do so because you still believe your course of action to be correct.
While it is kind of sad that you decide not to try to improve the db in the future, as long as you have no intention of nullifying the proclamation you made before, it's probably better this way, as it saves your peers the task of crosschecking your contributions to make sure they are indeed what they claim to be: on par with the cited source. | | | | Lutz | | | | Last edited: by Darxon |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Wasserglas: Quote:
Quoting Darxon:
Quote:
A lot of the data you submit is correct, I'll give you that, but in your case, I can't believe a single word you write in your notes because you admitted to lying in your notes. That creates a lot of extra work on the part of those casting votes, as your notes and your character can't be trusted and your data absolutely has to be crosschecked. There are a lot of users I know to work correctly and to their best knowledge, you are not one of them.
I appreciate that you try to ensure objectivity.
You want to speak about trustworthiness? Okay, on the 19th of August I contributed 17 profile-corrections, they got 0 (!) no-votes, all were released.
On the 13th of September I contributed 23 profile-corrections ( about one you certainly could discuss), declined were 7 (!), here some examples: Spider-Man (+Booklet): 30 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED, Spider-Man 2 (+Booklet): 31 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED, Spiel mir das Lied vom Tod (+Subtitles): 27 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED, Team America - World Police(+Outtakes): 23 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED.
Does that seem right to you? You really want to tell me something about credibility here, or an functioning voting-system? Think again.
Quote:
This is probably not what you intended to achieve with your posts originally, but that's the situation you're in right now. Maybe you should try to rebuild your reputation and trustworthiness amongst your peers first before attempting your 1000 contributions per month run...
I already made that decision some days ago, my last contributions ever will be the 17 from the 14th of September.
Now the Funny-No-Voters rincewind, SpaceFreakMicha and Lexxx work for me again, like it was before, but boys, a little more accuracy in your future contributions, please! Wassenglass: One reason for what you noticed is that Darxon probably has established a high level of credibility with his work, which from my POV is very high quality. And you have noticed within the user community have established yourself to be a user with very low credibility. Now given a Contribution that has no votes at all, or even something that gets a single NO vote a user with LOW cred has a problem. This is NOT about Democracy and vote counts, Iit Takes JUST a single user to find a mistake in your work that NEEDS to be corrected and should be declined. Here is my suggestion for you: Be HONEST in your notes, first and foremost. If you say you used the film credits per the Rules, then that had better be what isfound in a subsequent check....yes some of us do look at such things. If you are found out to have been less than honest...it will cost you. Follow the Rules. As Darxon has pointed out, we don't trust you work, when I see your work come down the pipe, I put it under a microscope. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
Oh my, you don't understand, my friend.<sigh>
Skip 
Oh my, YOU don't understand, my friend.<sigh>
Yves I don't understand either of you! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,279 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Wasserglas: Quote:
Quote:
What I learned from TigiHof before was, that 'we' apparently misuse 'our' contribution votes to agitate against other user's contributions.
[typo, sorry:]
What I learned from TigiHof beforewas, that 'we' apparently misuse 'our' contribution notes to agitate against other user's contributions. There's an edit button on forum posts, the pencil and paper next to the speech marks. | | | | IVS Registered: January 2, 2002 |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 48 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Wasserglas: Quote:
On the 13th of September I contributed 23 profile-corrections ( about one you certainly could discuss), declined were 7 (!), here some examples: Spider-Man (+Booklet): 30 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED, Spider-Man 2 (+Booklet): 31 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED, Spiel mir das Lied vom Tod (+Subtitles): 27 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED, Team America - World Police(+Outtakes): 23 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED.
And what were the reasons for the NO votes? |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,774 |
| | Posted: | | | | Wow, I never knew how much impact my voting has on the screeners...  |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | And he bring the spot on himself for the screener. It's just like if a person call the newspaper saying that he will broke the church window and the police arrest him if he stand in front of it with a bat.
"hey I didn't do anything!"
"yes, but you said you will. Get in the car and think next time" |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kulju: Quote:
Quoting Wasserglas:
Quote:
If I look back at the last 200, 300 contributions from September I have added or corrected Countries of Origin, Titles, Original Titles, Editions, Regions, Audio Tracks, Audio Formats, Subtitles, Overviews AND Case Type, Features and Other Features.
What am I missing here? You talk about 200-300 LAST contributions and in opening post near thousand contributions, still you have only 153 accepted contributions?? Would you admit that a little touch of subtle irony in the initial 'Four-Thousand-Contributions'-posting is within the realms of possibility? Today, of course, I understand that in a place, where we discuss the correct position of a punctuation mark in a DVD-Overview, irony is not appropriate, so I solemnly swear to never practise any again. | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Wassen:
Instead of worrying about things like irony. You MIGHT try to concentrate on making your Contributions conform to the Rules so that they will get accepted by both voters and screeners. Right now, you are wating everyone's time, including your own, because we all know your reputation and your work gets a very hard look.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting MrTorso: Quote:
Quoting Wasserglas:
Quote:
On the 13th of September I contributed 23 profile-corrections ( about one you certainly could discuss), declined were 7 (!), here some examples: Spider-Man (+Booklet): 30 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED, Spider-Man 2 (+Booklet): 31 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED, Spiel mir das Lied vom Tod (+Subtitles): 27 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED, Team America - World Police(+Outtakes): 23 yes, 1 no-vote -> DECLINED.
And what were the reasons for the NO votes? You must not regard it as 'reasons', it were irrelevant questions like "which tool did you use to verify this?", "which tool did you use for checking this?", "from which part of the DVD did you take that information?", "what player did you use to check?", and so on. To straighten it out again, this is not about some questionable contributons with a few yes-men. This is about sabotage. First, and this should not be quiet irrelevant, we talk about correct contributions with correct source (197 approved contributions should give you a hint). Then we talk about the fact, that each of, for example, the last 10 1-no-vote declinations has had (an average of) 20 yes-votes. And we talk about that the lonesomely no-voters (SpaceFreakMicha or Lexxx) had absolutely no argument against the contributions, just the above mentioned 'questions'. Please consider, that each and everyone of these wrong decisions by the screener is a punch in the face of 20 from our german locality users, who made the effort to control and value the contribution. For I do not want to exploit single persons here, for an example the full list of a 27:1-Funny-No-Vote declination: hydr0x, ust, Fulci1978, DaMikstar, Salvus, Ceyda, Elwood+Blues, ClausGP, Peter+von+Frosta, Bommel, Flapman, AiAustria, Distra, Reihnold, Evo2Me, Snoopy_7, richi4u, topbaer.de, hmeusel, lynx, fourfingers, DragonMa, Schranzoid, Darxon, ydnic, kahless, nimrod85 Everybody can judge for himself, whether these participants have such a bad reputation around here that it is right for the screener to follow the one counter-'argument' from Lexxx: "which tool did you use to verify this?" | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 5,734 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting SpaceFreakMicha: Quote:
Wow, I never knew how much impact my voting has on the screeners... I read you have had credibility, can't confirm this by myself. However, you (and Lexxx) have become dishonorable Funny-No-Voters. Just for the fun of it. With this disservice to our project you both have disqualified yourselves, go away. | | | | Don't confuse while the film is playing with when the film is played. [Ken Cole, DVD Profiler Architect] |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 1,380 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Wasserglas: Quote:
You must not regard it as 'reasons', it were irrelevant questions like "which tool did you use to verify this?", "which tool did you use for checking this?", "from which part of the DVD did you take that information?", "what player did you use to check?", and so on. SpaceFreakMicha is violating the voting rules. Just because someone is violating the rules, doesnt mean you can too. The "source" in contribution notes has gone to ridiculous levels. The ONLY time Wasserglas has to provide more detailed explanation is, if hes changing cast/crew, he has verified there is a discrepancy between the box and the actual content of the DVD, he is making a subtle change that may be hard to spot or he is removing incorrect information. The way i see it, that wasnt the case. | | | | Last edited: by whispering |
| | Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Wasserglas:
The reason why you need to state the source (and thus answer questions that seem "irrelevant" to you, like "from which part of the DVD did you take that information?") is that it helps others (Voters and Screeners) to verify if 1) you used a valid source and 2) the source says what you say it says. | | | | -- Enry |
|   | Berak | | Bibamus morieundum est! |
| Registered: May 10, 2007 |  Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't see the problem with extensively stating your sources when contributing. (I state a source for each section I change/correct - often repeating myself along the way with info like; DVDInfo Pro, Taken from Film's credits and so forth..) Ok - it takes a few more seconds to put down your contribution notes, but in the long run it gives invaluable info when someone in the future comes along and wants to do a full audit. In my opinion there is no such thing as too much information....  | | | Berak
It's better to burn out than to fade away!
True love conquers all! |
|
|