| Registered: March 19, 2007 |  Posts: 700 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pauls42: Quote:
By your standards it sounds like we all need to get the dvd, put it into the computer and run dvd decryptor and check for ourselves. do you in that case? Yes I actually do if the profile is of inportance to me, else I wote neutral. Ofcourse there are easier contributions that don't need to be checked or if the contribution notes leeves no doubt, and there are a trusted contributor, I also wote without checking, but mostly all of the time I take the DVD down from the shelf. I also mostly check the actual cover when there is a new scan. (That said - there are not that many profile changes in Norwegian profiles that there is in the R1 market, I have about 90/10 I think but there are 50/50 in changes to vote) | | | | We are all at the same age, only at different time... |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 |  Posts: 823 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lmoelleb: Quote:
No, vote neutral. People seem to be greatly confused by the "neutral" vote... they seem to think it's an actual voting option, like the database actually tracks the "neutral" vote somehow. It doesn't. "Neutral" simply removes an existing vote, and also removes it from your personal list of "unvoted pending updates". | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Grendell: Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:
Quote:
No, vote neutral.
People seem to be greatly confused by the "neutral" vote... they seem to think it's an actual voting option, like the database actually tracks the "neutral" vote somehow. It doesn't. "Neutral" simply removes an existing vote, and also removes it from your personal list of "unvoted pending updates". I wasn't aware of that confusion. Maybe you assume people are confused without knowing for sure? And obviously the database track the neutral votes - it needs to in order to remove it from your personal list of "unvoted pending updates". But anyway it is completely irrelvant if people vote neutral or do not vote at all. I simply chose the shortest way of writing it instead of spending a full sentance on saying something that makes no difference. | | | Regards
Lars | | | | Last edited: by lmoelleb |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 347 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pauls42: Quote:
Quoting mwkirchner:
Quote:
This is how the back cover actually looked:
* Best Actor, Tender Mercies, 1983. <-- space after *, no () around date, period at end
** Best Director, Dances With Wolves, 1990. <-- space after **, no () around date, period at end
† Best Actress, American Beauty, 1999. <-- space after †, no () around date, period at end
This is what it looked like when contributed:
*Best Actor, 'Tender Mercies', (1983) <-- no space after *, () around date, no period
**Best Director, 'Dances With Wolves, (1990) <-- no space after **, ' missing after Wolves, () around date, no period
†Best Actress, 'American Beauty', (1999) <-- no space after †, () around date, no period
.
what are you talking about? The crew/cast credits are taken from the DVD itself. Not the cover. So Its irrelevant what the cover says for the crew/cast credits.
Are you talking about the overview?
I don't have this dvd so I didn't see the contribution. What I am talking about here has NOTHING to do with the cast & crew being taken from the cover. The example I showed was an update to a DVD cover in which footnotes were being added. The references to the footnotes in the overview were done correct (meaning they referenced them with *, etc), but the actual footnotes were not done correct. My point was that this was a simple check by just looking at the back cover of the DVD. You did not have to load it in your player, go through a buch of fast forwarding to try to get to the spot where the credit in question is located. These were right on the back of the DVD and could have been verified had the time been taken to look at the cover BEFORE voting. In this case people did NOT look before voting and that is why I placed that example in my post. Mark | | | | Antec Nine Hundred case, 4GB A-Data DDR2 800 RAM, Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Conroe 2.66GHz, ASUS P5K-E/WIFI-AP MB, XFX GeForce 8600GT XXX 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 video card, ZALMAN CNPS9500 AT 2 Ball CPU Cooling Fan/Heatsink, Seagate Barracuda 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s HDD, Zerodba 620W PSU, LITE-ON 20X DVD±R DVD with LightScribe SATA, Samsung CDDVDW SH-S203B SATA, Hanns-G HH281 28" monitor, Kodak ESP3250 printer, Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 speakers, Windows 7 Professional |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting pauls42:
Quote:
what are you talking about? The crew/cast credits are taken from the DVD itself. Not the cover. So Its irrelevant what the cover says for the crew/cast credits.
Are you talking about the overview?
I don't have this dvd so I didn't see the contribution.
Paul, mwkirchner is talking about a different submission - simply giving an example of times when people vote yes without checking. In this case changes to an overview which could be checked simply by looking at the back cover. ah, I see. He lost me.. Of course you would need the case and it assumes you hadn't stored all the dvds in separate containers.. | | | | Paul |
|
| Registered: April 7, 2007 | | Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | I want accuracy as much as the next guy. The rules tell us where to take things from. What is the point of contribution notes if we are supposed to independently check each contribution before voting yes? If it's a whole cast and crew submission then that's a lot of work. If they say it's from the credits I'll scan them, check for other no votes and check for glaring errors and any of the IMDB clues but short of that unless I have reason to doubt them then I trust them.
I'm like that in most things in life I trust people until they give me reason not to. |
|