 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 7 ...17  Previous Next
|
 Partial Contributions (Locked) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 22, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,033 |
| | Posted: | | | | So if Pantheon's data is incomplete and therefore incorrect how did the current cast of:
Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha
Dick York as Darrin
Agnes Moorehead as Endora
get into the database. I hope everyone voting no on Pantheon's contribution also voted no (and i sure hope it that data wasn't contributed by one of you) because that is more incomplete, and therefore more wrong than his contribution. If you didn't its hypocrisy plain and simple.
I do have a question though.
what if the contribution was just
1. Nobody's Perfect
Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha
Dick York as Darrin
Agnes Moorehead as Endora
David White as Larry Tate
David Lewis as Mark Robbins
Lindsay Workman as Dr. Koblin
Robert Q. Lewis as Diego Fenman
so only the cast for one episode. Its complete per the rules and your statements. Its the cast exactly as it appears in the end credits. It just so happens to only be the cast for one episode, but there is nothing wrong with it for the one episode. But since the discs contain more than one episode would it technically be incomplete and therefore wrong. Would you vote no?
Additionally, all the arguments that its not exactly as it appears has one little whole. It is exactly as the credits scroll up. Whenever we include cast from the opening credits we change it from how it appears because we are combining two separate credit list (yes this is allowed for in the rules, but only for non standard credits which these arguably are standard). But according to the seemingly majority, anytime you do a cast list you need to copy the cast from the end credits, then go back to the opening credits and anyone who wasn't listed in the end credits gets entered before that. His listing is a complete listing of the end credits. He states such in his notes. You don't have to reaudit that anymore than you audit anything other credit list if you want the opening credits as well. Just watch the opening credits (shorter\less people than the end credits) and enter those that don't appear. So someone wanting that info doesn't need to reaudit the whole cast list, just the opening credits.
Do you do full audits on everyone one of your discs? If so why bother with an online database at all. Any data you download from it could be incomplete\incorrect so you need to do it all yourself anyway because otherwise how do you know if they didnt leave out joe shmo because they didnt like them, making the whole cast list wrong.
I will now be voting 'properly' on all future contribution submissions.
-Agrare
ps. sorry if some of the thoughts are a bit runny but i had a bunch of things I was trying to say and probably didnt even say them all. | | | | Last edited: by Agrare |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 742 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
So - if there are cast missing vote NO?! (No more pre-release cast lists then as they are invariably incomplete and NOT taken from the end credits). Yes, that is correct. I am especially against the addition of any cast & crew credits for pre-release titles as they can't be taken from the only legitimate source and are thoroughly against the rules. Quote:
So - if there are subtitles, audio tracks, crew missing then vote NO?! Yes, because it's incomplete, thuis incorrect, and forces someone else to do it all over again sometime down the road. Quote:
In effect do a full audit on every profile...and if you don't, then don't contribute as you will get no votes? No, not a full audit on every profile, just a full audit on the specific data field. If you're contributing to the online db, you should strive to add data as complete as can be, not as complete as you feel sufficient to do. Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I personally don't agree with any of the above. I will fill in everything in a field/profile as per the rules (and my interpretation of the rules). Good to know (as I already did from seeing your work of the past). Quote:
I think it is unfair to expect everyone to do a full audit. Complete data for a specific field is not a complete audit of the profile, which consists of a number of fields that can be updated seperately. Quote:
If someone adds information that is correct and taken from the disc/credits then to vote NO is surely against the rules. Generally, you're right. But incomplete data, that's incomplete because the user willingly decides to leave certain pieces of data out (lack og knowledge is something completely different, see my above posting), is not just incomplete, it's also incorrect (so is the data that's incomplete because of a mistake, but usually that gets corrected by the submitting user after pointed in the right (= complete) direction) and as such deserving of a no vote. Basically, for me, it all comes down to the following: if a user only adds partial information to any field and leaves out certain pieces of data that are readily available as well because of what he/she thinks is right and is unwiliing to complete the field's data when asked to do so (by no votes or PM), that submission should be left standing ans await the screeners decision. No matter what the outcome, sometime later someone else will have to go back to the exact same field to comeplete the data (and probably check the existing data according to the rules). So, it's double work. If I personally don't like certain aspects of the rules, I simply don't contribute and keep my incomplete, altered or whatever data to myself. | | | | Lutz |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Posts: 26 |
| | Posted: | | | | Okay, clearly there are valid arguments for both sides. I say go ahead and submit it and let the screeners make the final call. After all, that is how the system is supposed to work.
Sean | | | | "If you can't win, change the rules." |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Do not make this personal. Sorry if that came across as a personal attack. It was not intended that way. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
I think what you're saying is this: If you're not going to add all the cast then don't add any at all. Is that what you meant? Yes. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet: Quote:
From my point of view it will be imposibble to ever complete full cast and crew lists if users do not want to cooperate with eachother. If you can take the time to check what the contributor may have forgotten or intentionally left out of those lists, how hard can it be to complete them yourselves once the contribution has been accepted. It's not a building must be build by one man, because the rest only want to help if he completed most of it by himself. We have to work together people, it's not a competition who's the best in understanding the rules. They are made to avoid discussions not to create them. It's double or triple work. If someone is contributing the cast list, it should be 100% correct IMHO, otherwise don't bother. If others have to check behind you, they have to check every single entry in the cast list. What's the point? I would make exceptions for the Crew list since some of that is pretty specialized. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: May 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,033 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:
Quote:
From my point of view it will be imposibble to ever complete full cast and crew lists if users do not want to cooperate with eachother. If you can take the time to check what the contributor may have forgotten or intentionally left out of those lists, how hard can it be to complete them yourselves once the contribution has been accepted. It's not a building must be build by one man, because the rest only want to help if he completed most of it by himself. We have to work together people, it's not a competition who's the best in understanding the rules. They are made to avoid discussions not to create them.
It's double or triple work. If someone is contributing the cast list, it should be 100% correct IMHO, otherwise don't bother. If others have to check behind you, they have to check every single entry in the cast list. What's the point?
I would make exceptions for the Crew list since some of that is pretty specialized. So what about when corrections are made to common names or middle name parsing. There is data that is wrong in the database. In order to vote correctly, everytime someone submits cast I need to double check them otherwise I don't know if they left someone out, spelled a name wrong, didn't use a proper common name, etc. Thats a lot more than double or triple work because now everytime someone decides to contribute a cast listing for a title I own, I need to essentially audit the cast myself so i can properly vote yes or no on it. I might as well just do it all myself at that point. or just vote neutral to everything. -Agrare |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Agrare: Quote:
so only the cast for one episode. Its complete per the rules and your statements. Its the cast exactly as it appears in the end credits. It just so happens to only be the cast for one episode, but there is nothing wrong with it for the one episode. But since the discs contain more than one episode would it technically be incomplete and therefore wrong. Would you vote no?
Yes, I would vote "no". The cast list for that profile is incmplete, therefore it is wrong per the Rules. Keep it local til you complete the work, then contribute it. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Agrare: Quote:
Do you do full audits on everyone one of your discs? If so why bother with an online database at all. Any data you download from it could be incomplete\incorrect so you need to do it all yourself anyway because otherwise how do you know if they didnt leave out joe shmo because they didnt like them, making the whole cast list wrong.
I absolutely audit every field of every profile that I download from the on-line. The use of the on-line is that in most cases it saves me from having to do all the data entry work. I only have to make corrections if necessary. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I would make exceptions for the Crew list since some of that is pretty specialized. But, surely, that's unfair. It can't be one rule for Cast and a different rule for Crew. We have to be consistent otherwise no-one will know where they stand. When I edit a profile I do absolutely everything....but, that's my choice. I don't expect everyone else to do the same. What I do expect is for the data they DO add to be accurate. It doesn't have to be complete; just correct. Like I said I'd rather have to do 50% of the work on a profile than 100%. To reject data because it is incomplete is cutting our own noses off to spite our faces. It's counterproductive and illogical - in my opinion. What I feel is that this 'all or nothing' attitude is going to lead to many users not contributing. Going back to Bewitched...I've owned that for 2 years and in that time no one else has done a full audit on it. I am in the process of going through every TV show I own and doing full audits (that's absolutely everything to those with a different view on full audits) and I'm only up to BR. The vast majority of these shows have had no work done on them at all....so, if I don't do it; who will? I didn't see the NO voters on my contributions rushing to add the data to their specifications. Quick to vote NO, but not to quick to do the work themselves. Likewise with the 1 disc that got through - they haven't gone in and edited that either....which if they were so hot on the rules would have been a high priority. I just get the feeling that people are more concerned with voting NO to every little thing rather than getting good data into the database. Vote NO on the BAD stuff, not the good! |
| | Registered: May 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,033 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting Agrare:
Quote:
Do you do full audits on everyone one of your discs? If so why bother with an online database at all. Any data you download from it could be incomplete\incorrect so you need to do it all yourself anyway because otherwise how do you know if they didnt leave out joe shmo because they didnt like them, making the whole cast list wrong.
I absolutely audit every field of every profile that I download from the on-line. The use of the on-line is that in most cases it saves me from having to do all the data entry work. I only have to make corrections if necessary. but by taking a don't contribute unless its 100% correct attitude the data in the online should either be a) not there and you need to do it or b) there and 100% correct so no need to check it. However if we let in partial correct data, If someone enters a 99% 'complete' cast list (they missed one actor and for arguments sake lets say its from the middle of the cast, not the beginning like in this case which makes it less correct and harder to spot than if they just left off the first or last actor). I download the profile and audit the cast i could do it much quicker because I only need to compare whats there to whats on screen, that can be done while i watch the move/tv show. If nothing is there then I need to enter it all (or wait for someone else to). Which takes longer? Am I really doubling/tripling the work? I think not, I say its more like proofreading an essay than writing an essay. Writing it takes a lot more time than proofreading it. -Agrare |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
I would make exceptions for the Crew list since some of that is pretty specialized.
But, surely, that's unfair.
It can't be one rule for Cast and a different rule for Crew. We have to be consistent otherwise no-one will know where they stand.
It may be different, but I would not call it unfair. The two fields have very different structures and crew requires much deeper understanding than simply transcribing th cast from the screen. Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
When I edit a profile I do absolutely everything....but, that's my choice. So do I, but that's just me. Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
I don't expect everyone else to do the same. What I do expect is for the data they DO add to be accurate. It doesn't have to be complete; just correct. I expect that each field that they contribute is complete as well as accurate. Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Like I said I'd rather have to do 50% of the work on a profile than 100%. 50% of the fields is fine. 50% of the data in a single field is not, IMHO. That just means someone else has to cover that work all over Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
To reject data because it is incomplete is cutting our own noses off to spite our faces. It's counterproductive and illogical - in my opinion. The contributor could simply complete the data and resubmit. Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
What I feel is that this 'all or nothing' attitude is going to lead to many users not contributing. That would be a shame. Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Going back to Bewitched...I've owned that for 2 years and in that time no one else has done a full audit on it.
I am in the process of going through every TV show I own and doing full audits (that's absolutely everything to those with a different view on full audits) and I'm only up to BR.
The vast majority of these shows have had no work done on them at all....so, if I don't do it; who will? That's true of many TV series. I just did a bunch of work on various Star Trek Series whihc have been out forever. Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
I didn't see the NO voters on my contributions rushing to add the data to their specifications. Quick to vote NO, but not to quick to do the work themselves. Likewise with the 1 disc that got through - they haven't gone in and edited that either....which if they were so hot on the rules would have been a high priority. No argument there. There are plenty who like to sit on the sidelines and shoot arrows and carp. That's the nature of the system, unfortunately. Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
I just get the feeling that people are more concerned with voting NO to every little thing rather than getting good data into the database.
Vote NO on the BAD stuff, not the good! It can be very frustrating!  | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
...Vote NO on the BAD stuff, not the good! But in my (and obviously others) opinion that is what I am doing. If something is missing that makes that field incorrect. at least by how I am reading the rules. If it is incorrect then the field on it's own will have bad data. And once again... the no vote is not necessarily to say what is there is wrong... but just not completely right per how we are reading the rules. The no vote is to do nothing but point out what we see as a problem to the screeners. Then the screeners can (and have in the past) make a decision on whether on not they should approve it as it is or not. Quote:
I didn't see the NO voters on my contributions rushing to add the data to their specifications. Quick to vote NO, but not to quick to do the work themselves. Likewise with the 1 disc that got through - they haven't gone in and edited that either....which if they were so hot on the rules would have been a high priority. Just because I am not rushing to make a contribution. (especially right now with my life being basically turned upside down) don't mean I don't care enough to vote per the rules... how I read the rules. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree, pete.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
And once again... the no vote is not necessarily to say what is there is wrong... but just not completely right per how we are reading the rules. The no vote is to do nothing but point out what we see as a problem to the screeners. Then the screeners can (and have in the past) make a decision on whether on not they should approve it as it is or not. This makes no sense. "not to say what is there is wrong" Then if it's not wrong why vote NO? "not completely right" Then correct it yourself when the contribution comes through - especially if you know you won't/don't have the time to do the work yourself. Someone else has done it for you - therefore, finding the time to put in one or two missing pieces of information is going to take you a lot less time than adding the entire cast. Voting NO to data that is good is absolutely ridiculous and damaging the database. Vote no to IMDB. Vote no to undocumented uncredited cast. Vote no to unverified Credited As But don't vote no to information that is correct. Using Bewitched again - if you take each cast entry as it stands you can verify each one from the screen. They're all there in the end credits. They're all correct. But, by your argument they're NOT correct because someone is missing - that is totally illogical. Something can't be correct and incorrect at the same time. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
And once again... the no vote is not necessarily to say what is there is wrong... but just not completely right per how we are reading the rules. The no vote is to do nothing but point out what we see as a problem to the screeners. Then the screeners can (and have in the past) make a decision on whether on not they should approve it as it is or not.
This makes no sense.
"not to say what is there is wrong"
Then if it's not wrong why vote NO? What I am saying is... the data added may be correct. but since the rules say to put in exactly as credited if you do not add everyone then it is not exactly as credited so for the field per the rules (as we read them) the info is not correct per that field's rules. Quote:
"not completely right"
Then correct it yourself when the contribution comes through - especially if you know you won't/don't have the time to do the work yourself. Someone else has done it for you - therefore, finding the time to put in one or two missing pieces of information is going to take you a lot less time than adding the entire cast. Then correct it yourself?... that sounds like saying hey this info is good enough... if you don't like good enough you are not allowed to vote against me... you just have to accept it and then fix it yourself. I do not for a second believe that is how it is meant to be done. each field has a rule. In this case the rule tells not only where to get the info from... but how to be presented. In this case Exactly as credited in the credits. If the contribution does not do both then I have every right to cast a no vote with given reason. Quote:
Voting NO to data that is good is absolutely ridiculous and damaging the database.
Vote no to IMDB.
Vote no to undocumented uncredited cast.
Vote no to unverified Credited As
But don't vote no to information that is correct.
Using Bewitched again - if you take each cast entry as it stands you can verify each one from the screen. They're all there in the end credits. They're all correct.
But, by your argument they're NOT correct because someone is missing - that is totally illogical.
Something can't be correct and incorrect at the same time. Once again you are confusing that just because it is good data that the contribution is correct per the rules. That isn't necessarily the case. The right information presented the wrong way is still bad info getting into the database. That is how I (and obviously others) read it to be. | | | | Pete |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 7 ...17 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |