Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
So, a rule change/clarrification is not needed?

I thought that Gerri's clarification in this thread would be sufficient, but I see that there are still users who insist on implying that a partial contribution equals an inaccurate contribution, and that partial contributions are against the rules and should thus be kept local. 
So, perhaps a rule clarification (not a change, there is no change) might be useful after all.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
So, a rule change/clarrification is not needed?

I thought that Gerri's clarification in this thread would be sufficient, but I see that there are still users who insist on implying that a partial contribution equals an inaccurate contribution, and that partial contributions are against the rules and should thus be kept local. 
So, perhaps a rule clarification (not a change, there is no change) might be useful after all.

I did not say it was against the Rules, especially since Gerri has specifically stated that it is not.

I said I thought it was a bad idea.  In fact, I think it should be against the Rules.

I don't like the idea of partial field contributions.  But since that seems to be the way we're heading, I'd like some indication that something is incomplete.  Putting that information in the notes would be helpful, but I would like to see something even more blatent than that.  Like the final cast member being "Incomplete" or something.  Without looking through contribution notes (which you can't do unless you're contributing something), there's no easy way for these partial fields to stand out.

I'm puzzled.  How would anyone know whether or not a contribution's case/crew list is "incomplete?"  When I go to the database and look at contributions for titles I have in my collection, all I see is the existing online profile on the left side of the page and the contribution on the right side.  If there are fewer names in the contribution than in the existing profile -- and there's nothing in the notes to indicate that people in the existing profile don't belong there, I would assume that the contribution is "incomplete."  But if there are more names in the contribution than in the existing profile, how do I know that some are still missing?  By checking my local database, perhaps?  Rather than vote No to the contribution if I know my local list is more correct, I should contribute it myself.

I'm also puzzled to consider how the screeners are supposed to know "incomplete" data (especially cast/crew).  I'm sure they don't have all the titles that people contribute, so they can only go by what is in the existing database and in the contribution.

This discussion has gone on for a long time about what should be in the rules and what shouldn't.  But IMO if I'm not satisfied that either what's in the online profile -- or in another user's contribution -- is lacking I should take some positive action and contribute the CORRECT data myself, rather than vote no and then sit back and wait for someone else to do it.  It's one thing to vote against overwriting GOOD data with BAD data.  It's a totally different thing to vote against adding good data to a profile even though it's not totally complete.

Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
@ Ken (kdh1949): EnryWiki described how he checked whether cast and crew were "incomplete". Surely if he can, so can you. I do realize this would be undoable for the screeners - that's a different issue.

If you mean where he said that:

Quote:
For instance, the last movie I watched, "World Trade Center". I checked a few profiles for Cast and Crew.
The Italian profile only has seven Cast members and Direction, Production, Film Editing and Music.
Two US profiles I checked also have Writing, Art and Cinematography, but nothing in the Sound section.
A profile from Netherlands and another US profile have Sound credits too.
So, in my little random test, only 2 profiles out of 5 seem to have complete Cast and Crew, at a first glance.

All I can say is that I'm sorry, I suppose I COULD do this, but frankly, it isn't worth my time.  If I had to check 4 or 5 profiles to validate whether or not a contribution is "complete" I might as well do the profile myself.  It seems to me that people are more interested in catching people making "mistakes" that they are in improving the online database.  EnryWiki says he "trusts no no one."  That's fine, but why does he bother with the database and voting at all if he is so suspicious?  To me it sounds like his verification process would take more time than personally creating a profile from scratch.

I look to other users making contributions to save me the time of doing it myself.  Does this make me lazy?  Yes, but I never claimed otherwise.  Maybe if I only owned a few hundered DVDs I'd be more willing to check every little detail in every contibution I have the opportunity to vote on.  But I own more than 2500 DVDs and if I take the time to validate every element that someone contributes I won't have time to watch any of them.  And that's why I buy DVDs anyway -- to watch them, not to make the online DVD Profiler 110% accurate.

I fully understand where you're coming from. Much the same here - similar size collection and not nearly enough time available to do all the verification work users like EnryWiki seem to be able and willing to do (good on them!!).

The only reason I replied to your earlier statement was that I read it as a suggestion that it would be impossible to verify the completeness of crew and cast lists. The point I was trying to make is that it's not impossible. Whether it's worthwile is a different matter altogether, I fully agree with you there. 

Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Without looking through contribution notes (which you can't do unless you're contributing something)....

I think you CAN view contribution notes without contributing. In DVDP, select the profile, click ""View Contributors". You'll get a pop-up with a list of user names and dates. In the top right corner of the pop-up, there's a link to the contribution notes. Click it, and an IE window will open with the contribution notes you were after.

Fair enough.  But I have better things to do with my time than read old contribution notes.  I'm not going to read them at random hoping to find a partial contribution that I can tidy up.  And there's really no way to tell that something is partially completed today.  Unless the cast list looks very short.  And in all fairness, I would guess that 99% of the partial cast contributions are just the main actors and not something stupid like the first 48 people out of 50.  But in theory, that could happen.  So if we're going to go down this road, I'd love to see some easy to read visual indicator like adding a fake actor called Incomplete if you're not going to enter all of them.

Spunds like the old Group W attempt, Mark.

Skip