Quote:

I don't know about anyone else, but I will admit that I don't go back and look at a contribution UNLESS there are 'no' votes.  I don't see any reason to.  So if this had been my contribution, and James had left his comment with a 'yes' vote, I never would have seen it.

The purpose of a 'no' vote, at least for me, is to let the contributor know that you don't agree with the change and why.

Quote:
Personally I believe the NO vote it the only real way to let the contributor know what you think.

Having recently contributed a lot in one day I can say I did not look at every yes vote to see if someone had a suggestion or correction.

I did look at every no vote I received. A couple I withdrew the contribution, one a corrected and resubmited, and a couple I left as is.

A NO vote with an explanation of why is exactly what should have happened in this situation. The submitter can do what he wishes then. Change it, withdraw it, or leave it as is. There really is no issue here that I can see 

Quote:
This really has to be one of the most pathetic childish threads that I have seen here or at IVS. You really have outdone yourself Skip. 

James left a very polite comment advising you of something not making the best use of the new program functionality:

Quote:
Edmond Dantès is an AKA for John Hughes. Please use 'credited as'

This thread in response is a complete and utter joke imo.

Why not PM James and resolve the issue?* Why drag your bruised ego into the forum? And why with such a load of rubbish - where did James make more demands on your time? He told you the answer - all you had to do is what you brag time and again that you are willing to do - correct the contribution.

If you don't want to, fine, but suck it up and live with the No vote (or now No votes).

Get over yourself old man.

*Unless of course you are blocked for obnoxious PMs in the past

Quote:
Just when I was about to close this thread, it starts getting into a useful discussion.  And I was all set to click that lock button.    Thanks a lot. 

PMs need to stay private, that's what the P stands for after all.  Please don't make them public, for that is not what the P stands for.

No votes aren't the end of the world, in fact nowhere near it.  Far more important are brief, intelligent notes one way or the other.  We also track user accuracy over the long term to help us evaluate contributions and votes. 

Would it help to have a response mechanism built in to the contribution system so the submitter can (politely, of course) rebut the No vote comments?

Quote:
Just when I was about to close this thread, it starts getting into a useful discussion.  And I was all set to click that lock button.    Thanks a lot. 

PMs need to stay private, that's what the P stands for after all.  Please don't make them public, for that is not what the P stands for.

No votes aren't the end of the world, in fact nowhere near it.  Far more important are brief, intelligent notes one way or the other.  We also track user accuracy over the long term to help us evaluate contributions and votes. 

Would it help to have a response mechanism built in to the contribution system so the submitter can (politely, of course) rebut the No vote comments?

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

Tried to stay oughta this, but I have to say it wasn't the asking, it was the expectation that he was right and Skip was wrong.  At least, that's how it came across to me.  But even if he's right, Skip didn't make any errors because he entered the data "as credited."

This brings up an interesting question.  With the new 'credited as' feature, is the data correct?

The new rule says, "Use the "As Credited" field where the person's name differs from the credited name."

Maid in Manhattan was written by John Hughes using the pseudonym Edmond Dantes.  I did a quick google search and was able to document it in about 5 seconds so I know it is true.  This means that the person's name did differ from the credited name.  According to the rules, you have to use the 'As Credited' field.

Or am I reading that wrong? 

Wrong.  Somebody has already mentioned John Hughes uses this alias.  Knowing that going in made it fairly easy for you find that is correct apparently.  But what if somebody doesn't know that?  Like me, for example.  I'm a Hughes fan, but I didn't know about the alias until this thread came up.  Should my (or anybody else's) profile be nixed by somebody that DID know, as if I've made a mistake?  I don't think so.  Like I said, enter what you know for sure, leave alone what you don't - whatever it is.  If somebody else is so wound up about it, they can submit a change with proof!

And yet I've seen people vote against those types of contributions, because they were in violation of the rulse, due to something someone didn't know.

Can't have the cake and eat it too.

Quote:
Quoting chibul:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

Tried to stay oughta this, but I have to say it wasn't the asking, it was the expectation that he was right and Skip was wrong.  At least, that's how it came across to me.  But even if he's right, Skip didn't make any errors because he entered the data "as credited."

This brings up an interesting question.  With the new 'credited as' feature, is the data correct?

The new rule says, "Use the "As Credited" field where the person's name differs from the credited name."

Maid in Manhattan was written by John Hughes using the pseudonym Edmond Dantes.  I did a quick google search and was able to document it in about 5 seconds so I know it is true.  This means that the person's name did differ from the credited name.  According to the rules, you have to use the 'As Credited' field.

Or am I reading that wrong? 

Wrong.  Somebody has already mentioned John Hughes uses this alias.  Knowing that going in made it fairly easy for you find that is correct apparently.  But what if somebody doesn't know that?  Like me, for example.  I'm a Hughes fan, but I didn't know about the alias until this thread came up.  Should my (or anybody else's) profile be nixed by somebody that DID know, as if I've made a mistake?  I don't think so.  Like I said, enter what you know for sure, leave alone what you don't - whatever it is.  If somebody else is so wound up about it, they can submit a change with proof!

And yet I've seen people vote against those types of contributions, because they were in violation of the rulse, due to something someone didn't know.

Can't have the cake and eat it too.

I am not required to do an internet search for aliases when I enter some name from a cast list "as credited."  Don't imply that Ken said we did, either.  If YOU want to spend time looking for that stuff, be my guest.  I'm not going to.

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
At the risk of belaboring this just a bit more, here's a better example of how we are dealing with a different situation now with DVDP 3.0:

For DVDP 2.4/2.5, there was only 1 name field and the only data that could go there was the 'as credited' name, hence:
Existing Profile:
John Hughes <-- Incorrect

Contributed Profile:
Edmund Dantes <-- Correct

For DVDP 3.0, there are 2 pieces of information for each name, even though we only see 1 when they are the same. But to break it out:

Existing Profile:
Name: John Hughes <-- Correct
Credited as: John Hughes <--Incorrect

Contributed Profile #1:
Name: Edmund Dantes <--Incorrect
Credited as: Edmund Dantes <--Correct

Contributed Profile #2:
Name: John Hughes <--Correct
Credited as: Edmund Dantes <--Correct

In order to manage linking and 'as credited', both pieces need to be 'correct'.

I was going to drop this, but Jameslet's try a different angle. If a user submits Walt Disney Pictures and no distributor, I might not be happy about it, I might leave him a nice note with a yes vote, I might even drop him a PM. But the data is accurate, I have no right to expect him to put in something to suit me, he may not be interested in BVHE or whatever that's his business. I can ONLY vote YES based on the accuracy, I cannot vote based on my feelings about the coompleteness or lack thereof. Similarly here you have ABSOLUTELY no right to try to force me to do YOUR work for you. If you want to research the name and document it that's fine and you are free to do so but in my view it is an absolute abuse of your vote. The data was accurate, that IS the ONLY relevant issue here. I am done with this.

Skip

Quote:
Quoting chibul:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Nice post James.  We all have to understand that there are new fields with new rules in 3.0.  We all have to be open to the fact that someone might call us on it when we forget about the new fields.

Well, gotta tell you, I'm not going to mess with common names.  I will enter whatever I see in the credits, no more, no less.  I refuse to waste my time.

Then you shouldn't bother contributing any cast lists that already have linking in them, because you'll likely be overwriting good information.

Not to be rude or mean, but if you go to do a cast edit, see that there's names in it that are linked, and write over them...that's erasing good data. I'm not accusing you of doing that, obviously - but if someone isn't willing to use a feature that's an important part of the new cast listing method in the program, they shouldn't write over cast lists that have implemented it, even if they notice a small error somewhere.

Now just hold your horses buckaroo.  I never said I was going to overwrite anything, and didn't imply it either.  But I'll tell you right now, if I enter a name as it appears in the cast list when I have no indication of a link and some link gets broken in somebody's database because of it that's tough.  That isn't my problem.