Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the person most likely to submit incomplete credits is also the person least likely to cap that off with some sort of special marker.  I'm just sayin'.

That's a great point.  But it would be better to have 5% putting an indicator in than no one at all.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Spunds like the old Group W attempt, Mark.

Skip

Wow!  That brings back some memories.    

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
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.

I agree - and a much better question is how you know if a cast list is complete.

I see a profile contribution with a list of cast - it isn't possible to know either way - until another contribution appears which includes more - and at that point you know that the previous contribution was incomplete.

And personally I prefer any cast list to none at all.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
The Rules don't provide for that judgement call, pauls. I have seen numerous users get support for sneaking in IMDb data, sometimes successfully, by other users using precisely that argument. That does nothing but cause more work since the entire list likely will have to be redone by somebody. Something is NOT better than nothing when that something violates the Rules.

Skip

But including IMDB data should still be excluded since all data (even if only a single episode of a TV series) must come from the disc.

And my point was that you can never be sure when any contributed cast list is complete.

Quoting Gerri Cole:

Quote:
I think my point about it not being a new policy is being misunderstood. I have accepted partial contributions in the past. Therefore even today, you can't look at a profile and assume if it has at least one actor the cast list is complete or there is something in the overview so it must be complete. Therefore adding it to the rules isn't going to automatically increase the amount of work that you have to put into doing a profile, it is the same work that has to be put it in today.

I would also say that I don't think adding some of the overview is a good idea (personally), but I also don't want the rules on this to become too cumbersome. I have a very different poiint of view on the topic being the screener, so I am looking for honest opinions from the contributors' side.

I think at some point we have to recognize that there is a sizeable group of people here that require a level of detail in the rules that isn't present and would almost certainly seem "cumbersome" to you and many others.  Check just about any thread on this forum and you'll see people dissecting the language of the rules to make some tortured decision on the finer points of punctuation or typography or whether or not "Bonham Carter" is a last name or what have you.

In point of fact, and this was made very clear in this thread, the rules aren't really rules at all.  They are simply a set of suggestions to ensure that your contribution is more likely to be accepted by the screeners than not.  Calling them rules leads to this slavish obedience to the letter of the law over simple common sense and a desire to increase the value of the database.  So, how about we go back to calling them guidelines, since that's what they really are?  Failing that, how about a statement of intent at the beginning of the rules, sort of a preamble indicating the reasoning for having this document at all and what the ultimate goal is?

They are Rules and not suggestions. They are also NOT guidelines, we had Guidelines and it was a total disaster. The database was a mess with users constantly trying to manipulate the data to suit themselves without regard to the wider community, and if someone said anything the stock answer from many users (including some still present today) was "they are Guidelines and guidelines don't HAVE to be followed". Hence they became Rules and they HAVE to be followed

Skip

Quoting Martin_Zuidervliet:

Quote:
The fact that the rules are to difficult to understand for most of the non-English speaking users is far greater than most of us think and only prevents that group from contributing.

...and for many of the English speaking users too!

If anybody remembers how the old guidelines
changed to the old rules
into the current rules,
one could understand why we have this status quo today.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Hence they became Rules and they HAVE to be followed

That is demonstrably not the case.