Why not put something in your notes to show that you have actually done some research and can justify why the CoO should be set to what you have chosen?

Every time I get a CoO vote come up, I go off and actually check what the production company is and where it's located. It takes a minute or so in each case and doesn't always match with what is in the contributed profile.

So I'm starting to ask myself whether I should just save myself some time and vote No for undocumented changes. After all, we usually place the onus on the contributor to document their changes adequately.

What do others think?

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

I also think it would be a real good idea to drop a brick on this adding of the COO and nothing else.  Make it like Genre and only allow that if it is in conjunction with an update that covers several changes.  It is rapidly getting to be a real pain in the arse.

That's the most stupid thing I've read all week. How are we going to have the COO info in all the old already perfect profiles if we're not allowed to add it without submitting something else... Just because you don't care for it shouldn't stop others from using it

Quoting Doombear:

Quote:
With any added field, there's going to be a lot of contributions. With the backlog of data, it's a lot more work to list our sources. Some CoO's are common sense; some joint/productions are debatable.

I am adding CoO to all of my discs and might as well contribute to the database while I'm at it. Users are under no obligations to give data sources when making contributions, but I realize some of you folks want it before voting. Send us a PM if you want to question a contribution.

But with the amount of CoOs being submitted, PMing everyone and asking for a justification would take longer than me looking up the CoO myself, which I shouldn't have to be doing as a voter.

Quoting Doombear:

Quote:

Squirrel, I was wondering, where do you look up the production company's location? I was looking for that.

I look at the credits, then check out the company on IMDb to get an initial country, then I use Google to double check since, as we know, IMDb is not always right.

Some companies are very hard to find any information on at all though. I don't believe we should be adding CoOs in these circumstances.

Quoting Doombear:

Quote:

Unless it's a load on the contribution system, I'll finish up my CoO contributions. Alphabetically, I'm up to the P's. Almost done.

How are you deciding what the CoO is when you've just said you don't know how to find a production company's location? Are you just having a guess?

This is what I fear with the lack of notes regarding this field. People are just saying, "Yeah, that's US" or "Yeah, that's UK" and submitting the CoO without having done any background checking.

Quoting Squirrel.God:

Quote:
How are you deciding what the CoO is when you've just said you don't know how to find a production company's location? Are you just having a guess?

This is what I fear with the lack of notes regarding this field. People are just saying, "Yeah, that's US" or "Yeah, that's UK" and submitting the CoO without having done any background checking.

I look at:

The Director's Country of Operation (may vary for some directors)
Production Companies (and what other movies/shows they've produced)
Filming Locations (especially which sound stages are used)
Release Date (which country was the film premiered in first?)
Primary Nationality of Cast & Crew members who likely wouldn't travel for a production

Most were easy to determine, but there were iffy ones like Evita, Casino Royale (2006), The Name of the Rose, Kafka, The Neverending Story, and movies entirely shot in Canada with US crews, etc.

I think we need multiple fields for these joint productions..

Kathy: I am still where I was 6 months ago. COO is the only field I have NO idea what we would use for documentation.

Skip

Rho:

Just to clarify. Let's take an example of any James Bond Film, funded and distributed by either UA or MGM both US companies, but the actual Production Company Eon Productions is UK based, so I would say COO=UK.

Skip

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:

All data is to come from the DVD itself, if CoO is coming from a secondary or third party then documentation is required. Correct?

I don't know, but if it is as you say, the same could be said of "Production Year", since we can't use the copyright year anymore. 

As a voter we should be verifing the contributors source. I have found several contributor that stated the cast and crew came from the end credits and when I verified it with the source they gave I found it to be untrue. There statement was a lie and the souce matched IMDB word for word.