Ace:

All of what you mentioned comes under personal preferences and we know that users will exercise that every chance they get. I will give you a for instance, that is a particular burr under my saddle and something I NEVER EVER do under any circumstances. Re-ordering of Genre, the data is the same but somebody believes that it should be CBA, instead of BCA, they hide behinbd the Rules that say it MAY be allowed as part of wider Contribution...but it is still personal preference, or they may like their Genre choices better that what is there and they use the same logic. I have little tolerance for such behavior, and everytime I see it I think that user is really desperate to leave his fingerprint on the database. Assuming that all three fields are filled and correct, then whatever my choices are are MY CHOICES, the order is irrelevant or even my Genre choices if different if the Online choices are correct.

And no my old friend, I do not wish to get into ST IV again.

Skip

The back and forth is caused by hollywood, in your case by multiple covers. I presume you are referring to multiple simultaneous Covers ala Reservoir Dogs. In stead of recognizing the problem, the users just HAVE to HAVE their particular cover Online, where i would recognize it asa correct cover and keep MINE locally. Ken COULD conceivably allow for all the differing titles in such instances, but this has occurred ONCE to my knowledge. Now if OTOH you are talking about re-releases same UPC/Different covers, this IS spelled out in the Rules very explicitly. The notes are there and they should be reviewed by every user when Contributing, but this is not going to alleviate the problems caused by re-releases, many ofthese users seem to be fairly new to collecting and have NO idea that they do not have an original release, personally speaking one would wonderwhere the common sense is, say my cover is different, and I look and see that the title was released 5 years ago, I would conclude that what I had was a re-release, but that might also be based on my own extensive knowledge of how Hollywood works. I don't know if there is a way to deal with that, so far everytime it has happened and i have referred the user to the Rules and explained he had a re-release, he has been very apologetic and understanding while explaining he didn't know.

I can't think of any kind of system that could be installed that would alleviate the problem, but then again it is not really that big a problem, more of an annoyance than a problem. It is not like we are flooded with users trying to replace Original Covers with Re-releases. Similarly the monthly new users who try and flesh out Indiana Jones Boxset, Star Wars Boxset or BTTF Boxset, all we can do is vote NO and perhaps send them a PM explaining it. The only answer that MIGHT be viable is if there were a way to force a new user to read the RULES before making any Contribution. God i am tired tonight, I fear I am rambling.

Skip

I agree with your point (I think Skip didn't read your original message properly) some kind of notice would be useful for those who may not realise that there have been previous editions.

Then again, I suppose you could say that that are what the locks are for. If the original release came in a snapper case then the case type should be locked as that so that noone can overwrite it.
But since the locks are hardly ever used (I've never come across a title with even 1 field locked) I suppose you could say that we bring it on ourselves.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I will give you a for instance, that is a particular burr under my saddle and something I NEVER EVER do under any circumstances. Re-ordering of Genre, the data is the same but somebody believes that it should be CBA, instead of BCA, they hide behinbd the Rules that say it MAY be allowed as part of wider Contribution...but it is still personal preference, or they may like their Genre choices better that what is there and they use the same logic.

FWIW on the whole I agree bar one exception... when a TV series has the same genres but each season (or disc if you use child profile discs) has them in a different order... it really annoys me so I will re-order them (if I'm doing other updates) so that they match each other.

Not sure why I find it so annoying, possibly because I tend to look for 'differences' flicking from one season to the next to check for possible errors or missing data and it just stands out...

It's an interesting idea, the biggest problem is who decides which notes to pin?
I don't know whether it would be up to the screener to decide if a contribution notes is pinworthy or not. I don't know if Gerri would want the extra work, although it could work to her advantage as it may stop a lot of ping-ponging of profiles.