I'm confused.  I thought Ken wanted us to contribute alternate disc ids -- that they would be kept in the main database for some future use.

From the Rules:

Quote:
If your Disc ID differs from the Disc ID in the main database, you may change it and re-contribute it if you are doing a wider contribution, but don't make a specific contribution for this reason. All Disc IDs will be stored in the main database for a future development of DVD Profiler.

GSryen is trying to do that -- identify an alternate disc id for The Blair Witch Project but the majority of people are jumping on him for two reasons:

(1) overwriting the existing disc id with his contribution.  Howver, I don't think the existing Disc ID would be overwritten by GSyren's contribution, otherwise Ken wouldn't let us contribute them.

(2) violating the rule about not making a specific contribution for this reason.  But if there isn't anything requiring a wider contribution how else would the alternate Disc ID be entered into the main database?

I haven't run across a need to contribute an alternate Disc ID, but I can envision a case where I agree with everything in the existing profile except for a different Disc ID.  So I'm wondering if the only time Ken wants us to inform him of these different IDs is if we have to make some other change to the existing profile.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
You're right - the old ID doesn't get overwritten.
And even though it is technically a rule violation to submit one by itself, if it's a pretty much complete profile, I'd never vote "no" on such a submission.
However, if there were obvious gaps in the info, I'd recommend GSryen fills some of them at the same time to conform with the rules fully.

Edit: I think the rule preventing sole ID submissions was to stop the screeners being overwhelmed with very minor changes.
Although I've just thought, maybe Ken's system needs a change in the profile in order for it to register (as an ID change wouldn't come up as a change by itself).

After editing the Disc ID section of a Profile it is locked automatically if you have the setting in Tools>Options>Defaults "Lock Disc Information when edited" ticked. But if your local Disc ID field isn't locked for some reason, it will be overwritten.

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
But if your local Disc ID field isn't locked for some reason, it will be overwritten.

Correct. I really don't know why people think that it won't.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
But if your local Disc ID field isn't locked for some reason, it will be overwritten.

Correct. I really don't know why people think that it won't.

This would only be true if the second (alternate) Disc ID replaces the Disc ID in the MAIN database.  but the way I understand it is the way GSyren describes it:

Quote:
I could be wrong, but the way I understand it, the disc id in the profile is not changed when an alternative disc id is submitted. The alternative disc id's are stored separately. Therefore this does not overwrite anyones local disc id, locked or not.

At least that's how I understand it.

When a contribution is accepted by Invelos and released into the main database, it includes a value in the DiscID field.  That value is what anyone gets when he/she downloads the profile.  If his local DiscID is different and he/she has manually unlocked it (since I believe Profiler locks DiscID locally by default) THEN the local value will be overwritten.

But if someone comes along and contributes a profile with a different DiscID, I'm sure it is stored elsewhere and doesn't overwrite the value in the Main database profile.  Otherwise, Ken's rule letting us contribute different DiscIDs doesn't make sense.

Quote:
All Disc IDs will be stored in the main database for a future development of DVD Profiler.

There must be a way to contribute different DiscIDs where all the other data in the profile is the same.

I had a disc-id added to the online database explaining that there was nothing else to change or to contribute for this profile and is was most likely needed for the online DB (recognition: when you put a dvd in the drive it needs to find the disc-id somewhere) and against the NO votes (against the rules, ...) It was accepted, how else would it get in the online?

In a case such as this one, I won't vote at all on the contribution.  I won't vote YES since it's against the rule, but I won't vote NO, either, since I disagree with that rule.  There are sufficient Yes/No votes with notes to let Gerri decide whether or not to accept the contribution.  It's probably a moot issue because Gerri/Ken can add the different DiscID to the database (wherever those data are stored) without anyone noticing it anyway.

One reason I posted this thread in the first place was that  I was surprised by the tone of the no votes, however.  While contributing just a different DiscID is clearly against the rules, it's not like someone was copying a complete IMDb cast list or something sinister like that.  Yes, the contribution violates the Rule, but that Rule leaves no room to contribute the second DiscID if that's the only thing that differs from the main profile.

Maybe there should be a way to flag a contribution as "information for Invelos only" so that it doesn't get put up to the community to vote.  After all, unless you have the alternate DiscID yourself, how could you vote on its accuracy anyway?

We all make interpretations of the rules. Sometimes we blatantly ignore something that's in the rules because we realize that it just could not be meant as stated.

The prime example of this is the credit for Art Director. If we follow the rules to the letter then only those credited as "Supervising Art" would receive an Art Director credit in Profiler. So we tell ourselves "that can't possibly be what Ken wants" and if the credit is "Art Director" then we add it as such in Profiler.

My interpretation of the rule being discussed here is "don't just contribute an alternate disc id if there are other data that can also be contributed".

This is a tricky balance act. Sticking 100% to the letter of the rules just isn't logical in some cases. On the other hand, giving carte blanche to "common sense" may be even worse. Finding a safe middle road is not an easy task. The final decision lies with the screener (I guess that means Gerri)...

I don't know if there is logic and, if there if there isn't, if it is important.


Only thing I deem important is, that the Disc-ID is captured by Ken, regardless if the profile is ultimately accepted or not. If the new Disc-ID is only captured if the profile is approved, then the system is flawed and the database will loose important information.