I don't understand why my david gilmour - live in gdansk contribution gets rejected, when musicdeal's orginal contribution gets accepted when it clearly is a rip off the amercian release. Even his covers gets accepted even though the backcover states the wrong upc & video format.

While my scans from my own f@@king copy gets rejected  

The given reason for rejection is: "An invalid source, such as a third party database, was listed in the contribution notes. Use of a third party database is not allowed per the contribution rules."

I have not mentioned a third party database.  All I pointed out was that musicdeal's contribution was so full of errors that it should not have been accepted in the first place. Yet it gets approved while mine changes gets rejected

.

Further, having just down loaded the profile I have to concur with Frostbitez the scans Don't match the EAN.

Frostbitez.

All I can say is resubmit this profile stating the point that the cover scans do not match the EAN.

When you list your cast contribution state exactly where you are getting it from. The best and number one place for a cast listing is the DVD credits themselves as they are sometimes different from what any cover states.

Make sure if you are supplying the correct cover scans - state so pointing out the EAN on the rear cover.

But number one piece of advise I could give you right now, mind who you have a go at over rejected contributions...the reviewer is the program owners spouse, and sometimes mistakes are made. Being a "User" built database we are all human (I am beginning to wonder on tthis ) and humans do make mistakes.

Steve

Quoting frostbitez:

Quote:
I don't understand why my david gilmour - live in gdansk contribution gets rejected, when musicdeal's orginal contribution gets accepted when it clearly is a rip off the amercian release. Even his covers gets accepted even though the backcover states the wrong upc & video format.

While my scans from my own f@@king copy gets rejected  

The given reason for rejection is: "An invalid source, such as a third party database, was listed in the contribution notes. Use of a third party database is not allowed per the contribution rules."

I have not mentioned a third party database.  All I pointed out was that musicdeal's contribution was so full of errors that it should not have been accepted in the first place. Yet it gets approved while mine changes gets rejected

That is totally unacceptable. Invelos needs to wake up before their whole database becomes inferior (which many argue it already is).

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
That is totally unacceptable. Invelos needs to wake up before their whole database becomes inferior (which many argue it already is).

The screeners do not own every DVD there is.  They rely on us to be honest, and informative, in our contribution notes.  The contribution by Musicdeal was the initial contribution and there was nothing in his notes to indicate it was a bad contribution.  In addition, it was a bare bones contribution that didn't include much data at all.

frostbitez's contribution, on the other hand, had the following notes:

Quote:
It is beyond me how Musicdeal's contribution could be approved. It was just a 100% copy of the american release.
There are too changes made to list them all, but the SRP are definitely not in USD so I have changed it to EUR.
Cast & Crew are taken from the backcover.
Backcover now matches the UPC

I am sorry, but...

the rant is useless

there are no sources for the 'too many changes made to list them all'

there is no source for the SRP change

the back cover is not a valid source for cast and crew

If I were voting on this, I would have voted 'no' for the reasons listed above.  If people want to have contribution accepted, they need to include informative notes that detail the changes and the sources for them.  In my opinion, Invelos was correct in declining the contribution.

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:


That is totally unacceptable. Invelos needs to wake up before their whole database becomes inferior (which many argue it already is).

Inferior to what?

Based on the notes Unicus quoted (from frostbitez's contribution), this contribution SHOULD have been rejected.  The only actual documentation in those notes concerned the correct cover scan.

If you want to replace garbage data with good data, you've got to document that your data is better and not just "different" garbage. Considering the number of contributions the reviewers have to deal with, if they get a contribution that isn't clearly documented, I doubt they'll take much time to determine if it's good or bad.

You want to accept an incorrect UPC scan over a correct one?

YOU guys supporting this are the ones that are "way out of line."