Profiles are accepted or declined on an "all or nothing" basis.  For the screeners to have to go through every field and accept or decline each field would be onerous and very few of the thousands of updates submitted each week would get through.

And, no, IMDB nor any other third party source is valid for contributions (with a few exceptions like MSRP, release date, rolenames not included in the film's actual credits).  Any data available form the DVD itself must be the source used for contributions.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Profiles are accepted or declined on an "all or nothing" basis.  For the screeners to have to go through every field and accept or decline each field would be onerous and very few of the thousands of updates submitted each week would get through.

And, no, IMDB nor any other third party source is valid for contributions (with a few exceptions like MSRP, release date, rolenames not included in the film's actual credits).  Any data available form the DVD itself must be the source used for contributions.

Gotcha, thanks. I'll redo and resubmit.

(I have to think using screenshots from another source to show that it's widescreen is okay, though, yes?)

I'm afraid I've received automatic declines too! For me, this usual occurs when I forget to document my source of the additions/changes in data. Please just resubmit the corrected data so that the database doesn't lose all your hard work!

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
(I have to think using screenshots from another source to show that it's widescreen is okay, though, yes?)

Yes, that's a valid source. You should also know that while such a source is great, going to those kinds of lengths are often not necessary. As long as you've verified the information you submit from the screen or from the case (depending on the info) and then simply say so, people will generally take you on your word.

That said, it never hurts to include screen caps. And in some extreme cases it may even be necessary. For example, if there's some debate as to what exactly the credits say - sometimes they're fuzzy and people's opinion differ. But most of the time people will take you on your word.

Don't take this the wrong way, please:

But I caution you or anyone else against simply claiming you've checked the disc, when in fact you've gotten the information elsewhere. Someone is bound to double-check the data at some point, and then your reputation would take a big hit. I'm not saying you would do this, just wanted to point out it would be very bad form.

The only kind of information where you will NEED a verifiable source other than the DVD, is when you can't find the information you've submitted on the disc or case. For a birth year for example (a note on birthyears: only use them to distinguish between people with the same exact name, see the rules for more) or for instances where an actor is sometimes credited one way and other times credited another, and you want to use the "credited as" feature to show that. There's more examples than that, but you get the point.

edited to add: When you do submit sources for info that's not available on the DVD, I suggest trying to submit more than one source unless the source you're using is indisputable - such as an actor's official website. Even then, you never know.

KM

Quoting CubbyUps:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Profiles are accepted or declined on an "all or nothing" basis.  For the screeners to have to go through every field and accept or decline each field would be onerous and very few of the thousands of updates submitted each week would get through.

I don't know if it would even be possible, but I would like to have the ability to vote yes/no on specific parts of a contribution.

Let's say someone did an excellent job on doing the cast of a tv season set, but did the studios wrong.
I could vote yes on the cast, but no to the studios.

When the screeners see the votes they would decline the studios, but approve the cast contribution.

Kind of like when you can preview the changes of a profile and have the ability to lock or unlock certain aspects of the profile. The screeners should have the same ability to lock or unlock certain aspects of a profile to allow correct and improved profile aspects, but disallow incorrect aspects of a contribution.

That way the improved cast portion would be allowed into the main database and of course users would have the chance to download the improved profile much earlier without the original contributor having to resubmit the entire thing all over again and then we have to wait another 2 to 4 days for it to be approved.

I do wonder how many users contribute greatly improved profiles, get declined and just say never again because they see the "all or nothing" approach as a waste of time since their hard work could be declined for a little thing.

Just a thought.

That would be an excellent feature to have.  Coming from DVDSpot, that system was set up and it helped a great deal because that way all that hard work wasn't completely lost right off the bat if one small part of the ticket was incorrect.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
This brings up a question. I am trying to submit a ticket with a "John Solomon" who is already in the database. I've determined that it is not the same John Solomon, but neither have a birthdate that I can find. How do I submit this new one?

This gets a little tricky.

Mind sharing IMDb links for the two Solomons in question?

KM

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Profiles are accepted or declined on an "all or nothing" basis.  For the screeners to have to go through every field and accept or decline each field would be onerous and very few of the thousands of updates submitted each week would get through.

Ug. That's kind of crappy. That's a lot of work you are throwing out because of one mistake (that's the general "you" not the "you" in particular).

In this case, I can dig because I did it wrong with the IMDB link, but as CubbyUps mentioned that's kind of insane to deny an entire ticket (or contribution) for a TV season if the studio is wrong.

Usually, the "No"-votes cast upon a contribution (I know that's not the case with initial contribution for a new title, but that's just the way it is and the forum can and will help in these cases if unclear) specifically address the erronous parts and tell the contributor what to fix. If the contributor follows up on his/her submission, it's going to be easy to fix those portions and get the whole thing through.

Look at the bulk rejection from another viewpoint, as well. The users should monitor the votes they have on a Contribution, giving them the opportunity to fix any problems which have been caught. If the user isn't interested in fixing errors then....Hmmmmm. Sometimes we all get trapped by the Contribution from hell, you fix a problem and somebody spots another one, fix that one and....<whew>, but accurate data for all is important, I fix problems and I expect other users to fix theirs. BTW, it is not a popularity vote or a majority vote, sometimes only one user will spot a valid problem that needs fixing, so don';t ignore a problem because ONE user has voted No, if it is valid FIX IT. We have some users who wind up gives us BAD DATYA because they will ignore NO votes and they manage to get their garbage into the database. buit it is also not uncommon for one vote to get a contribution declined.

If the count 35-1 and the one No vote is valid the Contribution should be DECLINED, so fix it, don't make someone elsecome back and fix something you should have. That is of no benefit to the community and only serves t annoy other users.

Skip