Different screener on each maybe? (I don't know if there are others from Ken and Gerri.)

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:

contributed the same day, processed the same day, one BD, one DVD  same info changes. One approved, one declined.  Same movie.

So we can have this situation with present system ?

In another thread where I proposed a new contribution system, your argument to refuse it was :

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:

As far as contributing, I have to have the confidence, that as long as I contribute within certain parameters, that my profile will be accepted.

I still consider present system is a source of many problems for contributors, voters, and a source of inaccuracy in the online.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
if the screeners are to follow the rules, and apply them consistently, then this should not have happened

What were the eight "no" votes for?

---------------

Yeah, interesting there were 8 (I'm sure a few were agree with so and so) but that's a lot of no votes. Also, I have the BD version but can't remember how (or if) I voted.

Based on the reason, I wonder if the voters on the one took issue with the fact one of the Diane Lane's BY (the lesser known one) was solely taken from IMDb with no other sources.

The location crew seems to be the obvious cause for the no-votes, yeah - and unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much light at the end of the tunnel on that particular matter. Aside from that, this serves as a nice reminder never to take a random screener decision for gospel. It's nothing new, of course: I see this happening on a regular, almost daily basis. Often, the screeners will just rely on the votes, especially in cases where even they don't know how to "interpret" the rules...

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:

contributed the same day, processed the same day, one BD, one DVD  same info changes. One approved, one declined.  Same movie.

So we can have this situation with present system ?

In another thread where I proposed a new contribution system, your argument to refuse it was :

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:

As far as contributing, I have to have the confidence, that as long as I contribute within certain parameters, that my profile will be accepted.

I still consider present system is a source of many problems for contributors, voters, and a source of inaccuracy in the online.

The problem here is, this is not supposed to be a popularity contest.

The same information change, both should be accepted or rejected. irrelevant of the votes.  It is supposed to be a rules based system.  Fix this problem, and inconsistencies should start to disappear.

Charlie

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
It looks like the screeners went with the voters in both cases so I would be interested to see what the reasons were.

All the no votes concerned the Location Crew, which had "Unit" applied to there divider in the credits

Rome Unit
Stefano De Nardis...Costume Supervisor
Renato Agostini...SPFX Supervisor
Tokyo Unit
Tony Crosbie...Costume Supervisor
Yasuji Iwata...SPFX Supervisor
New York Unit
Donna Maloney...Costume Supervisor
Steve Kirshoff...SPFX Supervisor


The other ironic thing, 5 of the no voters voted yes on another contribution that had location crew, but without the word"Unit".

I also can accept, that without guidance from Ken, on the ever changing world of movie credits, then the screeners are creeping along trying to interpret the rules for themselves. 

Not knowing what information the screeners have, then this situation becomes unacceptable a their level

If this is the case, we would have no hope for consistency at ours, especially for items that are not directly covered by the rules, or the rules are ambiguous.