I would say most likely the screener just hit the wrong button (Gerri has said in the past that the approve and decline buttons are next to each other).

The only reason I could possibly think of for them to decline such a thing with such a vote is maybe check the UPC just to be sure you have the right one in your database. As there is more then one UPCs per release for a lot of titles.

But I would imagine it was just a screener error. It happens.

Quoting Leiterfluid:

Quote:
The "Decline" button should require a reason, just like the "no" button. 

That has been suggested and, from what I remember, because of the sheer volume of contributions, it just isn't practical.

Quoting Leiterfluid:

Quote:
Seems to me there's an easy fix for this.  Any time a contribution receives a larger majority of "Yes" votes (say 75%-80%), it should get automatically approved without screener intervention.  The screeners should only need to take action when there's enough "no votes" to raise a red flag.  That would afford the screeners a lot more time to focus on actual conflicts.

The problem with that you do get some rubber stamp yes votes, heck I've voted yes and missed some errors so that's not a good solution. In your scenerio, what if there are 20 votes including 1 no vote (and its valid)?

Anyone know what the hell an anle is???

If you're going to insult someone, at least spell it right so the sting behind the original intent remains intact. When you spell it so no one on the face of the planet can understand, it kind of loses it's impact...

On the actual topic, I'd REALLY be against a contribution simply going through with the right amount of yes votes.

First, where is the line drawn? If the very first vote is yes, then technically, the contribution is receiving 100% yes votes. Does it automatically go through?

Second, as Movieman pointed out, WAY to many rubber stamp yes votes on the site. People blindly vote yes to everything. It's quite annoying. And it really does happen to us all. Who hasn't voted yes when they've missed an error in a contribution?

Third, it's far fetched, but people could fix whatever the heck they want. Just get a few other members to vote yes and bam... the contribution goes through even though it maybe shouldn't have.

Fourth, back to the first vote is yes thing, if a time limit was placed (to avoid all contributions going through on the first yes vote), what happens when no one votes on the profile and there are no no votes to raise a red flag? Will it just hang in limbo or go to the screeners anyway? 'Cause I can tell you right now, that at least in my locality (which is really just a hop skip and jump away from yours), I'd say a good 40-65% of my contributions don't even receive a single vote, meaning they'd all go to the screeners anyway, not really taking too much off their plates.

So yeah, not trying to really throw down on the idea, but I just don't think it's be a very practical idea to implement.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
anle = able

 

Quoting Leiterfluid:

Quote:
Seems to me there's an easy fix for this.  Any time a contribution receives a larger majority of "Yes" votes (say 75%-80%), it should get automatically approved without screener intervention.  The screeners should only need to take action when there's enough "no votes" to raise a red flag.  That would afford the screeners a lot more time to focus on actual conflicts.

In fact, many yes votes just means "yes, I can take that in my collection". I know this is not what rules say, but in fact most "per the rules" changes are less interesting for final profile downloaders than many  "incorrect" ones. So I totally agree with this approach.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Leiterfluid:

Quote:
Seems to me there's an easy fix for this.  Any time a contribution receives a larger majority of "Yes" votes (say 75%-80%), it should get automatically approved without screener intervention.  The screeners should only need to take action when there's enough "no votes" to raise a red flag.  That would afford the screeners a lot more time to focus on actual conflicts.

Yea, I don't like that at all as I have seen contribution where there were 20 yes votes, a single no vote, and that no vote was the only correct one.  We have a lot...and I mean a LOT...of rubber stamp voters who always vote yes regardless of the change.  People...screeners, voters and contributors...make mistakes.  Such is life and I see no point in getting upset about it.  Now, if it were being done maliciously, I could understand, but I don't think it is...but that's just me. 

I completely Agree with the Martian!

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:


How about this:

Any time a screener declines a contribution with 100% yes votes, a reason have to be given.

Not only would it be helpful in preventing screeners from accidentally turning down a valid contribution, but in the cases where the decline is correct despite the 100% yes votes, the submitter will find out why.

Even with as many contributions as Invelos no doubt gets, I'm guessing it's a rare thing for a screener to correctly decline a contribution with 100% yes votes.

And with apologies to eaglejd, I won't be resubmitting.  I've moved on to other contributions.