Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
I don't understand the fuss. Only the people who actually WANT this feature are impacted in any serious way.

Don't want Unrated? Great, lock all your NR profiles and click Neutral on votes. Total time commitment is in the minutes, not hours.

Do want Unrated? Great, then voting and/or doing the work to convert your profiles will only improve your dB as far as you're concerned, and that's always a good thing, no?

Th is not really a valid argument.  In the end Keeping this as a local issue, not affecting the online in any way, probably would have an equal footing as yours.  Unfortunately, I would guess that the vast amount of profilers outside of the forums, probably don't give a rat's a** anyway.

I have locked down the ratings on every profile at this point.  So I have to investigate every ratings change now.  If a movie doesn't have a rating and a profile updates that rating, I will have to tell it to accept it.  If a ratings advisory gets changed (like capitalization error) I will have to manually accept it.  So yes, this will affect everybody.  Until I go through my collection, and lock down each individual profile that has this issue (there that time thing again).  So please, tell me who is more affected.

If it would have stayed, without a rule change, then only the people that wanted this, could have had it (considering we were told that this was not for parental control).

I will do what I must for my personal collection.  But this is the first time that I have actually locked down an entire part of the DB.  I have done it on individual basis before, but until I go through and lock the individuals, what choice do I have?

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
But this is the first time that I have actually locked down an entire part of the DB.  I have done it on individual basis before, but until I go through and lock the individuals, what choice do I have?

You do know that you could filter for all NR profiles, then flag all filtered, then set locks on the flagged profiles, right?  Not exactly sure what you did, but you don't have to lock the ratings on your entire database.  In a minute or so you could easily lock just the NR profiles.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
What about the profiles that have a rating (aside from the not rated or unrated)?  I have already seen 2 of those updates.

I guess my method won't work for everything.  Still, it will get you much closer than locking the entire database.  And if you've found two of those cases, then clearly you're paying attention to what's coming in.  I'd say lock them on the case-by-case basis in that event.

I know it's not perfect.  I was just trying to help you part of the way.  But my solution may not make sense for you.

Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
For me a user who had a lot of stars is supposed to be a reasonable person and not the kind of person who use unwaranted cheap shot... Guess I was wrong

Indeed you were.  The only thing the stars indicate is that other users agree with things I have said or have found them useful.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
The "actual" solution is only a temporary one as Ken had said, so if I STFU it will means for him that everybody agree with the inclusion of personal preference in the database. I don't agree and the last time I've checked it was always permitted to be against a good concept badly implemented.

I don't recall Ken saying that it was a temporary solution, just that there could be another solution, to replace this one, if there was a need for it.

In addition, I never said that you should STFU.  What I said was, people get tired of seeing the same dead horse beaten over and over and over again.  As long as there are people constantly beating said horse, there will be people complaining about it.  Such is the nature of things.  I don't find it very productive, and it only serves to derail discussions, but it is what it is.

Quote:
Do you notice that I've written that it's a good idea like I've always said but this part tend to be forgotten...

I haven't forgotten it.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Th is not really a valid argument.  In the end Keeping this as a local issue, not affecting the online in any way, probably would have an equal footing as yours.  Unfortunately, I would guess that the vast amount of profilers outside of the forums, probably don't give a rat's a** anyway.

I have locked down the ratings on every profile at this point.  So I have to investigate every ratings change now.  If a movie doesn't have a rating and a profile updates that rating, I will have to tell it to accept it.  If a ratings advisory gets changed (like capitalization error) I will have to manually accept it.  So yes, this will affect everybody.  Until I go through my collection, and lock down each individual profile that has this issue (there that time thing again).  So please, tell me who is more affected.

If it would have stayed, without a rule change, then only the people that wanted this, could have had it (considering we were told that this was not for parental control).

I will do what I must for my personal collection.  But this is the first time that I have actually locked down an entire part of the DB.  I have done it on individual basis before, but until I go through and lock the individuals, what choice do I have?

This is a concept I just do not understand.  Every single field, on every single profile in my collection, is locked.  Unless I trust the contributor 100%, or it is a field I just don't care about, I already investigate every change.  Different strokes I guess.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Th is not really a valid argument.  In the end Keeping this as a local issue, not affecting the online in any way, probably would have an equal footing as yours.  Unfortunately, I would guess that the vast amount of profilers outside of the forums, probably don't give a rat's a** anyway.

I have locked down the ratings on every profile at this point.  So I have to investigate every ratings change now.  If a movie doesn't have a rating and a profile updates that rating, I will have to tell it to accept it.  If a ratings advisory gets changed (like capitalization error) I will have to manually accept it.  So yes, this will affect everybody.  Until I go through my collection, and lock down each individual profile that has this issue (there that time thing again).  So please, tell me who is more affected.

If it would have stayed, without a rule change, then only the people that wanted this, could have had it (considering we were told that this was not for parental control).

I will do what I must for my personal collection.  But this is the first time that I have actually locked down an entire part of the DB.  I have done it on individual basis before, but until I go through and lock the individuals, what choice do I have?

This is a concept I just do not understand.  Every single field, on every single profile in my collection, is locked.  Unless I trust the contributor 100%, or it is a field I just don't care about, I already investigate every change.  Different strokes I guess.

I really take a different approach.  When a contribution is submitted, I take an initial look at it.  If it is something that I can readily find (an overview change, edition change, some other minor fields) I will check and vote right away.  If it is something that will require a little more thought, I  will hold of f till I can check. 

A lot of common names can be checked rather quick, so a vote on those are pretty easy.  Some common names require a little more investigation, and I will check. 

And for crew adds or deletes, I will pull the DVD and check.  Otherwise things usually remain unlocked for the most. 

If it is a contribution that I voted no on, I will lock that file and mark it in a log file with the date.  That way after it clears the system, I can go back and unlock it.  yours is more defensive, mine is ,ore proactive.  but accomplish the same....

The only reason I locked the Ratings down, is that is some thing that could easily slip by in a bigger contribution.

This I can agree with midnit and wish more users understood, realistically what the ratings have to do with the online is very little or nothing. I, like you, have always locked all my data by default, this does not mean something won't sneak past me, I am human, but I see us being in a position as Ken allows more and more users to force their specialized wants on the Online, instead of simply directing them to their own local for it, then more and more users will wind up locking down their own data and we will over time see fewer and fewer Contributions being made. As I have said the Online should serve all users, not a majority or any other group but ALL users, to do that it must be very general in nature and using a standard system for all to enter data from, this is true of ALL databases, we have the additional layer of our own local databases which we can then take what we get from the Online and customize it to fit our individual requirements.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
To make the blanket statement that people that don't want the unrated, won't be impacted, is just rediculous.

I didn't say that. And I'm not sure I appreciate the insinuation that I'm ridiculous.

What I said was, "impacted in a serious way." By doing a couple of simple things, like locking all NR profiles and spot checking via a filter for Unrated once in a while, you avoid using the Unrated rating in your collection.

I suppose in a way you've proven me wrong by overreacting and locking down that field across your entire database, but I still stand by my general thesis. If you don't want to make a big deal out of this, you don't have to. Clearly you do, so...

And there I go and break my promise to myself.