Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
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.

Excuse me if I took it as you discounting my work.

The people that wanted this, already were expecting to do the work.  Whether this was implemented or not, the people that wanted it,would have done the same amount of work either way.  One would have been local, the other would not have.  The only thing that happened here, was the additional work that was forced upon the people that did not want the option.  It was Kens decision, and I will live with it.

But to say that I won't have to do any serious work (just blanket exclude the ratings field, right?), is discounting the actual true amount of work that I will have to do.

Charlie

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
The people that wanted this, already were expecting to do the work.  Whether this was implemented or not, the people that wanted it,would have done the same amount of work either way.  One would have been local, the other would not have.  The only thing that happened here, was the additional work that was forced upon the people that did not want the option.  It was Kens decision, and I will live with it.

But to say that I won't have to do any serious work (just blanket exclude the ratings field, right?), is discounting the actual true amount of work that I will have to do.

Charlie

This simply isn't the case. Putting the rating online makes it a lot less work for the people who want it. Martian, Kathy, Mark and I and everyone else could each separately determine whether each of our profiles should be unrated or not or one of us can do it and submit it.

Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
And there I go and break my promise to myself.

Don't worry I've promised to myself also to stop posting about this subject and as you can see it works for a couple of days only

For the first time since this started, I agree with you 100%. Seems like a good stopping point for me.    

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
But to say that I won't have to do any serious work (just blanket exclude the ratings field, right?), is discounting the actual true amount of work that I will have to do.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm truly at a loss. I just timed myself, and it literally took me 42 seconds to lock all NR profiles.

So, that's the true amount of work you have to do. And I underline that because there's a world of difference between what you have to do and what you can choose to do.

You can choose check each and every submission instead of voting neutral. You can choose to carefully vet all contributions that you download to make sure there's no Unrated that's slipping by. You can choose to lock down the field across your entire collection. You can choose to run an Unrated filter multiple times a week.

You can choose to do a lot of things. But bottom line is, the only thing you have to do takes you less than a minute.

By locking all NR profiles you're avoiding the vast majority of Unrated profiles. The rest could be fixed as you randomly discover them, or if you really want to be sure you can run a filter every time you download a mass update if you didn't check all the new data. Beyond those couple of minutes, you don't have to spend any more time dealing with this.

I'm starting to feel kinda disgusted with myself for wading into this nonsense, so this time (he says, yet again) I will stay away. Consider this my last word on the topic. Fingers crossed.

Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:

But it is O.K. to submit King King Extended Edition, which says "Not Rated" clear as day on the back cover, as unrated because it's a new version?

Actually, according to the rules:

For localities which offer it as a choice, enter "Unrated" for DVDs which:

    * Contain an alternate version of a film which received a theatrical rating, and which have no rating or are marked "NR" or "Not Rated"

Since King Kong had received a theatrical rating and has Not Rated on the back, then the Unrated applies.

However, I do agree about Ali...

Quote:
Meanwhile, anything with both versions of the film are losing the rating details in new profiles and I've locked down another huge chunk of my collection because of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even before the rule change (before all this happened even), when there was an unrated and rated version on the disc (in which the disc would get an NR rating), we weren't supposed to enter the rating details. I know there had been some confusion about that as I had entered rating details with a NR rating but was told not to and thus many profiles were resubmitted with the details removed.


Edit:
In fact, here is the very topic I started over a year ago:
http://invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=333384&PageNum=1

So, that had been many people's understanding (not entering rating details for unrated profiles) well before this entire mess/fiasco.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
But to say that I won't have to do any serious work (just blanket exclude the ratings field, right?), is discounting the actual true amount of work that I will have to do.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm truly at a loss. I just timed myself, and it literally took me 42 seconds to lock all NR profiles.

So, that's the true amount of work you have to do. And I underline that because there's a world of difference between what you have to do and what you can choose to do.

You can choose check each and every submission instead of voting neutral. You can choose to carefully vet all contributions that you download to make sure there's no Unrated that's slipping by. You can choose to lock down the field across your entire collection. You can choose to run an Unrated filter multiple times a week.

You can choose to do a lot of things. But bottom line is, the only thing you have to do takes you less than a minute.

By locking all NR profiles you're avoiding the vast majority of Unrated profiles. The rest could be fixed as you randomly discover them, or if you really want to be sure you can run a filter every time you download a mass update if you didn't check all the new data. Beyond those couple of minutes, you don't have to spend any more time dealing with this.

I'm starting to feel kinda disgusted with myself for wading into this nonsense, so this time (he says, yet again) I will stay away. Consider this my last word on the topic. Fingers crossed.

Astra:

Doing it your way makes you a non-participant. You blindly don't vote anymore and you blindly refuse to accept ANY Contribution. That's fine if that's what you want to do, silly...but your choice. It does save you time but...

I never said I didn't accept updates, Tim. But they are checked, and people who don't offer valid docuymentation get refused, like MOST of yours. I have noted that you are offrering better doc sometimes these days, i hope tyo see it all the time.

Quoting TheMovieman:

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even before the rule change (before all this happened even), when there was an unrated and rated version on the disc (in which the disc would get an NR rating), we weren't supposed to enter the rating details. I know there had been some confusion about that as I had entered rating details with a NR rating but was told not to and thus many profiles were resubmitted with the details removed.


Edit:
In fact, here is the very topic I started over a year ago:
http://invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=333384&PageNum=1

So, that had been many people's understanding (not entering rating details for unrated profiles) well before this entire mess/fiasco.

Ahh haaa. I was under the impression that we could still keep the ratings for the rated version in these cases. Then since I like to have the rating details even if it's unrated only (cuz most are just more dialogue anyway and the rating would be the same if submitted), I have most of them locked in. What threw me was some weren't locked, they were accepted along with the NR rating. Those are the ones disappearing, rightfully so I guess. Screeners just need to stick to one method from here on.

I won't try to contribute rating details for any unrated disc again, just keep em local and locked.

Last question, in rare cases where a movie is unrated but has rating details on cover (Havoc), are these still acceptable to contribute?