Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting the Rules:

Quote:
If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible.

And yet for reasons I can't figure out, I get no votes.  My latest contribution's first vote is no I have have no clue as to why.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
We take most of thechnical support issues as users but isn't that really Invelos' job. How many hours are there in a day, and Ken Cole is our only developer, let's see keep the Program running and improving, provide support and answer all questions, look into new projects. There aren't enough hours in a day.

What about giving some of these responsibilities to the moderator team, or the screeners? Or those that respond to my support tickets stating things have been passed on to admin (and I never hear about it again)? They like to make out like they have a 'team' but IMO it's likely just Ken. We're not asking for his undivided attention. I've seen it stated in the forums that Invelos reads every post so surely a quick response wouldn't be too difficult? Just a small amount of time each day to respond to forum discussions would help the program so much. A quick 15 minutes a day (even if it means just looking in the longer threads as those are the ones likely with people having different opinions on the wording of rules) taken out of program development time would mean for a normal 8 hour working day, the next program would update would be one day later every 32 days. I could live with that for sure (IMO).

I simply don't see this support question as that big an issue.

Yet big enough an issue that you feel the need to give a lot of time to it.

Quote:
I have always tried to answer Rule squestions when they come up, I will always back out of rules questions or not answer them to begin which have been added or experienced a MAJOR change since they were initially developed.

And I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say this is appreciated BUT only Ken knows the interpretation HE wants. IMO, you and your secret servive Navy SEALS team did a fantastic job at writing the rules, the only problem that you will NEVER escape NO MATTER WHO WRITES them or how much they are tweaked is that people will always have different interpretations. The only way to get around this is to ask the one person who knows how he would like them interpreted and that's because it is his program. If it so happens he interprets different to me then that's cool, I'll keep that section local when required with no complaints.

Quote:
Now is it my fault that people like to argue and take potshots at me for trying to be helpful, no it's not.

To a point, yes. You're rude, arrogant, and generally quite nasty in a lot of posts (as am I so no need to respond with that ). You can be extremely nice and helpful, and I've seen this when you helped me personally, but often, the abrupt nature of your posting winds people up.

Quote:
I would even go so far as to suggest that if I have offered help and Ken doesn't choose to weigh-in which happens frequently, then you have gotten the proper response. Sadly that doesn't happen, and the conclusiobn that I have come to is that users simply to focus on their own interpretation so that they can twist the Rule if they can, which i actually find to be pretty self-serving on the part of the given user, without pointing fingers.

Not really, if people have a different interpretation of rules and follow what the rules say, it's not self-serving at all. It's a difference of opinion. If Ken would clear up these bits and change the wording slightly if people are entering different things then that would be awesome and is, essentially, what we (general, I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone) are asking for.

Quote:
I will when I can and I may even try and explain the thought process involved as best i can, how you choose to respond is up to you, and how I choose to ijudge that response is up to me. Sorry. But all i offer is assistance.

And it is much appreciated but your opinion is no more valid than anybody elses which you often seem to think it is (at least that is how you come across whether you mean to or not).

Quoting MrVideo:

Quote:
Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
I've all but given up on cast/crew though from a personal standpoint.

I have given up on the cast/crew info.

You're one of many MrVideo and IMO that is a huge loss, not only to the whole Profiler community, but for the program which can have an adverse affect on sales.

Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
You're one of many MrVideo and IMO that is a huge loss, not only to the whole Profiler community, but for the program which can have an adverse affect on sales.

And to think that it was only one crew credit that brought the house of cards down.  If the one that I looked was so screwed up, IMHO, how many of the others are wrong as well?  So, I just don't bother.

Quoting MrVideo:

Quote:
Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
I've all but given up on cast/crew though from a personal standpoint.

I have given up on the cast/crew info.

My one adventure into discussing a crew listing, Film Editor, was sortof frustrating.  An old generic term is being used to describe ALL editors when in actuality that is not the case.  In many cases these days, since it is a digital world, "Film" is no longer part of the job description.  I assumed incorrectly that the cast/crew listing would list exactly what is in the release.  But, such is not the case.

I can understand the issues of trying to cross-link names in a more free-form database.  But when a user clicks on a crew member name, it should correctly list the functions of that crew member.  If it was Film Editor on film A, but Editor on TV Show B and yet Editors on film C, the listing should show all three types of editing that he did.  The "Editors" listing would be a clue that there was more than one editor on film C and the user could click on film C to see who s/he worked with.  As it stands right now, all editors are "Film Editor"s and they aren't.  I'm sure that applies to many other crew job functions.  So, as a result of the extremely loose, and IMHO, inaccurate crew listing, I do not bother validating any of that with what I have.

I stick to the basics.  Or at least I try to 

I have a question..

Do you know what the program is referring to with the term "Film Editor"?  Do the rules make it clear as to what we are after?

You do realize, that you can put in customizable roles under the term Film Editor, and still contribute.  It will not change what you have in your local.  If i have a custom role in my local, it will not change it when I get your updates.

While, I can see a point to having selectable options under each item, it is not the design of the current program.

You seem to want Ken and Co. to rewrite the online and local DB, the client and the server to match what you individually want.  I am not a programmer, and would not even imagine what the rewrite would entail.

Apparently you have extensive knowledge in programming, so please write a program to match your needs.  Then put it into the market, and take the criticisms of it not being "perfect" for every user.

While I can understand Sam's complaint about lack of "support", I can not understand the wholesale bashing of a program that does not meet your personal "perceived" ideas of a program.

If you want a program change, please address it as a request in the appropriate forum.


Sorry for the rant

Charlie

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:


Sorry for the rant

Charlie

No need to apologize . Very eloquent and well put .

If these issues were something that the members were able/were allowed to fix ourselves, we would have already done it by now. We could support each other if we could actually get along. Customizations on your computer are good for you, but they don't do anything for the big picture which is what hardcore users usually care about: more than just themselves and their own little collections; wanting everything that is available to everyone to be as 'perfect' as possible.


Having too many members saying "I have given up on..." or "I gave up on ____ long ago." (which are common phrases these days,) particularly when they are users who have been around for a long time, should alone be enough for the Support to say "we need to do better than we have been [lately]."

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
...I can not understand the wholesale bashing of a program that does not meet your personal "perceived" ideas of a program...

As for me, I can perfectly understand that another user has a different opinion than me. Of course everyone may disagree with an opinion, but saying "I cannot understand" is sort of an insult for the one who dared to say what he thinks.

I am not going to get into this whole debate again but I think you misunderstood Charlie's comment.  He didn't say that he didn't understand that another user has a different opinion, he said he didn't understand the wholesale bashing of the program.  Two very different things.

I agree!