| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hear hear!  |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,029 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting jgilligan: Quote:
I agree. We've seen a large number of profiles declined that when submitted again with no changes get accepted. We can't trust the accept/decline as a declaration of what SHOULD happen in the future. We need that stated explicitly. An accept/decline isn't supposed to make such a statement. It is just a screener deciding on a particular contribution. That happens I don't know how many hundred times a day. Do you really want each case to be discussed in the forum and Ken Cole giving his "official" reason why a contribution was handled the way it was? There is really no need for that. You can vote on a contribution. You can state your approval/objection together with your vote. Your vote has a weight based on your voting history. The screener decides. End of story. | | | | Matthias |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | The problem though goodguy is that how are we as users supposed to know how to do things if "Screener A" does things one way & "Screener B" does things the exact opposite. On that we can't possibly know who is right & who is wrong which is why things are brought to the forums. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goodguy: Quote:
An accept/decline isn't supposed to make such a statement. It is just a screener deciding on a particular contribution. That happens I don't know how many hundred times a day. Do you really want each case to be discussed in the forum and Ken Cole giving his "official" reason why a contribution was handled the way it was? NO! We'd NEVER get anything accepted if we had to have each contribution discussed in the forum. Quote:
There is really no need for that. You can vote on a contribution. You can state your approval/objection together with your vote. Your vote has a weight based on your voting history. The screener decides. End of story. Agreed. Considering the number of contributions the screeners have to deal with over the course of a week, it isn't unreasonable that what may have been denied yesterday may be approved today. Either by a different screener or by the same screener looking at it a second time. I don't think we can necessarily take it to mean that the initial "accept/decline" was a "declaration of what SHOULD happen in the future" in every instance. It would be nice if that were true, but given the number of contributions and the limited number of screeners who rule on them, there will be many times where the decision isn't a hard-and-fast statement of Invelos' position. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,029 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Forget_the_Rest: Quote:
The problem though goodguy is that how are we as users supposed to know how to do things if "Screener A" does things one way & "Screener B" does things the exact opposite. On that we can't possibly know who is right & who is wrong which is why things are brought to the forums. Leaving aside the fact that screeners sometimes just make a mistake, there isn't always a right answer, especially when something will be taken out of context in an attempt to generalize it. Ken Cole has stated that the decision on a contribution is often a judgement call, considering the overall improvement of a profile. *That* is an official Invelos position (if I absolutely must, I can search for Ken's post), and its vagueness is IMHO intentional, because he doesn't want to fuel the absolutism that sometimes runs rampant here. The Fifth Element thread was a case were no *right* answer exists beyond the rejection of that particular contribution. That's why it got locked. Both Yes and No voters had sufficient reason to do so and nobody was wrong for their way of voting. | | | | Matthias |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goodguy: Quote:
Quoting jgilligan:
Quote:
I agree. We've seen a large number of profiles declined that when submitted again with no changes get accepted. We can't trust the accept/decline as a declaration of what SHOULD happen in the future. We need that stated explicitly.
An accept/decline isn't supposed to make such a statement. It is just a screener deciding on a particular contribution. That happens I don't know how many hundred times a day. Do you really want each case to be discussed in the forum and Ken Cole giving his "official" reason why a contribution was handled the way it was?
There is really no need for that. You can vote on a contribution. You can state your approval/objection together with your vote. Your vote has a weight based on your voting history. The screener decides. End of story. I agree, the accept/decline is not a statement on anything other than that particular submission. The real problem is that some people on this forum use it that way, especially a decline. In situations where a significant discussion has occurred regarding a contribution, I think we need clarification from Invelos on the issue at hand. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | The same is valid for removing threads IMHO.
In the light of current events I'd like to re-emphasise that people should not get away with their misbehaviour; instead they should be banned, first temporarily and if that does not help permanently. I am sad to see many long time users go or simply don't participate any more. | | | | Last edited: by sugarjoe |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 762 |
| | Posted: | | | | The thread that sugarjoe is talking about should not have been removed, maybe closed but not removed.
Dirk |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheDarkKnight: Quote:
The thread that sugarjoe is talking about should not have been removed, maybe closed but not removed.
Dirk I disagree. That thread did nothing but cause a problem. It would have been better if it could have been deleted before so many of us saw it. It already caused enough bad blood, leaving it there for all to see would just create more of it. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 762 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting jgilligan: Quote:
Quoting TheDarkKnight:
Quote:
The thread that sugarjoe is talking about should not have been removed, maybe closed but not removed.
Dirk
I disagree. That thread did nothing but cause a problem. It would have been better if it could have been deleted before so many of us saw it. It already caused enough bad blood, leaving it there for all to see would just create more of it. Removing the thread isn't the solution. There have to be consequences for users that step over the line. |
|