I don't believe that Ken meant EVERYTHING is OK, surfeur. You still must Contribute per the Rules, you do not have to Contribute everything. Ken's statement does not mean to go use third party daabases or correct typos in overviews that are not user-generated. You sound like you interpret it as a return to anarchy, and users can do whatever they want, and thus we will return to ping-pong games....NOT.

You are free to Contribute as much as little as you wish within the Rules, you are not free to use IMDb, write your own Overviews or do other things which are against the Rules.

Skip

YES, I read your post. It sounds to me like you are trying to interpret what Ken has said in the loosest possible manner. You are correct the system does work find, when the Rules are followed, even for Partial Contributions. I have never said that you could not do whatever you wish locally, the Rules only apply to Contributions and i am well aware that you choose not to Contribute and i understand your rationale for not doing so and to some degree agree with it personally.

Everything is OK sounds like you are saying its a free-for-all, which it is not, at least as regards Contributions. It is a free-for-all regarding our individual databases, I would be quite stunned if anyone else does exactly what I do and the way I do it locally...and that is at it should be.

Skip

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
One other problem I have with your idea , Gunnar, is that you want to in effect set up two different Teams, The Lazy Bums and The True Believers, they will always be at odds with each other, The Lazy Bums want just a little bit of data from whereever they can get  the data in the laziest fashion and The True Believers will take all data as accurately as they can make it.

No, I don't think the "Lazy Bums" will be at odds with the "True Believers". They won't mind if you enter perfect data.

What's the big deal? The Lazy Bums enter some data. That data may not be up to your standards, so you're free to improve it. They, on the other hand, are not allowed to take your True Believer data and turn it back into lazy data.

All it means to the True Believers is that instead of creating a new profile and entering all data they can take a Lazy Bum profile and upgrade it to True Believer status.

The bottom line is that when I enter the UPC for my new DVD, I would be happier to find a Lazy Bum profile than no profile at all. Ideally I would of course like to always find True Believer profiles, but we all know that's not going to happen.

What is reasonably correct? Well, it's hard to define in a few words, but personally I would set the bar fairly low. Is someone takes data from the cover when the True Believer data would come from the disc itself, that's Ok by me. As long as they are not replacing True Believer data.

If someone enters role names from memory rather than copying them exactly from the end credits, that's Ok by me, too. And again, once they have been corrected to match the credits, they cannot be turned back to something less correct.

Rather than having the Lazy Bums turn away from DVD Profiler I would like to accept them and accept that the price for getting the maximum number of titles into the database is that some profiles will be less than perfect for a while, and some others will always be. But at least they will be in the database.

Then you are defining it as i believed. My answer, absolutely NOT. There cannot be two sets of Rules, gunnar, if they cannot enter according to the rules , then they DOON'T wenter ata al. We can't have user just culling data from whatever source suits THEM, the Rule specify what source to use and what sources not to use. If Invelos found itself in a copyright dispute with someone because some user was permitted to pull data from a site whose terms of service specifically said NO, and we lost the Program because of it, then what would your loosey-goosey idea have achieved.

I have no problem with partial Contributions to the Rules, but your way...NO...NOT EVER. I don't want to risk losing one of the best programs ever created for Collection because some user didn't want to follow the Rules.

Skip

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

If someone enters role names from memory rather than copying them exactly from the end credits, that's Ok by me, too.

While I don't have a problem with most of the suggestion, the bit I've quoted above I do. Really if you're going to go from memory you may as well use IMDb data. It's likely to be as accurate. While I wouldn't object (if it were to be allowed) to copy some more data from the cover for initial contributions, no way would I want guessed data to be entered.

I agree with Forget on this point.  Actor information can come from the case so, for me, that would be fine.  I would even go so far as to accept roles that come from the overview.  Data that comes from memory, however, I would not want.  The better choice would be to enter the actors listed on the case and leave the roles blank.

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

If someone enters role names from memory rather than copying them exactly from the end credits, that's Ok by me, too.

While I don't have a problem with most of the suggestion, the bit I've quoted above I do. Really if you're going to go from memory you may as well use IMDb data. It's likely to be as accurate. While I wouldn't object (if it were to be allowed) to copy some more data from the cover for initial contributions, no way would I want guessed data to be entered.

I agree with Forget on this point.  Actor information can come from the case so, for me, that would be fine.  I would even go so far as to accept roles that come from the overview.  Data that comes from memory, however, I would not want.  The better choice would be to enter the actors listed on the case and leave the roles blank.

THAT could be OK, with the understanding that in all likelihood complete data per the Rules would OVERRIDE it, as Gunnar did note.

Skip

Fine. That's setting the bar a tad higher than I myself would require, but that certainly is a compromise that I could live with.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Perhaps it's just because I'm in a hurry and skimmed this article very quickly, but I fail to see how the suggestion differs much from what we already do.  If I created a new profile and only entered the UPC and title, I expect it would be accepted.  So I support this idea although I think it's already being applied by Invelos and doesn't really need any supporters.

There are some things we do that are outside the rules, but since they're "accepted" we go ahead and do them. I've seen a contribution recently where someone was adding a new overview but without doing the bolds and italics. He received a 'no' vote since the rules direct us to note the bolds and italics. Gunnar's suggestion would allow for the option to add the overview without requiring the bolds and italics.

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
For pre-releases, Gunnar, i will often list the for, five or six actors that I can remember, knowing that once a film is released more speciofic data will be available.

This is another common practice, but it's against the rules.

As we've discussed, anything entered as OMB is against the rules.

Gunnar's suggestion could provide some flexibility to allow for these habits.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Perhaps it's just because I'm in a hurry and skimmed this article very quickly, but I fail to see how the suggestion differs much from what we already do.  If I created a new profile and only entered the UPC and title, I expect it would be accepted.  So I support this idea although I think it's already being applied by Invelos and doesn't really need any supporters.

That was my take on the whole idea as well.

If you thought that minimum required fields for a new profile was the whole idea, you can't have read my post very thoroughly...