| Author |
Message |
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Jimmy S: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
Quoting ruben.:
Quote:
Lot of documented uncredited actors get lost from the old DB. www.intervocative.com
But alot of them were just a blanket copy from IMDB, just as the cast lists were.
Maybe but they were approved... Documentation wasn't necessary than and nobody knows if the contributor did research or not to confirm the fact someone is in a movie. I guess that suck but this is how life is, you can change thing retroactively just because. Then I or anybody else should be able to find info on the web to reconfirm them as uncredited. Which I have found and left them in. |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ruben.: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
Quoting ruben.:
Quote:
Lot of documented uncredited actors get lost from the old DB. www.intervocative.com
But alot of them were just a blanket copy from IMDB, just as the cast lists were.
Lot of documented uncredited actors (Actor is Cast not Crew) I was refering to the blanket copy of cast and no need to check the on-screen credits to match. Same with uncredited, blanket copy without verifying. And since the change over to DVDP they should be confirmed, and noted in the contribution details. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | Sure but as I wrote previously : no documentation was necessary before for the new profile so it's not that evident to know where the original contributor took is confirmation (visually or on some website).
I thing it make more sense to document as I do for each of my contributions (and if I can't document something as good as I would like to do it I don't contribute the uncredited), but at that time documentation wasn't a necessity. | | | | Last edited: by Jimmy S |
|
| Registered: March 31, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,798 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
Quoting ruben.:
Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
Quoting ruben.:
Quote:
Lot of documented uncredited actors get lost from the old DB. www.intervocative.com
But alot of them were just a blanket copy from IMDB, just as the cast lists were.
Lot of documented uncredited actors (Actor is Cast not Crew)
I was refering to the blanket copy of cast and no need to check the on-screen credits to match. Same with uncredited, blanket copy without verifying. And since the change over to DVDP they should be confirmed, and noted in the contribution details. All contributing from the old www.intervocative.com is just put in Invelos when the new DB. came and all documentation from intervocative is on the old DB. not any note came with the contributing from the old DB. people who got acces to the old DB. can still read the contribute note on the movies they got. | | | | Last edited: by ruben. |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ruben.: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
Quoting ruben.:
Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
Quoting ruben.:
Quote:
Lot of documented uncredited actors get lost from the old DB. www.intervocative.com
But alot of them were just a blanket copy from IMDB, just as the cast lists were.
Lot of documented uncredited actors (Actor is Cast not Crew)
I was refering to the blanket copy of cast and no need to check the on-screen credits to match. Same with uncredited, blanket copy without verifying. And since the change over to DVDP they should be confirmed, and noted in the contribution details.
All contributing from the old www.intervocative.com is just put in Invelos when the new DB. came and all documentation from intervocative is on the old DB. not any note came with the contributing from the old DB. people who got acces to the old DB. can still read the contribute note on the movies they got. I am not one of the lucky ones that have access. So if a uncredited is being removed and there was previous confirmation notes from the old website, there shouldn't be a problem to copy and paste and send it to the contributor wanting to remove the uncredited. Then it can be included in the new contribution notes. |
|
| Registered: March 31, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,798 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
Quoting ruben.:
Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
Quoting ruben.:
Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
Quoting ruben.:
Quote:
Lot of documented uncredited actors get lost from the old DB. www.intervocative.com
But alot of them were just a blanket copy from IMDB, just as the cast lists were.
Lot of documented uncredited actors (Actor is Cast not Crew)
I was refering to the blanket copy of cast and no need to check the on-screen credits to match. Same with uncredited, blanket copy without verifying. And since the change over to DVDP they should be confirmed, and noted in the contribution details.
All contributing from the old www.intervocative.com is just put in Invelos when the new DB. came and all documentation from intervocative is on the old DB. not any note came with the contributing from the old DB. people who got acces to the old DB. can still read the contribute note on the movies they got.
I am not one of the lucky ones that have access. So if a uncredited is being removed and there was previous confirmation notes from the old website, there shouldn't be a problem to copy and paste and send it to the contributor wanting to remove the uncredited. Then it can be included in the new contribution notes. But you are one of the people who got Registered: December 27, 2009 about 2½ year after the new DB. came and now no what was contribute rules was at this time. in the old days with intervocative then you maby ask Ken why contribute notes not got with the movies from the old DB. when the old DB. was copied to the new DB. | | | | Last edited: by ruben. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | Even at the beginning of this version the documentation wasn't necessary for a new profile. The obligation of documentation happened later, I forgot when but I'm sure it was before 2009. So maybe ateo you have never been an user when things worked that way, it's the reason why I say we can't go back and remove what was approve. A "law" is a law we can't go back in time and change it. A stupid exemple but supposed the death penalty become legal again in Canada in 2013, but it would be retroactive and every criminals actually in prison sentenced for murder would be put to death. Do you think that would make sense? | | | | Last edited: by Jimmy S |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,796 |
| | Posted: | | | | It is possible that some of these contributions with uncredited were directly from the IMDB before that was a no-no. When Invelos was started users raced to contribute everything they had. I didn't get in on the rush because I didn't have a high speed line at the time. I don't do uncredited, but if they're there I haven't removed them either. | | | We don't need stinkin' IMDB's errors, we make our own.
Ineptocracy, You got to love it.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
while I agree with you that more consideration then it matches imdb should be given... they are doing so according to Ken's statement... If they are even a close match to a 3rd party database and no justification (documentation) given in the previous notes then the can be removed per Ken.
Quoting Ken Cole:
Quote:
Uncredited should only be removed where they are a match with a third party database. Note that they do not have to be an exact match. If they are a close match with any third party database, and there is no listed justification, it's safe to remove them. Yet another case of ken erring. When the rules were written we had an extensive discussion with ken about uncredited. I favored wholesale removal, ken said that there were nuggets of gold in that data so we grandfathered in the old data from pre rules. No cross copying to s new profile was to be permitted, just accepting the old data. So now the gold is being thrown out with the garbage. More weakening of the database. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Now I am going to hive s lesson I have not given in a long time. Never copy day, uncredited, even with documentation. Modify it. What does that mean. Let's suppose someone has an uncredited role of general custer, change it to George custer, gen George a. Custer, or any possible variation which could be used to make it not a direct copy. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Jimmy S: Quote:
Even at the beginning of this version the documentation wasn't necessary for a new profile. The obligation of documentation happened later, I forgot when but I'm sure it was before 2009. So maybe ateo you have never been an user when things worked that way, it's the reason why I say we can't go back and remove what was approve. A "law" is a law we can't go back in time and change it. A stupid exemple but supposed the death penalty become legal again in Canada in 2013, but it would be retroactive and every criminals actually in prison sentenced for murder would be put to death. Do you think that would make sense? Wrong example to put before me. Put them to death. |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Winston Smith: Quote:
Now I am going to hive s lesson I have not given in a long time. Never copy day, uncredited, even with documentation. Modify it. What does that mean. Let's suppose someone has an uncredited role of general custer, change it to George custer, gen George a. Custer, or any possible variation which could be used to make it not a direct copy. That's sensible, but if it's "Guy Standing on Corner" kind of hard to come up with a different discription. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
Wrong example to put before me. Put them to death. This isn't the point... the point is "law" effects aren't retroactive. | | | | Last edited: by Jimmy S |
|
| Registered: March 31, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,798 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Srehtims: Quote:
It is possible that some of these contributions with uncredited were directly from the IMDB before that was a no-no. When Invelos was started users raced to contribute everything they had. I didn't get in on the rush because I didn't have a high speed line at the time. I don't do uncredited, but if they're there I haven't removed them either. Yes there are uncredited actor/cast from IMDB. who are witout documentation and lot with documentation but we can not see who are what. its is goon with all the contribute note we are missing from the old DB. www.intervocative.com. no contribute notes from the old DB. is in the new DB. they are not been contributed to the new DB. | | | | Last edited: by ruben. |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Jimmy S: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
Wrong example to put before me. Put them to death.
This isn't the point... the point is "law" effects aren't retroactive. I know. It was the wrong example, but it would be nice if it was retroactive. (The death penalty). | | | | Last edited: by ateo357 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:
Quote:
Now I am going to hive s lesson I have not given in a long time. Never copy day, uncredited, even with documentation. Modify it. What does that mean. Let's suppose someone has an uncredited role of general custer, change it to George custer, gen George a. Custer, or any possible variation which could be used to make it not a direct copy.
That's sensible, but if it's "Guy Standing on Corner" kind of hard to come up with a different discription. I don't really think so... - Man on Corner - Man on Sidewalk - Man at Street Corner There is three in a matter of seconds off the top of my head. | | | | Pete |
|