That is why I said to check the Birth Year Thread But it is up to you if you want to let the no votes stand. That is always an option.

But for the record... you see it in so many profiles locally because it is attached to the actor file... not to the individual files locally. So it will show in every profile you have with that person.

For me, it's all about documentation. If you're adding something to a profile that wasn't there before, you have to say where it came from. So if a by is being added, it's up to the contributor to make sure the information is correct and state the documentation that THAT particular "George Jones" has the right BY.

So if you're uploading a BY to a profile that doesn't currently have one but do no research to make sure that it's the right one, you may easily be uploading wrong information to the online database. It's easy enough to see if you are adding one, like Pete said, it's highlighted when it's being added. And it's easy enough to remove from your database if you don't want to research it. I don't think anyone is requiring that you add BY's, but if you are going ahead and submitting it...documentation is needed.

I think we can all agree, there could be a better way for Profiler to handle this, but this is what we have to work with.

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
That is why I said to check the Birth Year Thread

All 74 pages of it?

Or the first three posts... where every BY in the thread (almost anyways, it's always a work in progress as more are added) is listed in easy to find alphabetical order. It's not as dramatic as all that.

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:

In this case, Invelos should remove unwanted BYs from the online, so that the warning box appears if they are re-added. That does not even require a change to the system.

In this case, I complete 100% agree. There's even a handy dandy post in that same BY thread (fourth post I do believe) that has an ever growing list of invalid birth years (such as Robert De Niro, Samuel L. Jackson, Kathy Bates etc. etc.) that Invelos could use (if they could get off their fairly lazy a$$es when it comes to this matter) to removed the unwanted and unneeded birth years from the online. We can dream, can't we?

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
Even simpler, send out a message that unneeded BYs are not required, but also not forbidden, as long as they are correct.

No thanks. Some may not mind them, but I don't want a thousand birth years cluttering my local. It's a huge pain in the a$$ as it is when a single birth year comes through a contribution that I don't have in my local now. I have to either accept it or decline the update because there's no inbetween, and if it's one I don't need/want, I have to remove it (because there's no option to not receive it, which there should be), and if I do keep it, I have to go through every single credit to make sure it properly applies and that it's the same person (because it doesn't distinguish between the correct person it's supposed to be added to and the incorrect person... and then it's completely useless as now I'll just have a birth year attached to the wrong person anyway).

Having tons of unneeded birth years come through my local will cause just as much work (if not more because the birth year actually COULD be needed, but because it was never distinguised if it was needed because they're not forbidden, no one realizes it's now attached to incorrect names and possible a whole whack load of incorrect profiles) and I'd still have to research every single one to make sure they're actually correct, because as we've seen from this thread, mistakes happen, and the really really last thing I want to have to do is a ton of research of birth years to make sure they're correct and to correct incorrect ones. It's not my idea of a fun time.

So I guess I could use this post to also answer the initial question of why some people get so excited about birth years.    If I see an incorrect birth year, or an unneeded/invalid birth year get submitted, I will vote no every single time. And honestly, they're not all that entirely hard to spot in your contribution. If you haven't changed anything in your cast or crew fields, and the field comes up for submission with the little check box, it's an indication something has changed. And if you're submitting cast or crew anyway, how hard is it to briefly scan the field to see if there's any changes that you didn't make yourself? I do it for every single contribution. The name will be highlighted and if you see that and see you didn't add the BY yourself, then just remove it and resubmit. It's surprisingly painless and quick to do.

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
That is why I said to check the Birth Year Thread

All 74 pages of it? ....

What's working much better: Do a google search with " name site:invelos.com ". This also gives you results which may not yet be added in the Overview.

I haven't contributed much since last spring but I do recall that if you remove the BY from someone who shouldn't have it (Robert de Niro, Bruce Willis) and contribute a profile with that person, Profiler will slap it on anyway, and not show that as a change.  Very annoying.  I don't know if that has been fixed since.

Tim is right... I have always had the same experience as he described.

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:

It starts with a cage containing five monkeys.

Inside the cage hangs a banana on a string with a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done around here.

This has to be the post of the year!

Never has a post on this forum been so truthful. It doesn't surprise me that the usual suspects ignored it.

Greenie for you Grendell!

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
If the checkbox does not appear for the birth year, documentation of the year is not required.

Is that apparent to the voters when they are evaluating the contribution?