As others before me have already opined, if I know the data in the submission is correct, by checking the physical cover for example, I'd vote YES on the update.

Again, IMO, accurate data trumps poor (or missing) documentation.

Judging by the poll results, it looks like the majority agrees.  I'm still "new" here, so I don't know if the rules are changed by democracy or not.  If they are, it seems clear what must happen.

The oft quoted rule below, for reference:

==================================================

For changes to existing profiles, enter a brief description of the changes you've made.

For all contributions, indicate the source of the data, especially cast and crew additions.

Invelos reviewers and fellow users will use this information to help them decide whether to accept the changes, so be sure to provide explanations where needed.

==================================================

It is extremely poorly worded.  Why the "especially cast and crew additions"?  If we're to look at that sentence, it implies that it is more "important" to supply sources for cast and crew, so can we infer that it is less important for other types of updates?

And the last sentence, "...provide explanations where needed".  What are the standards/rules so users know what "where needed" means?

As I said, ugly wording.  It definitely needs to be changed.  It's very easy to see how people get confused and interpret the wording differently.  Need an example in "real life"?  It took decades of fighting by Language and History SCHOLARS over the wording of the 2nd amendment before the US Supreme Court decided on the matter.  And all that was over a comma!

Now, we could submit this current thread to the US Supreme Court.    However, a better solution is to have the rules committee go over ALL the rules again, and clarify the wording.

Poo

I do favor the data over the notes.  But the notes I feel must be included.

For me it comes down to how much documentation is necessary.  Some people favor writing books, other favor writing pamphlets.  So how much is necessary?

I have actually been not voting on a lot of contributions.  Especially ones not easily verifiable (especially as credited entries)

We have larger issues than documentation.  We have a lot of people that rubber stamp votes, even though the contribution is wrong (data wise).  Either a definite misspelling, Rerelease information, a complete violation of the rules, or other items.  Even after a no vote has been entered, explaining the fault. 

Now, I am no saint , and I do make errors. 

When I vote on something, I consider The data, The Notes, The contributor, and lastly other notes from voters.  (Usually in that order)  Obviously, the more easily verifiable (Overview from rear cover) the less notes needed to the more complex (x=y and y more than x so y (as x)) needs more documentation.

But even on the simplest contributions at least  (From Cover) or (as credited from credits) should be a minimum.

It's time for everybody here to face some facts.  This is a user contributed database, and we have a lot of users.  We will never get all of the users (voters) to strictly adhere to the idea that they need to verify that every contribution is accurate and 'properly' documented.

When voting, I look at the data being changed.  Then I take a quick look at the notes.  If I see nothing that makes me want to investigate further, I then look at the votes to see if someone noticed something I didn't.  If someone has voted No, I'll look into the reason for that vote and see if there is a thread discussing it.  After my research, I'll cast my vote based on the data and what I found, not the accuracy of the notes.

The big thing with contribution notes is that they are just as likely to be inaccurate as the data is.  Just because the contributor 'says' everything came from the credits or from the cover doesn't mean that it did. If I am not supposed to trust their data, why should I trust their notes?

In the end, we have to trust something.

You should not trust the data on its own. The Contribution Notes lend veracity to the data for ALL users not just one, jgilligan. Yes a user can be lie in his notes, and such a user will be found out in due course, I have caught a few of these, and I view future Contributions from such a user with a very jaundiced eye and I do verify all the notes once I have caught such a user, because they can't be trusted.

Skip