I'm afraid I can't understand why submitting according to the rules, with concise (too concise in Skip's opinion) notes is insulting in any way. How exactly does that insult someone? 

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Kathy:

All I can say is rationalize all you want. Just because something may be "legal" does not make it right. There is no logical answer for your refusal and you know that, because you only fall back to what the Rule says, despite gerri's public remarks, on the topic after the Rules were written. I have my own opinion of what is behind yoyr refusal and it would indeed be insulting. Bu then as i have said you don't like that i will speak my mind (insulting in your words) and I find your refusalto be more comprehensive with your notes to be even more insulting and further adding insult to injury by ignoring gerri's remarks. So,I guess we are even.You are however, very popular.<sarcasm>

If Ken or Gerri have a problem with me or my contribution notes all they need to do is let me know. I am quite easy to reach. They also have the ability to decline any or all of my contributions that are not to their satisfaction.

You, on the other hand, have no right to dictate to me what I need to do or not do relative to this database. As I told you before - the more you insist - the more I resist.

I'm sorry if you find my documentation not to your satisfaction but that is your problem, not mine. I will always keep my documentation as short and succinct as possible.

My cover scan documentation, much to your chagrin, also follows invelos rules. Detailed explanation is neither needed nor required. The voter needs to only pull out their DVD cover, compare the scans and vote accordingly.

Of course your DVDs are packed away so I am not quite sure how you have the ability to decide which scan is in fact more accurate. Oh that's right, as you once told me, you have a photographic memory when it comes to cover scans. 

As I told you in the recent pm, your "no" votes on my scans might be considered a violation of part of the rules since my contributions follow the guidelines Ken has in place. To vote "no" against a better scan because you don't like the notes does nothing but harm the database

This topic and your responses to it are what I find to be most frustrating. Ken has dictated the answer to the original posters query. But, because the answer is not to your liking then all of a sudden applying these rules "may be "legal" does not make it right". Please follow your own advice regarding following the rules.

If you are so unhappy with Ken's program and the community that contributes to it - why don't you develop one of your own? You can make everything "right", "legal" and exactly the way you want it. This way you won't have to worry that someone will contribute their "sloppy", "substandard", "insulting" and "disrespectful" work.

I can not answer your sarcastic remark as far as my popularity is concerned since there is no way to acquire that information. I also wonder why you feel that it is relative to the topic at hand.

Martian:

Gerri said that it is good to list the improvements made in an image set, I didn't say it. This however is consistent with explaining and documenting a change in data. new scans for you consideration does not explain any improvements. The scans are typically quite nice  BUT they are almost ALWAYS interpretations of the actual cover and no where close to being an accurate representation of the actual cover.

Butlet me reiterate it was Gerri that said we should explain improvements, NOT ME. She is thumbing her nose at Gerri and I like better notes.

Here is Gerri's post on cover scans:

Quote:
It is very important with images to be specific about what your changes are if you are submitting a full size image and there is already one there. You should point out specific differences and call them out. The scans must be significantly different in order to be accepted.

I must point out, because it is in my nature, that Gerri used the word 'should', not 'must'.  Should, in this context, means a recommendation (it is important to stay warm so you should wear a coat), not a requirement.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Here is Gerri's post on cover scans:

Quote:
It is very important with images to be specific about what your changes are if you are submitting a full size image and there is already one there. You should point out specific differences and call them out. The scans must be significantly different in order to be accepted.

I must point out, because it is in my nature, that Gerri used the word 'should', not 'must'.  Should, in this context, means a recommendation (it is important to stay warm so you should wear a coat), not a requirement.

Thank you - I will adjust my notes accordingly per Gerri's wishes.

This post should be posted in the pinned collected statements thread so that it is easily accessible and readily available.

Edit: I see you did that too - thank you TheMadMartian - 2 greenies from me.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Thank you.Please pardon me if I withhold judgement. It's a shame that you wouldn't listen , Kathy Can I expect an apology, since I have been telling you exactly that and that it was Gerri...not ME for months. I will point out that I started out asking politely and your intransigence on the matter turned it ugly.

And permit me to reiterate that it is exactly this kind of thing and others, you are not alone,Kathy, that have turned me from Contributing. Yet I am the bad guy. Yeah,....RIGHT....Am I on candid camera.

I asked you numerous times to show me Gerri's comments - you refused to do so.

Her post is 2 years old and is not in either of the places one goes to for information regarding the contribution process.

I have never been rude or "turned ugly", called you names or insulted you. If I had done any of this I would most certainly apologize.

But you think I should  apologize to you because I don't take your word as gospel? I don't think so.

Dude, seriously, get over it. No one cares but you.