Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
When I share images, I get thanks, and when I contribute, I get attacks and suspicion. Just to be totally transparent, I shall send the same image with screeners results, and shall give all the reasons of no votes and refused contributions.

Then I shall definitively stop contributing. I'm fed up with hatred. That will be "Why people don't contribute reason #3,762"

I can see where you might have a problem with the other posts, but there was no hate in my post.  I simply asked what the point of the image was as it said nothing about your credibility. 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I simply asked what the point of the image was as it said nothing about your credibility. 

I never spoke of my credibility. Skip spoke of it, asserting that I never contribute. I answered about his credibility, the image just proving that his assertion about the fact that I do not contribute is a lie. Then, you, a four star user, jumped on that to explain all the suspicion you had about the quality of my contributions.

Though I do not fear the results, this image was not intended to show the quality of my contributions, just the fact that I participated as others to the life of this site, which was denied by Skip.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I simply asked what the point of the image was as it said nothing about your credibility. 

I never spoke of my credibility. Skip spoke of it, asserting that I never contribute. I answered about his credibility, the image just proving that his assertion about the fact that I do not contribute is a lie. Then, you, a four star user, jumped on that to explain all the suspicion you had about the quality of my contributions.

Though I do not fear the results, this image was not intended to show the quality of my contributions, just the fact that I participated as others to the life of this site, which was denied by Skip.

Yves:.

You,yourself have said that you don't Contribute because of the Rules, glad to see you have a change of heart. Forum Moderator: Removed

Skip

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I simply asked what the point of the image was as it said nothing about your credibility. 

I never spoke of my credibility. Skip spoke of it, asserting that I never contribute. I answered about his credibility, the image just proving that his assertion about the fact that I do not contribute is a lie. Then, you, a four star user, jumped on that to explain all the suspicion you had about the quality of my contributions.

First, Skip said, "You would have a lot more credibility if you played the game within the rules and worked for change instead of your endless carping."

To that statement, you responded, "As for my credibility, you should rather think to yours," followed by a picture of your contribution page.  So, yes, you did speak of your credibility.

I read Skips statement as questioning whether or not your contributions followed the rules, not whether or not you made any contributions.  That is why I questioned the inclusion of the image as it did nothing to answer that question.

Second, please be so kind as to show me where, in my post, I questioned the quality of your contributions.  I said, "If those are full audits, I tip my hat to you.  I have the same number on my contribution page, but it took me nearly a month to contribute them all...though they were, mostly, full audits and I don't have the time to do more than one a day."  If you took that to be a statement questioning the quality of your work, I apologize because that was not my intent.

Let me be clear, anybody that contributes, whether it be an initial contribution, with basic data, or a full audit, is helping the community and has my gratitude...as long as they follow the rules.  You have said that, when you contribute, you do follow the rules.  I take you at your word as, while I don't always agree with your opinion, I do not believe you are a liar. 

Quote:
Though I do not fear the results, this image was not intended to show the quality of my contributions, just the fact that I participated as others to the life of this site, which was denied by Skip.

Clearly you saw Skip's statement differently than I did.  In that light, your image makes perfect sense.  Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding. 

The rules exist for a reason and while they can be a bit draconian, and indeed cause some people not to contribute accurate data, they help ensure that the data that is contributed is more accurate than it otherwise would be.

For me, it depends on my mood if I contribute corrections or not. Sometimes I'm willing to jump through the hoops, and sometimes I'm not. It's no skin off my nose if others can't take advantage of my work. Unfortunate, sure, but that's the price Invelos have to pay for data accuracy.

So, my advice is simply to do what I do: contribute when you feel like it, and other times keep it local. No reason it should impact your enjoyment of the program.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
The rules exist for a reason and while they can be a bit draconian, and indeed cause some people not to contribute accurate data, they help ensure that the data that is contributed is more accurate than it otherwise would be.

For me, it depends on my mood if I contribute corrections or not. Sometimes I'm willing to jump through the hoops, and sometimes I'm not. It's no skin off my nose if others can't take advantage of my work. Unfortunate, sure, but that's the price Invelos have to pay for data accuracy.

So, my advice is simply to do what I do: contribute when you feel like it, and other times keep it local. No reason it should impact your enjoyment of the program.

Well said. I only submit overviews, ratings/rating reasons and the occasional cover scan for the very reasons you state.

That said, surfeur does have a point about the commenters in both the voting process and the contribution threads. In the voting process, the reasons given for a no are on occasion disgusting and it's very easy to see why people would stop contributing.

I don't necessarily think the rule are draconian, but rather unclear in many, many parts.  While I fully support this thread, and think it's a great idea and a needed one, I also think it's completely retarded that the thread even has to exist. There's one clarification that's over 2 years old in that thread! That's ridiculous that it isn't incorporated somehow in the rules.

Now, to be fair, the OP could have used links in the notes, but at the same time, the rules state:

Quote:
Enter birth years only when necessary to differentate between two actors with the same name. When submitting a contribution that adds a birth year to one or more credits, list justification in the contribution notes.

(bolding mine)

I know so many people like to read the rules at face value, so technically it does not ask for links, just justification.

In the contribution notes rules:

Quote:
When you contribute a changed profile, you are required to include Contribution Notes. Use the space to enter full explanations for all changes and/or additions that you make. Make special reference to any changes where:

    * You have verified there is a discrepancy between the box and the actual content of the DVD - include your verification method.
    * You are making a subtle change that may be hard to spot - for example spelling correction to the overview.
    * You are removing incorrect information.

Contribution Notes provide an explanation of your changes to other DVD Profiler users and Invelos for voting and deciding whether to accept your contribution, so make your notes useful and descriptive.

Nothing about providing links for date of birth. Okay, yeah, so one could argue that common sense would suggest that links should be provided, but there is always the argument around here is common sense is not the same for everyone.

Should the ticket have been declined due to lack of documentation? Yeah, probably, but you can't really blame the OP for getting a little upset that the submission was declined because the rules are vague in this particular situation (and many others). I can't find where it says you must provide links for DOBs. Technically, the OP followed the rules.

Look, I can see why it was declined, but I can also see why the OP is miffed.

*Note, Astrakan, the majority of this wasn't directed at you by any means. I just got diarrhea of the keyboard for a minute.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I read Skips statement as questioning whether or not your contributions followed the rules,

If you think that "you are very clearly ignoring the rules" is just questioning, then I have to admit that I, like Surfeur, read it differently than you.

Please be so kind as to read what I wrote, in the context it was written in.  Surfeur responded to a post by Skip.  The sentence he chose to quote was, "You would have a lot more credibility if you played the game within the rules and worked for change instead of your endless carping."  That statement, in my mind, was questioning whether or not Surfeur's contributions followed the rules.

In addition, Surfeur didn't even think it did that.  He thought, according to his post to me, that Skip was saying he didn't contribute at all.

Quote:
While I agree that Surfeur keeps repeating some of his pet peeves ad nauseam, that doesn't give people the right to accuse him of not following the rules without any evidence to back up their allegations.

I agree...which is why I don't accuse him of that.  As I said, I take him at his word.