Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Oh great, another thread about accents. How is it we got on this subject?

The way this works in Wikipedia (and I think it's a good rule) is the burden of proof is on whoever wants the entry to be there. It's simple to prove something is valid, nearly impossible to prove it's invalid. If things like cover scans that don't match the entry aren't evidence an entry is invalid, I have no idea how you're ever supposed to remove anything.

Then don't. I suspect Wikipedia does not look kindly on arbitrary deletions either.

Or how about
  Correct UPC invalid locale
  No UPC (prerelease art)

Would these also need removal.

Where does it end.

Charlie

How far back do we check for updates?

With all the profiles that have no updates since moving to Invelos.  There are so many DVD's.  How do we check Intervocative for updates 4+ years ago?

Where does the line get drawn?


What about all those users that do not contribute or vote?  With the minimal amount of people that are truly active, can anybody truly account for "ALL" the DVD's that may or may not be valid?.

Again, sow me the proof that they are invalid.  I know that proving a negative is all but impossible.  I would rather leave them, than take the chance of removing what ends up being a valid profile.

Like the UPC 024543-436775 mentioned earlier.  That is the UPC for Broken Arrow.  A 1950 movie starring Jimmy Stewart, released on DVD in may of 2007.  A movie which you would have removed, since in your mind it was invalid. How many people on here actually have that movie?  I don't, so would never have seen the request to remove.

Just my opinion.

Charlie

Not at all. It could have been a limited release title that only a few DVDP voters/contributors have. There's no Rule saying that people have to constantly update profiles. Removing them on a hunch is just plain wrong IMHO. It needs to be proven that a profile isn't valid.

Edit: I submitted a box set ages ago. It's never had any updates to it since then. Are you seriously suggesting I should now submit it for deletion?

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Well, if nobody has it, that's good evidence it doesn't exist. That's sort of my point. I'm not sure why you keep expecting me to draw some arbitrary line. Anything that's been left with big, glaring problems since the move to Invelos has a good chance of being invalid.

How do you know nobody has it? going by Ken's last statement a while back there is something like tens of thousands of people that use DVD Profiler. Just because no one updates or votes on it don't mean it isn't valid or it isn't in peoples collection. But yet you think they should be removed. Sorry I could never agree with such.

Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
Not always, I have a few discs so rare that if I wasn't holding them I wouldn't believe existed. I've looked for UPC's I have and found them to be re-assigned to newer stuff I don't have.

This is probably the biggest reason I cannot agree with removing titles from the database. As a fan of low-budget films, I have movies that are rare (to the extent of limited pressings) that are in the database and it would not surprise me if their UPCs have been reassigned.

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
The way this works in Wikipedia (and I think it's a good rule) is the burden of proof is on whoever wants the entry to be there. It's simple to prove something is valid, nearly impossible to prove it's invalid. If things like cover scans that don't match the entry aren't evidence an entry is invalid, I have no idea how you're ever supposed to remove anything.

I don't use Wikipedia, but I would think that if someone were to make a change to a topic, wouldn't the burden of proof then turn to the person making the change or deleting the topic?

Quote:
I don't see why I would have to be 100% sure. I'd rather have an online DB full of titles known to exist rather than ones which may or may not exist, but most of them probably do.

I understand you are trying to clean up the database, but why wouldn't you have to be 100% sure. You are potentially removing a DVD from that DB that someone owns. Would you like it if I removed a DVD you owned from the DB that I wasn't 100% sure actually existed? I doubt you would.

(And it would be possible, because as others have said, people go on vacation and such or just don't even vote and it's not fair to them.)

Like I said, I can see where you are coming from for wanting a better DB, but I think this is going about the wrong way because the side of error is as high as the side of non.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
(And it would be possible, because as others have said, people go on vacation and such or just don't even vote and it's not fair to them.)

And not just this^:
There are also members that don't vote or just vote in rare cases. Just based on the votings or updates removing a profile is not good imho. Further research is needed.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I have profiles, for popular movies, that were never updated until I purchased the film and did the update myself.  Come to find out, while it was a popular film, the version I purchased wasn't the popular version.

Agreed, and ex-rentals often have different UPC codes...some even exclusive to certain rental chains. These are perfectly official releases from the studio, yet often little (if any) information can be found online for those particular UPCs. These often turn up in discount stores' bargain-bins as well.

I also find MANY profiles in the database that are virtually blank of information (or have tons of bad info) after years from the original release date. That often simply means that nobody has bothered to enter the correct data, or many users just don't own it. In fact, I just corrected such a Blu-ray profile last night. It had no coverscans (after two years), and basically all the data was wrong except for the Release Date and SRP. Yet it was an official release and could be confirmed at almost any online retailer.