Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Kathy:

Idon't keep a hsitory file of comments like someusers do.I know what gerri said and i told you that repeatedly, if that'snot good enough foor you then  I wash my hands. i was proven correct was i not. I have never given you bad infor and never will.If i did not KNOW what gerri had said I wouldnot have told you it was her. Onc4e again,your own inrtansigenece and pride caused a problem and many months of ill-wiil and bad feelings. Feelings which I will get over eventually. But your lack of an apology speaks volumes. Notonly lack fo an apology but yet another attempt to your failing back on me.

I'm sorry but your word is not good enough for me. You have given me bad information before and have done so numerous times.

This thread is a perfect example. Copy and Paste is allowed per Ken and the rules.

Yet you insist that following those rules makes the database "substandard" and called those who do "sloppy". Your information is bad and so is the way you present it.

You were insulting to Ken, the database and the community at large. If there are ill-will and bad feelings it should be on the part of those you consistently insult and call names.

Maybe it is you who owe others an apology.

Just for the record, I don't keep a record of what Ken and Gerri post.  However, if I want someone to believe me when I quote them, I do my best to provide the actual quote.  In this case, finding it took all of 30 seconds.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Just for the record, I don't keep a record of what Ken and Gerri post.  However, if I want someone to believe me when I quote them, I do my best to provide the actual quote.  In this case, finding it took all of 30 seconds.

I am glad. The only thing I could think of to search on was Gerri and Images but I didn't think that was specific enough. I was confident in my knowledge,which was correct. The fact that Kathy wasn't willing to accept that sis her problem not mine and says far more about her than it does me. When I say ken or gerri say something...it will be correct. And when it is me saying it, like the C&P issue I will delineate that.When I contributed I set the standard for all to follow and many users did, why? because my standards for myself were high because I knew that all other users were depending on that data and Notes to accurate, as accurate as I could make them with clear notes so that hopefully years later anyone could see what was done and why...and here's the documentation and the explanation. not just delivering short comments that are unclear because I can. Maybe someday I will fell I can resume Contributing again, I would like to be able to, but right now, and this little thing with kath,is a prime example,I feel the Community is completely unapprediative iof the work that i have done in Contributing and otherwise.

I am trying to figure out the argument here.

I find Kathy very complimentary, and even notified me when she was changing a perceived oversight in a contribution I had submitted.

I usually find here notes fall within the rules and acceptable practices for Invelos, and on most  occasions go beyond that level.

Skip on the  other hand is typically very thorough in his notes, and I personally appreciate the notes that he gives.  I had often found information he provided helpful for other profiles that I have worked on.

I do not condemn either end, as long as the person is truthful about their contribution.

While Invelos may accept a simple C&P with reference to the copied profile, I found out a long time ago, that those profiles in a lot of cases have blatant and definitely correctable errors.  I will never contribute a copy and pasted profile without a thorough look at the actual credits.  Since I verify the credits myself, I will then feel comfortable contributing a profile as my own.

Are my notes perfect? Probably not... Most of my profiles get accepted (believe it or not, with typos because of my ten thumbs ).

This needs to stop.  Skip Contribute...  If it is what you want to do, do it.  That part should be easy.  You contribute, people vote screeners decide.  If it doesn't get approved, oh well.  You lock yours anyway.


Charlie

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Back for four days and the BS is as deep as ever!

Will it never end? 

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I will adjust my notes accordingly per Gerri's wishes.

If your scans are getting accepted, there's really no need to change your notes. You're doing fine and I personally appreciate your work.

Gerri's statement was in response to a user wondering why their scan was declined. It was certainly not meant to open the door for you to be publicly flogged if you don't point out the areas in which you feel your scan is superior.

What he said.  Just so we are clear, I made that post not to take sides, but to end the argument.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I will adjust my notes accordingly per Gerri's wishes.

If your scans are getting accepted, there's really no need to change your notes. You're doing fine and I personally appreciate your work.

Exactly!
She do some of the best scan here with Corey, so no need to change anything Kathy.
Don't let someone who don't contribute dictate the way you do your notes. If they are ok for the contribution screeners they are ok for the rest of us.

On a sort of side note (or am I actually getting back on topic?), I can understand questioning just seeing "Copied from accepted profile [XXXXXXX]" which I have done (though, if I recall, they were all done from a previously accepted profile that was also by me so I didn't think of it the same way). This type of note can make you say "Well what does that mean?" and you then have to look up the notes for the other profile to get an answer.

In general, I can understand the need for notes. They can tell what was change, but more importantly who made the changes.


Where I am confused is exactly why detailed notes would be of any actual importance or value.

Stage #1: Someone makes a change to the database and adds notes to state it. People go look the profile over and to vote or maybe choose not to because the notes describe something that they wouldn't be able to or don't care to verify themselves (but one click and they could see that for themselves what was changed without the notes). No matter what the notes actually say, though, the reviewing software (for the most part) shows you where the changes have been made through a side-by-side comparison with the little caution signs for a changed section, boxed in adjusted names, and the existence of two scans next to each other instead of no scans visible at all. The only places where it isn't so obvious what changes were made where notes are very helpful is the Overview or Easter Eggs sections when only one or two words or puncuation are changed. The only sections that the notes can really add any significant clarification that might be validly questioned is when dealing with a BY or Common Name.

Stage #2a: A contribution has been approved. You look back at what the note (or any previous notes) says, but in the end it doesn't affect what is in the database. If a change was made that you don't agree with, you can't go back like on a wiki site and say "I don't like what is here. Go back to before the last three sets of changes where made. That's the version that I want to download."

Stage 2b: A contribution has been declined. The notes show that certain changes were made, but no matter how detailed the notes were, there is no explanation as to why exactly the contribution was declined (and even if reasons for the decline were added by the final reviewer, they would be the only helpful notes for the declined contribution). If there were multiple changes made and only a few parts were incorrect while others were correct, there is no indication in the notes as to which was correct and which was not, even though it had to be declined as a whole. Likewise, once declined, you can't go back in and see the voting discussion which could have helped you gain incite as to the problem. In other words, there is nothing to keep history from possibly repeating itself no matter what was put in the original notes by the contributor.

Stage #3: When I download an entry (like the majority of people who use the program and have likely never visited the forums or contributed more than once or twice), what the notes say about the changes means absolutely squat. You see the changes for yourself during the download, may get curious once in a while who made some of the changes and why, but in the end it's just curiosity fluff since the profile was already approved and you make your own judgment (usually without even reading the notes) as to whether you accept downloading the changes or not.


So, again again I ask, where do detailed notes really benefit any more than just basic ones?