Quoting TheMadMartian

Quote:
No, I don't think you would get 'no' votes as this is exactly the same as playing the DVD and reading the counter on your player.  That 'personal observation' is accepted all the time.

But the difference of 2 seconds will make a difference, you or I are not that accurate

Quote:
just submit a profile with uncredited cast and see what you are told.

While I agree with this statement, I Never contribute uncredited unless I personally observe them myself, nor do I remove uncredited from an existing profile (Difficult to do anyway)

Quote:
You seem to be confusing 'should' with 'required'.

No I typed exactly what I meant.  Though I think on most items in the DB, actual tools should be used and verifiable.  At times, I guess "Personal Observation" would be ok, as long as there are no other means (uncredited excluded, for not everybody can ID some unknowns).

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
appears that a dartboard is actually the closest answer, and once someone has thrown their dat then it becomes correct data not to be changed

I don't think I would go to that extreme.

I only bring my statement up, because of some other discussions that we have..

recently

Overview - Should we bring in personal observations and corrections "for the good of the DB"?

It plainly states in the rules not to, but apparently we are able to pick and choose

Names is another discussion.

the first thing that needs to be established

"What is good and proper documentation?"

Alien Redrum made a statement, that sometimes observation is good, sometime it is not depending on the user. 

I think this statement is flawed in its premis, although common in its execution.  In our minds, as good stewards of the DB, documentation that is required should be the same, no matter who the contributor.  If we require it from JoeNewUser, then we should also require it from JohnOldHack.

If we can not apply the rules or guidelines across the DB in a consistent manner, then the DB will not be consistent in its data.

Just an opinion

Charlie

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:

Rules are required to be followed, for there are consequences if they are not. 

What should the consequences be for blatantly lying in the contribution notes in violation of invelos rules?

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:

The screeners depend upon us as Contributors and voters and if we do not follow the Rules, as supposedly required then we have nothing.

Why then is it appropriate for you to violate those same rules?

It is your position that correct data, albeit needing better documentation, is "garbage"? But, incorrect data, with lies as documentation, is acceptable?

Or is incorrect data only acceptable because it is you that is contributing it?


Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:

I don't like guessing games and will never accept such bs in my own database, you want to provide some valid documentation beyond "it is so because I say it is so", then fine I can accept that and will do so willingly bhut I will not accept this kind of garbage EVER PERIOD.

Exactly. I can no longer trust you and I will carefully scrutinize any and all contributions you make to the database from this day on.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:


What should the consequences be for blatantly lying in the contribution notes in violation of invelos rules?

The same as any bad contribution, being declined. Any thing outside of that, is not for us to decide, nor debate.

While I can see where you coming from with the rest of your post, I cannot agree with this at all.

It is the users who built this database, not Invelos. They should have a say (or at the very least debate) on what happens to someone who knowingly submits bad data considering the database is built on their sweat.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

That is a question each voter must decide for themselves.

If this is truly the case, and we know the screeners in part rely on the voters input, then we have lowered ourselves to the loosest guidelines.

We haven't lowered ourselves to anything as this has always been the case.  While some users require specific types of documentation, the rules never have.

Quote:
But to clarify my point about documentation

Right now, within contributions that I can see, there are a number of profiles that state simply

"Media Companies Added"

No explanation as to where he acquired this information.  Did he get it from the DVD Case (the proper source), or did he get it from IMDB, Disney's website?  What source do I need to verify correct, or point out his error?

The fact that he didn't list a source is enough to verify the error.  The rules tell us to "enter full explanations for all changes and/or additions."  Simply stating what was done doesn't do that.

Quote:
Other contributions doing the same thing state

"Adding MC from case"

While simple and concise, as the other one is, this one states where the information came from.  Now I have a way of verifying the source.

While I understand what you are saying, the rules do not require that I give you a way to verify the source.  All they require is that I explain the change.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
But the difference of 2 seconds will make a difference, you or I are not that accurate

True but, to me, there is little difference between watching a stop watch and the digital timer on my DVD player.  In both cases, I have to decide what the time is when the film stopped playing.

Quote:
No I typed exactly what I meant.  Though I think on most items in the DB, actual tools should be used and verifiable.  At times, I guess "Personal Observation" would be ok, as long as there are no other means (uncredited excluded, for not everybody can ID some unknowns).

That's why I said it seems like you are.  I can't deal with 'should', I can only deal with what the rules require.  Until the rules dictate what is and isn't good and proper documentation, it is all personal preference.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
I don't ever want us as users to be able to directly do this, as apparently some would have us do.

For what it's worth, I do not want this either.  Punishment is Ken's responsibility.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
The same as any bad contribution, being declined. Any thing outside of that, is not for us to decide, nor debate.

Sorry, but this is more than just a bad contribution.  This contribution was deliberately trying to change correct data to incorrect data and listed support that was clearly fraudulent.

So Hal, what would you suggest "we" as contributors do. 

"OK Skip, we as contributors have decided that you are banned for life, never to contribute or participate ever again"

Should we as "users" of this software be able to do that.

I don't ever want us as users to be able to directly do this, as apparently some would have us do.

I don't think it was I who suggested that "we" as contributors should do anything.  As voters, we get to vote on contributions.  As participants in this forum, we get to discuss what others are contributing, good or bad...although we tend to focus on the bad.

The rest is up to Ken.  Personally, I think there should be consequences for deliberately trying to put bad data into the database (and then defending that action here) and for lying about verifying the data.  But as you say, as users, that is beyond our purview.  Based on actions in the past, it is doubtful that Ken will take any action.  I believe that is the thing that truly frustrates many users.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
I love what transpired.


A contribution was made
Voters voted
A topic opened to argue about anamorphic v Non anamorphic about this title
argument ensues about how bad this contribution was
the contribution was declined
Argument still goes on about how bad a contribution is
valid questions asked and points brought up
Argument still continues about how bad this was
more valid questions and discussion tried
Argument still continues about how bad this was.

so what's the point.


Charlie

We do love to beat a dead horse, don't we? 

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
This thread would have been over and done with if the submission was retracted and handled appropriately.

It's very hard to argue that point!