I also note that this particular user has returned to his decision that his DUTCH collection sets the standard for credits for the entire world. Contrary to what is already known about potential errors and contrary to what the RULES say.

Skip

Not surprised, my friend. But deeply disappointed.

Skip

I agree with his hard work. and I agree with his use of the credit lookup tool. I also agree that he does not need to provide extensive documentation or notes. I also agree that ken has said that you can base contributions on disks from other regions.
However he has not, as far as I know, said that you can make minor changes to a profile you don't own based on another locality or region.

Quoting Ken:

Quote:
In general, contributions should be made only for profiles which the contributor owns and can verify.  Similarly, contribution votes should be made only for profiles which the voter owns and can verify. 

However, there are exceptions.  Obviously, prerelease contributions do not require ownership.  They should be basic starter information (e.g. complete cast and crew is impossible to correctly contribute without having the disc).

Taking another case, if a particular locality has blank or limited cast info, and the submitter would like to fill it in with their verified cast from their own locality, I would tend to allow the voters who actually own the submitted locality to make the call.  However, the submitted contribution notes should clearly indicate that the cast is from the other locality, so that the voters and contribution evaluators can make an informed choice.

If the entry is not blank or limited then it should be a no vote AFAICS?

I vote yes aganst this advice since I it's usually an improvement and I check it myself.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
This endless smearing of T!M by those who disagree with his methods and who disagree with Ken's ruling on the subject -- well, it's just really in poor taste and ill-mannered and disrespectful. You may not agree with what he's doing, but on at least 22,748 occasions he has successfully contributed to the database in such a manner that Invelos has accepted his work.

He may not "show his work" or document to your satisfaction, but he does so to Invelos' satisfaction quite successfully. Acknowledge that and move on. And if you don't like his attitude, check your own first. And move on.

I've tried doing what he does. It's a heck of a lot of work. Not only that, but one subjects oneself to this barrage of insults by those discontent with Ken's ruling. I have a lot of respect for him that he's willing to endure it all for our benefit and to improve the Credit Lookup Tool.

And yes, I say for our benefit in spite of the fear-mongering that he might actually *gasp* make an error. I would venture to say that if one were to compare a selection of profiles which he has updated with a selection of non-updated profiles that the accuracy factor would be in his favor. If you feel otherwise, prove it instead of derailing this thread (which would have been a benefit to us all had it been allowed to function as intended).

If we had a resource thread like this, it would have been a valuable addition to the forum. Instead it became an opportunity for some to bash and malign and misconstrue and fear-monger and re-argue what Ken has previously settled. And to what end? Nothing good IMO.

I am deeply disappointed too.

Tim has done it to himself. Shall I?

Let's see should i talk about voting for images that violate the Rules, In consistent Voting, voting personal preference or making up Rules to suit one self. WEhy would i want to us ethat brush on anybody but the user involved. There are numerous other brushes that can be used.

As long as jhe continues to believe thathis DUTCH collection set the standard for the entire world  I will continue to talk about and against it., James. As I have said just because Ken says we CAN do something does not mean that we should. WE have plenty of documentation to validate that was Tim does is introduce errors into the system, guaranteed errors that will have to be fixed. So, no, James you are wrong about this just as you are wrong about many things, I will continue to stand for what's right, in the face of your beat down or anyone else's and if I have to do it alone, that's fine. I stand up to people a lot bigger than you or anyone else here on a daily basis, don't forget I live near Washington DC, you can't intimidate me with your ummm.

Skip

I'd say that this part of the quote from Ken as provided by Graveworm is key:

"However, the submitted contribution notes should clearly indicate that the cast is from the other locality, so that the voters and contribution evaluators can make an informed choice."

Therefore, if I were to contribute to profiles I don't own (which BTW I have no intention of doing - except for very basic pre-release profiles), I would at least state something in my contribution notes along the lines of

"Cast and crew taken from release .... (EAN/UPC) in locality X. Voters, please verify the correctness of these credits for this particular release".

Subsequently, a voter could state that he/she verified the credits to be correct for the release in question (or not, as the case may be, in which case he/she could indicate what the differences are). Once a voter would have verified the credits, other voters' (and the screeners') job would be a lot easier.

IMHO that would be a constructive way to move forward with this issue and comply with Ken's stance on the matter.

Like I said James shall we discuss other things. How about a user who votes Yes to images which do not match the profile? What do you think....hmmm.

Skip

Yep. My point however is that actions like yours ought to be explicitly triggered by the submitted contribution notes. At least, that's what I would do if I were to submit such contributions: explicitly invite voters to do so.

That was exactly what I did when I ran my experiment and I attribute that and the cooperation of other users in determinig that thsi was a problem and should be pursued no further and also publicly announced the termination of the plan and explained why. In view of the known error issue that Tim is introducing into the system via his own self-indulgence and desire to continue to inflate his numbers, he has now decided that HIS collection is the gold standard for the world...need I explain my reaction to that concept...and it would be the same reaction no matter who the user was. If I were doing it you would be justified in condemning me for my arrogance...but I won't do that. I firmly believe that this is a very simple case of Ken said Tim could do this but that does not mean that he SHOULD do it. It does not help the database, it actually DEGRADES it. I will continue to stand AGAINST this arrogant behavior on the part of ANY user who has the temerity to try and standardize worldwide data based ONLY upon the data in the single or perhaps (few) copies which he might own. Ken is WRONG on this. i vote Yes for Tim on every opportunity  when I can, unfortunately the opportunities are few and far between...but sometimes and i will NOT accept such pathetically documented data or attempts to establish a gold standard. There is NOWHERE in the Rules that allows for such an establishment. I will further when the time comes do a new audit on each and every such title that Tim generates, and when errors are found and they will be I will point directly at the Original source for the error, whoever it is.

I have already stated that I have noted errors between data Contributed by Tim and my own audited data, but I also must acknowledge that it IS possible that my own data my have gotten corrupted somewhere along the way, despite all of my precautions to avoid this. So until I can actually do audits on these titles; I can only say that Tim's data is highly suspect and I will NOT trust it.

Skip