Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
I don't see why the details need to be removed, even if one would follow the new rule and make this "Unrated".

Because the details belong to the rating.  No rating, no details.

But contrary to "Not Rated", "Unrated" is generally used as a rating, sort of.

True enough, but I haven't seen it accompanied by ratings details.  The details always belong to the rated version.

Quoting Srehtims:

Quote:
I really have not followed this string, but just saw some numbers and my alias.
If you can trust the "exactly" set on "NR' filter, I have 6,406 profiles of 12,540 owned and ordered rated 'NR'.

No,I will not go thru all my titles and up date just the ratings if they change any more than change thing else
that has changed as a result of a software update or rules change. But if for some other reason I happen check a profile I will bring it up to date to the latest.

Ratings, lets see, the last time I care about ratings was when I was a kid. We used to read the bulletin
board at the Catholic (no I'm not one, but a large Irish neighborhood, so many of my buddies were) church to see what was banned so we knew what movie to sneak into.

Of the above numbers 2499 are movies rated 'NR' that does not include the 307 the box set profiles that contain some of them.

Over half of them were produce before 1960 before the obligatorily nudity, simulated sex scenes or graphic violence in today's films.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Only the people who actually WANT this feature are impacted in any serious way.

If we wanted to drag common sense into the equation we wouldn't have at least 5 threads on this topic and about 50-60 pages of discussion.  It's attitudes like yours that will prevent this from spawning 2-3 more threads on the issue.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
I don't understand the fuss.

It's because it was a bad decision to integrated this this way. It just makes no sense to make a personal preference a forced features for all the users. I sure hope that Ken will use a better way (read in a personal way) to do this in the next DVDP update, since plenty of good information are removed already from the database and Ken won't be able to put them again in the database (I talk about the rating details). To answer one of your comment there is an impact for those who don't want this : we can't download the database update who force the change in DVDP...

But even if it's a bad decision from the start it's Ken decision and he is the one who decide. Even if it's only for a very small minority of the "users" of DVDP.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
I don't understand the fuss. Only the people who actually WANT this feature are impacted in any serious way.

Don't want Unrated? Great, lock all your NR profiles and click Neutral on votes. Total time commitment is in the minutes, not hours.

Do want Unrated? Great, then voting and/or doing the work to convert your profiles will only improve your dB as far as you're concerned, and that's always a good thing, no?

Wrong, Astra. Time must still be expended to evaluate the Contribution, then further time must be expended to determine whether you are interested in the Update or not, blindly accepting or refusing are both BAD. So AKLL users are impacted by this utterly nonsensical decision. I am not complaining about the Rule Mark, I am complaining at the users that are making this single change, which I have to spend time on, which yields little or no return. As I said , what ken should have done is too ahead and make his rule change, BUT also state that it is not acceptable to make it as an only change to a profile.

It is also not too late for Ken to make this call, instead of wasting users time and energy.

Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
I don't understand the fuss.

It's because it was a bad decision to integrated this this way. It just makes no sense to make a personal preference a forced features for all the users. I sure hope that Ken will use a better way (read in a personal way) to do this in the next DVDP update, since plenty of good information are removed already from the database and Ken won't be able to put them again in the database (I talk about the rating details). To answer one of your comment there is an impact for those who don't want this : we can't download the database update who force the change in DVDP...

But even if it's a bad decision from the start it's Ken decision and he is the one who decide. Even if it's only for a very small minority of the "users" of DVDP.

Once again, it is all a matter of perspective.  From what I can tell, Pete doesn't think it was a bad decision.  It doesn't sound like Mark thinks it was either.  Based on the number of different people I have seen contributing this change, it looks like there are a lot of users who think it was a good decision.

Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
It's because it was a bad decision to integrated this this way. It just makes no sense to make a personal preference a forced features for all the users. I sure hope that Ken will use a better way (read in a personal way) to do this in the next DVDP update, since plenty of good information are removed already from the database and Ken won't be able to put them again in the database (I talk about the rating details). To answer one of your comment there is an impact for those who don't want this : we can't download the database update who force the change in DVDP...

It's a bad decision because you don't like it. (Please note, I think not using IMDB is a bad decision, so I know how you feel. ), but it's not forced. You can choose not to accept it. There's a quite a few things I have locked down in my profiles that I choose not to accept. No big deal.

Quote:
But even if it's a bad decision from the start it's Ken decision and he is the one who decide. Even if it's only for a very small minority of the "users" of DVDP.

I don't understand how you have determined it's a very small minority of users, especially considering not even what? 2%? Contribute to this forum.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Wrong, Astra. Time must still be expended to evaluate the Contribution, then further time must be expended to determine whether you are interested in the Update or not, blindly accepting or refusing are both BAD. So AKLL users are impacted by this utterly nonsensical decision. I am not complaining about the Rule Mark, I am complaining at the users that are making this single change, which I have to spend time on, which yields little or no return. As I said , what ken should have done is too ahead and make his rule change, BUT also state that it is not acceptable to make it as an only change to a profile.

It is also not too late for Ken to make this call, instead of wasting users time and energy.

I am sorry but, giving us a new rating, then telling us we can't contribute that data, just doesn't make any sense to me.  If we followed this logic on every new field, they would all be empty.

X2.

With the exception of a only a genre change I welcome any submissions that make a profile better, and I never understood any argument otherwise.

(Note, if the genre field is blank, I fully support a change just to genre, too, in that situation.)