Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
if there is a spelling mistake in an actor's name, you can also verify the correct spelling in end credits of the disc.

The abundance of common name threads discredits this notion.

Quote:
I still do not see why rules accept to correct errors for runtime, and not errors in overview.

I don't understand why, since it's been explained already in this thread.

The run time is an attribute of the film, and can thus be checked against the film itself.  The overview is simply a marketing tool, and exists solely to help sell a DVD package.  It is not a part of the film.  A film with no run time does not exist.  A film with no overview is not diminished in any way.

---------------

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:

This is addressed in the rules: "Use the Running time specified on the DVD cover unless you can verify there is a discrepancy between that and the actual Running time."

I agree, but if there is a spelling mistake in an actor's name, you can also verify the correct spelling in end credits of the disc. If the overview concerns another movie, you can verify that it is not matching the movie you watch. I still do not see why rules accept to correct errors for runtime, and not errors in overview. Now, I also know that rules do not allow to change anything in the overview. Until rules change, my position in this case, as I already wrote, is not to contribute this overview, with a note like "partial contribution, since overview contains errors that should not be sent to other users". After all, nobody is requested to contribute, and specially errors.

And if we go a little further... In their introduction, rules say "The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.  .. always verify the specifications printed on the cover.  In both cases, errors abound, so always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible.

With this, if you can verify the correct spelling of an actor's name in end credits, you should be allowed to correct a spelling mistake on the cover.

I understand your point and personally I agree.

But, my point in the section you quoted is that Ken has seen fit to address the discrepancy in run times and yet chose not to regarding Overviews.

It would be quite easy for him to address the Overview issue. Since he has not done so it seems to me that this area is one that he is satisfied with.

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:

It would be quite easy for him to address the Overview issue. Since he has not done so it seems to me that this area is one that he is satisfied with.

Not sure. I remember when he took that position, after long discussions (as usual  ), essentially to answer the ping ponging problem. At that time, the problem of errors (that were not so common) was not really discussed, so Ken took a decision without all elements. I already made a parallel with accented names where Ken wrote something, but now  seems ready to allow correct accents in next update of the program, after all the discussions we had here.

About pingponging risk, I think there is no problem to document obvious errors, as we document an obviously wrong runtime.

So I think it is important to say what we think is good for the database, and the program, since a clean database is a better marketing tool than a collection of errors. Of course Ken will choose what he wants...

Quote:
Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:

Yves, what you call an obvious error might not be one for somebody else and opposite. That's a big problem.

In the following list (in English) , I have three errors and two correct :

Harison Ford
entertainment
directar
horror
thriler

do you disagree ?

knowing that all actors on overviews are top actors, no risk to have a discussion about someone unknown.

and I do not speak about overview describing another movie... rather easy to document.

I really think that most errors are obvious. The color/colour problem does not exist if you consider the location (R2 UK or R1 US)

Quote:
You can not have one, fixing the obvious "error" (directar) and ignore the more complicated "errors".

Quote:
Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
You can not have one, fixing the obvious "error" (directar) and ignore the more complicated "errors".

Have you some examples of complicated error ?

And even if the error is complicated, as long as notes explain and document the error, we can treat it exactly as runtime.

Quote:
And if we go a little further... In their introduction, rules say "The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.  .. always verify the specifications printed on the cover.  In both cases, errors abound, so always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible.

With this, if you can verify the correct spelling of an actor's name in end credits, you should be allowed to correct a spelling mistake on the cover.

Quote:
That's what I just said before. There is no "master source" for the overview, while the running time on the disc itself is the "master source" for the running time.