If I know the data to be accurate I have no choice but to vote "yes". To vote "no" is a violation of the voting rules.
Of course good contribution notes are nice, but we're not collecting notes, we're collecting data.

Yes, of course. I even cannot imagine a good reason to vote no on correct data, except the need to play teacher. Distributing no votes seems to give special pleasure to some users...

I judge both the data and the notes. I generally don't care how accurate the data may be if it is not sourced adequately. We have Rules and thy spell out that we are to provide verification sources, if those sources are not there, then the Contributions merits vis a vis correctness are completely irrelevant.

Do none of you recall that there is a user who is famous for adopting a verification re: (uncredited) Cast. The data gets copied over from an OLD profile (pre-Rules) and sometimes accepted with no further documentation, then according to this particular user, once the data is there it is good data and documentation is required to remove it. In short his position on verification source is inconsistent, and he applies it only when he sees fit and when it suits him, me....I sure try to be consistent, there are no conditionals in what I say or do in voting or Contributing.

Skip

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
If I know the data to be accurate I have no choice but to vote "yes". To vote "no" is a violation of the voting rules.
Of course good contribution notes are nice, but we're not collecting notes, we're collecting data.

This perfectly sums up my understanding of the rules. 

With risk of repeating myself from another thread, the rules also say to provide documentation for the changes. Therefore the contribution itself is in violation of the rules.

Ken himself has said before that "No" votes are also to point out areas to the contributor that they might have missed & correct if they feel the need. I think that pointing out that the notes don't provide the necessary details includes that.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
With risk of repeating myself from another thread, the rules also say to provide documentation for the changes. Therefore the contribution itself is in violation of the rules.

Ken himself has said before that "No" votes are also to point out areas to the contributor that they might have missed & correct if they feel the need. I think that pointing out that the notes don't provide the necessary details includes that.

But the rules say the notes are there as "an explanation of your changes to other DVD Profiler users and Invelos for voting and deciding whether to accept your contribution".
And the contribution page says the notes are there "to help them [Invelos reviewers and fellow users] decide whether to accept the changes".
That tells me we are to use the notes to help us vote, not to vote on the notes themselves.

Also remember that Astrakan's poll is very specific: we already know the data is correct. And according to the rules, if "his/her data is accurate <snip> a 'No' vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege"
So in this specific situation, we have to vote "yes" (or neutral).

Always the data. I always check everything even from contributors I trust. We're only human and we all can make mistakes.

Midnit:

But without correct notes, 6 months from now what does Changed aspect ratio from 2.35 to 2.40 tell anyone....it tell them NOTHING, It only says that a change was made not the basis for the change. What is some new user to make of it, or those of us that because of our large collections, may not get around to a given update for some time. How hard is it to type two extra words...per Cover.<shrugs>

Skip