You can ease your conscience by sending a friendly PM. 

I quite never vote no, because I find it extremely annoying to stone other users' work who generally make their best to improve the online database. As I do not want to vote "no", I also do not vote "yes". And voting "yes" is also voting sometimes for wrong data, which I do not want to do, since rules in some cases prefer wrong data to real data.

I think I voted "no" less than 15 times in three years, each time when the contributor evidently did not own the DVD and corrected good information to replace it by bad one (my no votes being of course "per the rules").

Voting correctly - where YES or NO - simply shows pride in the online database.

If the data is wrong then it's up to us to keep it out of the online database; so don't feel bad.

Personally, I want our database to the best it can possibly be (within the constraints of the rules) and that is what I am striving for with every contribution I make....so, if I make a mistake, I want someone to vote NO. Even better, bring it to my attention even quicker by dropping me a PM.

I think that my first time was with Kathy ()


I do recall feeling guilty about one of my first 'NO' votes because the person had entered a lot of data, and I was voting this way because of only one detail among all of it. I sent a PM apologizing, hoping the person wouldn't get frustrated that my vote exposed something that a dozen other voters had already missed. He reacted in kind, like most, understanding the nature of the system that i had only just begun to explore as one of the new guys.

Since then, for almost every negative vote that I give, I immediately send the person a message letting them know that I had an why (sometimes just to expand becuase the explanation boxes aren't always large enough.) The reason for this, though, is so that the person knows right away about the vote (in the case of not checking votes daily) so that (s)he can resubmit ASAP instead of waiting several days only to have it rejected for a reason given early on.

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
It's nothing personal against the contributor.

I'm sure that quite all  "no" votes are nothing personal against the contributor. But the problem is not about the feelings of the users who votes "no", but the feelings of the contributors who worked hard and were hurt by a "no" vote. In past three years, how many posts have we seen from contributors disgusted by the refusal of hours of work? I think the database lost more with people who stop contributing, than by votes that ignored a small mistake that was easy to correct just after.

I feel a bit better now; I don't feel the need to go play with the traffic anymore. 

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:

I'm sure that quite all  "no" votes are nothing personal against the contributor. But the problem is not about the feelings of the users who votes "no", but the feelings of the contributors who worked hard and were hurt by a "no" vote. In past three years, how many posts have we seen from contributors disgusted by the refusal of hours of work? I think the database lost more with people who stop contributing, than by votes that ignored a small mistake that was easy to correct just after.

I think this is very true.  It's a real shame that we can't vote no to individual parts of contributions in a way that would allow the rest to be accepted.  I wouldn't have thought it would be too difficult to set up a system that allowed a no voter to tick which part(s) of a contribution he/she wasn't happy with, which would allow the rest to be accepted.  They're already split into sections (Cast, Crew, Features, Studios, etc) anyway.