Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I've been contributing for a long time and feel I have a fairly good grasp of the rules and the contribution process.

Over the last few months though, I've found that there have been many threads posted that have made me less confident in contributing.

I would like to illustrate my thoughts using medical terminology:

1. A heart attack.

2. A myocardial infarction resulting from a blocked coronary artery which prevented the blood from supplying an area of myocardium. The myocardium become ischemic, necrotic and fibrous. The necrotic or fibrous area was unable to contract or to conduct electrical impulses which reduced the efficiency of the affected chamber(s).

Both of these terms are generally saying the same thing.

The first is fairly straight forward and most people would clearly know what is being discussed. But, the data is limited and gives very little technical information about the process.

The second on the other hand gives more details but might not be clear to the average person. Although containing additional information, there is still not enough data for a health professional.

My point is that discussion, rules and the contribution process should be made as simple and clear as possible. Things should written and formatted keeping the average user in mind. This is especially important since this is a world wide program and, for many, English might not be their primary language.

Data shouldn't be so specific and detailed that the general user would need to do research or need graphs in order to contribute confidently.

Of course there is a place for in-depth, detailed data whose focus is aimed at the professional - imho this database shouldn't be one of them.

Yes, fully agree.

Absolutely agree. 

Fully agree with Kathy,

keep the data simple and don't over-complicate things, this would be the best way to keep the people contributing.

The thing is that DVDProfiler allows every user to have the database he/she likes without having to care about the rules very much. The problems arise when some are trying to force their preferences onto the maindatabase.

One of the basic rules for databases still is: More data doesn't necessarily add value.

Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
It's just that simple and clear don't necessarily go together. Some things ARE complicated when you reach a certain level of technical details. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to capture them accurately? Should we just give up? Sometimes we have to educate the users. There have been additions to the program that I personally don't care for, but even then I try to contribute them to the best of my abilities, or I leave them alone for those that know how to use them. If this is too much effort, well I'm sorry but that's not my problem. Take the time to learn or don't use it, it's up to you.

Why does simple have to be inaccurate? 

"Take the time to learn or don't use it...?" Based on recent threads, the more technical the issues, the more disagreement about what is the "correct" answer. How can anyone learn what to do under those circumstances?

The goal of the program should be to encourage people to contribute - making the process increasingly complicated does the exact opposite.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
It's just that simple and clear don't necessarily go together. Some things ARE complicated when you reach a certain level of technical details. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to capture them accurately? Should we just give up? Sometimes we have to educate the users. There have been additions to the program that I personally don't care for, but even then I try to contribute them to the best of my abilities, or I leave them alone for those that know how to use them. If this is too much effort, well I'm sorry but that's not my problem. Take the time to learn or don't use it, it's up to you.

Why does simple have to be inaccurate? 

"Take the time to learn or don't use it...?" Based on recent threads, the more technical the issues, the more disagreement about what is the "correct" answer. How can anyone learn what to do under those circumstances?

The goal of the program should be to encourage people to contribute - making the process increasingly complicated does the exact opposite.

Can't agree with Kathy's sentiments more here.

What I also see many times in this forum is if someone has a seemingly innocent question, they are hit with things like, "Well the rules are perfectly clear, there shouldn't be a problem!" When, in fact (and as Kathy noted) the rules in places are far from clear.

Quoting DoubleDownAgain:

Quote:
Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
It's just that simple and clear don't necessarily go together. Some things ARE complicated when you reach a certain level of technical details. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to capture them accurately? Should we just give up? Sometimes we have to educate the users. There have been additions to the program that I personally don't care for, but even then I try to contribute them to the best of my abilities, or I leave them alone for those that know how to use them. If this is too much effort, well I'm sorry but that's not my problem. Take the time to learn or don't use it, it's up to you.

Why does simple have to be inaccurate? 

"Take the time to learn or don't use it...?" Based on recent threads, the more technical the issues, the more disagreement about what is the "correct" answer. How can anyone learn what to do under those circumstances?

The goal of the program should be to encourage people to contribute - making the process increasingly complicated does the exact opposite.

Can't agree with Kathy's sentiments more here.

What I also see many times in this forum is if someone has a seemingly innocent question, they are hit with things like, "Well the rules are perfectly clear, there shouldn't be a problem!" When, in fact (and as Kathy noted) the rules in places are far from clear.

Even if the rules are perfectly written and clear to 99.9% of the people, someone else might not get it or read it wrong.  If they come in the forums for clarification, isn't that a good thing?  They are trying to get clarification so they can submit it properly, and often times they are giving grief for doing so, or accused of trying to circumvent the rules.  Which may be the case from time to time, but I'd think those that were trying to do so wouldn't be bringing attention to it.

I actually agree with Kathy. I should have said:

Can't agree more with Kathy's sentiments here.

Kathy, agreed. Whoever contributes or whoever posts a forum question, should be able to if he has a copy of DVD Profiler.
He shouldn't be required to have a thesis written on movies (and/or shiny disks we call DVD's or BluRay or...) and 10 years of practical surgery in a DVD mastering studio. If you do, so few people would be allowed to contribute that the value of the online db will fade away because too few profiles will be contributed. Unless we have a big sponsor that buys all possible releases for the 'lucky' experts. 

That said, lots of detailed discussions (and discarding bickerings) are a consequence of ever detailing more about a disk and/or movie. Audio specs are IMO a good example: it is very useful to know the available languages and an indication whether there is a good track with surround sound (surround as in a sound landscape in your room, there is no capital 'S' here). Yet the desire to document it correctly has created a lot of details on sound (like 5.1 6.1 7.1 variants, HD MA and HD whatever else) that satisfy the purist but is IMO of marginal interest to the casual user. See also crew (roles), video (1:1.78 or 1:1.85, 1:2.35 or 1:2.40 anyone) etc. And I am not even touching on touchy subjects like the inconsistency when to be exact on (mis)spelling and when not.

But the back cover isn't always as complete and correct as we'd like to, left alone the issue whether we'd really would need to analyse a disk with surgetically, microscopically software tools to reveal the 'truth' of what is on a disk. So how much of an expert does one need to be?

You can't have it both ways. IMO either Invelos continues on the road of ever more details or Invelos simplifies what is being registered. In the first case, in the end, we'll sooner or later need a university level graded study to complete before being allowed to contribute. In the latter, it'll be blasfemy to many of those on the forums here that do care about fine (and correct) detail.

Maintaining the level of detail but making rules less complicated inevitably lead to more gray i.e. contested areas, meaning more flipflopping of contributions. We've seen that in the past. I think that is a bad road to travel on.

This won't be an easy discussion since those here on the fora are NOT the average user (I think). So, which way to go?

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
It's when you try to get a consensus in these forums that it becomes complex.

Allow me to disagree here ... 


Sorry, couldn't resist