Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
... He may agree or disagree, of course, and give his ideas, ...

Ahhh...but you forgot the most important part...

Quote:
...but he has not to say NO.

Quote:
I think that for you, everything that I write must be contradicted...

Looks like a little selective quoting to me. Why not include the part where you say he has no right to say NO? Hmmmm...

I grow weary of this. Unlike you, I have contributions to make to the database. Nice bantering with you though .

I think he thinks,, surfeur that you believe I must be corrected since I clearly should not ever voice my opinion or opposition to a Feature Request.

I think he is absolutely RIGHT.

Skip

Quoting Snark:

Quote:
I think this is a great idea.  This information has already been through the screening process so I think that the fears some have described are vastly overblown. 

If rather than copying an already approved profile someone starts from scratch and inputs directly from credits there is a still a high probability of fat fingering or missing something.  Copying and pasting eliminates that risk. 

It's absurd IMO to start from scratch and go through the credits line by line when a disc is reissued with a new UPC and a stable template profile already exists in the database.  If someone wants to do it by hand, that's great.  I'd far rather copy and paste and spin through the credits to see if I can spot a problem.

But this is defiantely just a "nice to have".  It's easy enough to download the profile, copy, paste and then remove the template profile.  It's not that much extra work.

Whilst it is ok to copy what somebody else has done, the original submitter might just as easily have FAT fingers...I copied the cast listing from a R1 US version of Stagate: Continuum recently for the R2 UK version, but before submitting the UK profile I checked against the credits and found that one of the cast has been given the charater "can driver" whereas the actual credits say "CAB DRIVER" so a plug in like this would only lead to more corrupt profiles, as I have found other R2 profile submitters constantly submitting profiles with "copied from already approved x,y or z" only to find when I view the credits Fat fingers are there first". By all means copy over already submitted BUT MAKE SURE YOU VARIFY.

There nothing like having to do the submission twice, and if your propagating a problem, you might as well have done the whole thing from the credits from the start in the first place.

But then thats just my two cents worth.

Steve

Quoting snarbo:

Quote:
Whilst it is ok to copy what somebody else has done, the original submitter might just as easily have FAT fingers...I copied the cast listing from a R1 US version of Stagate: Continuum recently for the R2 UK version, but before submitting the UK profile I checked against the credits and found that one of the cast has been given the charater "can driver" whereas the actual credits say "CAB DRIVER" so a plug in like this would only lead to more corrupt profiles, as I have found other R2 profile submitters constantly submitting profiles with "copied from already approved x,y or z" only to find when I view the credits Fat fingers are there first". By all means copy over already submitted BUT MAKE SURE YOU VARIFY.

There nothing like having to do the submission twice, and if your propagating a problem, you might as well have done the whole thing from the credits from the start in the first place.

But then thats just my two cents worth.

Steve

I'm definately advocating verifying the data, but copying a verified list is a good starting point.  At some level we have to believe that at least some care has gone into verifying the data in database.  If we assume that it's perpetually suspect and obsessively mistrust it then there's no point in using a collabortive DB tool.

What it would give careful users is a better start then you would get from IMDB.  For the lazy folks who aren't going to check anyhow the data is probably a better basis than IMDB for a start because it's at least gone through the verification process.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Well, speaking personally, this user will NEVER vote Yes for laziness, I will not supporta user who simply copies data and does not verify it for accuracy. We have users who do this all the time, we have other users who will only go as far as the CLT for Common Name they will NOT check to or provide any documentation that indicates that Name A=Name B and are not something like Father and Son and people vote Yes for this, I guess we are not interested in securing as accurate data as possible. we even have users who are copying (uncredited) data WITHOUT supplying documentation for that data.

Like I said this user will NEVER knowingly vote Yes to such instances of laziness, I want accuracy NOT garbage, nor will such data have any chance of finding its way into my database. Verify the data, and for voters DEMAND verification STOP supporting laziness.

I'd expect nothing less from you Skip.  But you can't defeat human lazieness.  It's the second most powerful force in the universe after human stupidity.   

If there is a way that makes it easier for people who care enough to get a jump start on a profile I am all for it.