I agree. The only areas I would allow partial entry for and could be considered as "fields" are cast and crew.
For everything else I believe the submitter takes resonsibility for all the data in any field they choose to change. I just don't understand people correcting some mistakes in an overview but leaving others, or removing a "Ltd" from one studio, but leaving an "Inc" on another etc.

Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I agree. The only areas I would allow partial entry for and could be considered as "fields" are cast and crew.
For everything else I believe the submitter takes resonsibility for all the data in any field they choose to change. I just don't understand people correcting some mistakes in an overview but leaving others, or removing a "Ltd" from one studio, but leaving an "Inc" on another etc.

Well, you might be fixing several typos in an overview and still miss one.  It happens.  I certainly don't mind a "No" vote that points out other errors that need fixing; I had one the other day with Skip and I fixed the contribution notes accordingly and all was well.  Just don't be rude and people tend to respond accordingly.

I agree... I was fixing some typos in the overview of my profile for The Dark Knight just the other day. And I missed a typo that another eagle-eyed user spotted. So he voted no. As soon as I saw there was a no vote I was quick to go back and fix the typo he spotted. And I not only thanked him in my updated contribution I gave him a green arrow for his no vote as well.

I personally am totally against voting yes but then giving a note to let the contributor know about an error. If that user did that with me chances are I wouldn't have seen the note to fix the error I missed. In my opinion people need to learn that a no vote is nothing personal what so ever. It is no more then to get the contributor's attention and point out a mistake to the contributor (and the screener if not fixed).

Huh.

I still don't like it to be honest.

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
My additions are in both cares for media publisher, and publisher only.

The incorrect data is, in both cases, the citations of studios.  The studio citations were already present, and are indeed the correct studios, simply incorrectly cited (containing Company and Incorporated, respectively).

Skip, it's not so much that I mind the changing.  I'm happy to change the data, it's that I'm puzzled by the "no" vote.  If the user had done as you were saying, "yes" with a note for the needed change that I had missed, I wouldn't be scratching my head here.  What puzzles me isn't that the data needs changing, it's that my perfectly good data is being voted no toward because of bad data I had nothing to do with.

If think your contribution was perfectly legitimate and within the rules.
Maybe it's not within the higher standards of some users, and you might want to go by higher standards yourself, but that would be your choice.
Others can *ask* you to fully audit a field when you edit it, and you could well accept their request (I would, if the request was polite), but I believe others shouldn't vote NO because of their preference.
You are only responsible for the data you do change, not for the data you don't change. Otherwise, Cast and Crew corrections would be virtually impossible. Same goes when you add new data: maybe you are interested in the first five actors, or in adding five more and make ten, but you don't have the time to enter one hundred!

I also think some common sense is needed and each field is a bit different.
If you are contributing a correction to an Overview, well... please try and correct everything in that Overview, rather than correct one line at the time! (still, I wouldn't vote NO if you didn't, as long as the contribution adds significant value to the database).
If you are adding a language to the audio track list, well... I would expect you to add all of them, now that you are at it! Why not? 
When it comes to adding Media Publishers from a back cover, though, I wouldn't expect you to necessarily correct Production studios from film credits as well. I would thank you if you did, but I wouldn't vote NO if you didn't. 

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

"Partial Contributions" as Gerri was discussing in this quote has to do with submitting updates only to some fields, but not doing a complete audit of the entire profile.  That is completely different from the issue at hand which has to do with making sure that all of the data in each field that you do contribute is correct.

Nay.    The discussion was about a partial contribution within a *single field*.
The post just before Gerri's was yours, by the way, and you said:

Quote:

[...]
From Gerri's perspective as a screener, I would think she would much rather only have to review any single field one time because it was done completely and accurately, than to have to revisit it numerous times as drips and drabs of information are "partially" added to the field.

Allowing "partial" field contributions will create a whole bunch more profiles that need screeening and voting.

So, it seems to me Gerri was replying to you, by writing:

Quote:
I dont think it is going to create any mroe contibutions than it does today, because the majority of contributors are already aware that you can do this, and do send in partial contributions. I would say that by far the majority of the contributions that I get are partial contributions.

Quoting whispering:

Quote:
Voting no would be against the rules IMO.

No user is responsible for correcting other users mistakes.

"If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible."

Except that inaccurate data was included in that person's contribution!

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Your higher standard would be very hard to meet when it comes to correcting a mistake in Cast or Crew. A full audit of the field can be expected for simpler fields, but I don't think a NO vote is correct.

May i suggest you re-read Hal's first comment in this thread.

Now let me get you straight, hal, if a profile has INCORRECT data in it you want it fixed, but if that fix involves removing the INCORRECT data then you want it to stay.<scratching head> Maybe its just me, but you really aren't making any sense. Though i agrre Bad data must be fixed, and if that involves removal, so be it, and undocumneted data is BAD data. Getting it approved does not suddenly make it GOOD data.

Skip<tic>