 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5  Previous Next
|
|
no voting for information you didn't add or change |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would vote yes with a note. I'm sometimes guilty of this even for minor errors if the rest of the contribution is adding valuable data. Like someone changing the regions from 2,5 to 2 based on the cover when it is really 2,5. But nobody cares about region 5 anyway...  | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
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> Trust me, it's only you! If data is known (and documented) to be INCORRECT, it should be fixed or removed. I would challenge your statement that "undocumented data is BAD data". "BAD" is a subjective term. The data is either 'correct' or it is 'incorrect'. The terms 'good' and 'bad' should be avoided. If what you are really saying is that "undocumented data is INCORRECT data" then I would have to disagree with you. It MAY be INCORRECT data; but then again, it MAY be CORRECT data. If it is INCORRECT data, it should be so documented and removed. If it is CORRECT data, it should be left alone. If you do not wish to take the time to determine if it is INCORRECT or CORRECT, then it should be left alone for someone else who is willing to take the time. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would also vote YES with a note, tho I see no reason to not correct the false data.
But a contributor cannot be hold responsible for mistakes others made before.
cheers
Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | 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 just wanted to clarify - of course typos can be missed - I'm not implying they did it deliberately. But I would still vote "no" on the submission. However, I have known one user in this situation who had a complete hissy-fit when I dared to vote on one their submissions because of an existing typo. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
I just wanted to clarify - of course typos can be missed - I'm not implying they did it deliberately. But I would still vote "no" on the submission. However, I have known one user in this situation who had a complete hissy-fit when I dared to vote on one their submissions because of an existing typo. I think I've shared PMs with this same person, North. I disagree that someone who is correcting a field is not responsible for fixing all the existing errors. As soon as he contributes a change to that field, whatever is in the data he is contributing becomes HIS contribution and responsibility no matter how the error got there. No one expects people to catch each and every error -- some are easy to miss -- but once someone else catches it and brings it to the contributor's attention (politely, please) the contributor should show other users the courtesy of revising his upload. Otherwise, he's left a job only partly done -- and requiring someone else to make the correction, and go through the voting process all over again for something that should have been corrected in the first place. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 | | | | Last edited: by kdh1949 |
| | Registered: May 27, 2007 | | Posts: 175 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
No one expects people to catch each and every error -- some are easy to miss -- but once someone else catches it and brings it to the contributor's attention (politely, please) the contributor should show other users the courtesy of revising his upload. Otherwise, he's left a job only partly done -- and requiring someone else to make the correction, and go through the voting process all over again for something that should have been corrected in the first place. Completely agree with this statement, and frankly, don't see how others could disagree. If I NO vote someone and point out that the year the flick was released was not in fact 1789 but rather 1989 (politely), what are they going to respond, "Sorry, somebody else contributed that as 1789 so I am not going to fix it, please go to h3ll"??? It is the same thing as my 5-year old saying, "not my fault, I didn't do it, she did it". There is no point in forcing someone else to fix it, we both know there is an error, fix it and resubmit. The goal should be accuracy of the entire DB, not who has the onus for fixing a typo. You are not going to be held responsible for someone else's error, but if someone kindly points out an error in your submission (whether added by you or by someone else), I think it is only natural to respond "thanks, corrected" and move on. R. |
| | Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rooster6975: Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:
Quote:
No one expects people to catch each and every error -- some are easy to miss -- but once someone else catches it and brings it to the contributor's attention (politely, please) the contributor should show other users the courtesy of revising his upload. Otherwise, he's left a job only partly done -- and requiring someone else to make the correction, and go through the voting process all over again for something that should have been corrected in the first place.
Completely agree with this statement, and frankly, don't see how others could disagree. If I NO vote someone and point out that the year the flick was released was not in fact 1789 but rather 1989 (politely), what are they going to respond, "Sorry, somebody else contributed that as 1789 so I am not going to fix it, please go to h3ll"??? It is the same thing as my 5-year old saying, "not my fault, I didn't do it, she did it". There is no point in forcing someone else to fix it, we both know there is an error, fix it and resubmit. The goal should be accuracy of the entire DB, not who has the onus for fixing a typo. You are not going to be held responsible for someone else's error, but if someone kindly points out an error in your submission (whether added by you or by someone else), I think it is only natural to respond "thanks, corrected" and move on.
R. Sorry I don't get your example. If the production year was 1989 and not 1789, what is the person actually contributing? Just a wrong production year? In that case, a NO vote is granted. But what has it to do with partial field contributions? | | | | -- Enry |
| | Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
I just wanted to clarify - of course typos can be missed - I'm not implying they did it deliberately. But I would still vote "no" on the submission. However, I have known one user in this situation who had a complete hissy-fit when I dared to vote on one their submissions because of an existing typo.
I think I've shared PMs with this same person, North.
I disagree that someone who is correcting a field is not responsible for fixing all the existing errors. As soon as he contributes a change to that field, whatever is in the data he is contributing becomes HIS contribution and responsibility no matter how the error got there.
No one expects people to catch each and every error -- some are easy to miss -- but once someone else catches it and brings it to the contributor's attention (politely, please) the contributor should show other users the courtesy of revising his upload. Otherwise, he's left a job only partly done -- and requiring someone else to make the correction, and go through the voting process all over again for something that should have been corrected in the first place. Yes, he's left a job only completely done. So what? Not everybody is interested in all the data in a field. Not everybody has the time to make a complete audit for each field they audit. Not everybody knows how to deal with all the data... Do I like better a complete field audit? Of course I do. Can I ask to correct something that is missing or still mistaken? Yes I can, and I would correct it myself if requested by others. Should I vote NO just because the job wasn't completed? No way. | | | | -- Enry | | | | Last edited: by White Pongo, Jr. |
| | Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting EnryWiki: Quote:
Sorry I don't get your example. If the production year was 1989 and not 1789, what is the person actually contributing? Just a wrong production year? In that case, a NO vote is granted. But what has it to do with partial field contributions? They would have been contributing new/changed Country of Origin. Those two pieces of info are bundled together. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
| | Registered: October 6, 2008 | | Posts: 1,932 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rooster6975: Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:
Quote:
No one expects people to catch each and every error -- some are easy to miss -- but once someone else catches it and brings it to the contributor's attention (politely, please) the contributor should show other users the courtesy of revising his upload. Otherwise, he's left a job only partly done -- and requiring someone else to make the correction, and go through the voting process all over again for something that should have been corrected in the first place.
Completely agree with this statement, and frankly, don't see how others could disagree. If I NO vote someone and point out that the year the flick was released was not in fact 1789 but rather 1989 (politely), what are they going to respond, "Sorry, somebody else contributed that as 1789 so I am not going to fix it, please go to h3ll"??? It is the same thing as my 5-year old saying, "not my fault, I didn't do it, she did it". There is no point in forcing someone else to fix it, we both know there is an error, fix it and resubmit. The goal should be accuracy of the entire DB, not who has the onus for fixing a typo. You are not going to be held responsible for someone else's error, but if someone kindly points out an error in your submission (whether added by you or by someone else), I think it is only natural to respond "thanks, corrected" and move on.
R.  (I love hyperbole!) Oh, and by the way, I agree. If we can foster an attitude of teamwork rather than "what is this dimwit trying to make me do now!", we can improve the Db much more efficiently. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting EnryWiki: Quote:
Yes, he's left a job only completely done. So what? Not everybody is interested in all the data in a field. Not everybody has the time to make a complete audit for each field they audit. Not everybody knows how to deal with all the data... He knows enough to make a change to part of that field. If he can fix one error he can fix others. I can excuse someone for missing an error, we all do that. But I don't feel sorry for someone who, when an error is pointed out to him, refuses to act to fix it. An error is an error, regardless of who made it. Quote:
Do I like better a complete field audit? Of course I do.
Can I ask to correct something that is missing or still mistaken? Yes I can, and I would correct it myself if requested by others. No disagreement here. Quote:
Should I vote NO just because the job wasn't completed? No way. I think a more proper answer is " way." I make a distinction between "incomplete data" and "incorrect data." I'm not talking about "incomplete" data that was omitted (like only partial cast and/or crew entries) or missing words or sentences in an overview. What I feel the strongest about is those "incorrect" things in the data, like the IMDB-style "Credited as so-and-so" in the role name of a cast list -- or extraneous letters in an overview (like the extraneous "i" that often appears in text cut-and-pasted from DVD Empire). If you either vote YES or don't vote at all, you are leaving an identified error in the database for someone else to fix, which to borrow a word from another thread in this forum, is being lazy. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 | | | | Last edited: by kdh1949 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | It kind of depends on what you're fixing, too. If there's a simple and obvious parsing error (which Ken's new filters may now be fixing automatically), so that e.g. Humphrey//Bogart is in the profile as Humphrey Bogart/ / , I think I should be able to fix that without auditing the entire cast---I don't need to look at the DVD to know that this credit is boogered up, and I don't see why we need to reinvent the wheel every time, especially if someone has already documented the cast.
But if you're adding cast, then yes, I'd agree it's half-assed to only do some of them and not all of them. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
| | Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
He knows enough to make a change to part of that field. If he can fix one error he can fix others. I can excuse someone for missing an error, we all do that. But I don't feel sorry for someone who, when an error is pointed out to him, refuses to act to fix it. An error is an error, regardless of who made it.
I personally would act on it and correct the error if you pointed it out. I would even thank you for pointing it out.  That said, what if someone else doesn't, whatever the reason? Should we toss away their contribution just because they didn't "finish" it? Hmmm... Quote:
Quote:
Do I like better a complete field audit? Of course I do.
Can I ask to correct something that is missing or still mistaken? Yes I can, and I would correct it myself if requested by others.
No disagreement here.
OK. Quote:
Quote:
Should I vote NO just because the job wasn't completed? No way.
I think a more proper answer is "way." I make a distinction between "incomplete data" and "incorrect data." I'm not talking about "incomplete" data that was omitted (like only partial cast and/or crew entries) or missing words or sentences in an overview. What I feel the strongest about is those "incorrect" things in the data, like the IMDB-style "Credited as so-and-so" in the role name of a cast list -- or extraneous letters in an overview (like the extraneous "i" that often appears in text cut-and-pasted from DVD Empire). If you either vote YES or don't vote at all, you are leaving an identified error in the database for someone else to fix, which to borrow a word from another thread in this forum, is being lazy. I think each situation is different. Let's go back to the message that started this thread. Someone contributed a Media Publisher. Probably they took it from the back cover: it takes a few seconds to check that piece of information and enter it. But then, the contributor was requested to correct the other Studios too by someone else claiming the studios are incorrectly cited . Well, if I had to audit the production studios, I would insert the DVD into the player and check the opening credits and the end credits. That would take a minute or two. Then, I would need to understand how to handle some suffixes in studio names. Even if someone else suggested how to correct it, removing a suffix, say, I would want to check the rules myself. If the rule isn't clear, as it happens, I would look for some past forum discussions, like the reference thread, and check that too. All in all, maybe I would spend 15 or 20 minutes on that. But if someone else doesn't want to, or doesn't have the time, and just wants to contribute the Media Publisher... why not? I think it's their right to do so, because they contribute something useful anyway. | | | | -- Enry | | | | Last edited: by White Pongo, Jr. |
|  | W0m6at | | You're in for it now Tony |
| Registered: April 17, 2007 |  Posts: 1,091 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've not thoroughly read this thread, but I thought I'd contribute one of my experiences to counter the "the user should have to change it" argument. Years ago I went to add the edition to a DVD and got voted NO because "The title is incorrect". This was on a South Korean release, which had, in addition to the Korean title, the English title on the cover. What this meant was not only did the edition field not get updated online, but people were arguing that a subjective (as all translations from Asian characters to English alphabet are) title, almost certainly sourced from a third-party website, over something clearly appearing right in front of them... that wasn't even a change, but an existing bit of data.
What gets on my nerves even more though is that the same people that consistently vote no on data for one reason or another won't actually go and change that data themselves. It's far easier to submit a no vote and make someone else do the hard work. The trouble is, an update gets all or nothinged. It would be nice if there were some (simple) way the screener could do partial acceptances. | | | | Adelaide Movie Buffs (info on special screenings, contests, bargains, etc. relevant to Adelaideans... and contests/bargains for other Aussies too!) |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 940 |
| | Posted: | | | | From the rule on contribution notes: (bold added) Quote:
Use the space to enter full explanations for all changes and/or additions that you make. Adding a Media Company and not changing or adding a Studio would not necessarily require correcting existing non-compliant studio names. Did the contribution change or add the incorrect studio? If not, voting no could be considered improper. If it was my contribution, I'd probably fix the studio if it was pointed out, but as has been pointed out, the MC field can be contributed without putting the disc into a player. The fact that the the non-compliant studio name is "contributed" with the "new" media company does not make the studio a " change and/or addition" since the contributed data is exactly the same as the existing data. If it does, then correcting a single cast entry would require full contribution notes for each and every name in that list. Your mileage may vary. | | | | Kevin |
| | Registered: May 26, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,879 |
| | Posted: | | | | That's basically the same opinion I have - it's not that I minded going back and changing the studio data. But it's not what I was contributing. Checking package data moves a lot faster than checking DVD data that would require the disc to be inserted into the drive. My intention is to check the three obvious pieces of package data (media publisher, rating content warning, and overview) for my entire collection. So, I'm not interested right now in checking the production/release studios unless the only thing in that field is the publisher (I've run across that). To my eye, the media companies (publisher) is a separate field from the release & production studios field. (Later I have intentions of going through and checking for disc-required data, but later.)
I didn't know this would be such a hot topic. I was just trying to understand. | | | If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
-- Thorin Oakenshield |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |