 |
|
|
|
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  Previous Next
|
|
Removing uncredited from a new release that was cloned from another DVD. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 8, 2007 |  Posts: 270 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ken will you please weigh in on this?
I believe that in the past Ken has said that if you clone a new release from a previous release with uncredited cast that the uncredited have to be documented on the new release or not to add them.
This happened with "How the West Was Won" (blueray) when it was cloned from a previous DVD.
I removed the uncredited and it was approved. Late the uncredited were readded with documentation.
Now the same thing is up again, "The Rock" (786936-726732). The uncredited are being removed beacuse they were not documented after being cloned from another profile.
Some no votes are saying that is okay to keep the uncredited.
We need some guidence from Ken again to settle this once and for all.
Thanks, Jim | | | Jim
More than I need, but not as many as I want! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yes, if it has not been documented it should not be simply copied from one profile to another. Data which has been grandfathered pre-rules does not speak to its accuracy or validity. it means ONLY that it was grandfathered, IF you want to copy to another Profile it MUST be documented, if it is NOT documented it should be REMOVED. Undocumented data in any form should NEVER make it past the screeners. Ignore the No voters, I am surprised at some of them. But like I said data which has not been documeted should NEVER be allowed to begin with.
This includes those users who claim to research things but refuse to include the fruits of that research in their notes. I will NEVER acceopt it is so because SOME user says it is, include the research sources and data or don't Contribute and i wish Ken and the screeners would start tossing this kind of garbage out the window, instead of allowing it to stink up the database. And put an absolute END to contriibuting to titles which are not owned, save for pre-release data, it is NOT worth it, this is user abuse. It is KNOWN FCATUALLY that Cast and Crew data do not necessarily carry across to all regions and versions, it will take YEARS to unscramble the mess that is being allowed to be manifested by some users. We are currently doing nothing more than developing another variant of some of the other poor quality databases which are already out there, we are NOT developing the quality database which we were developing until a few months ago.
The ONLY time that a user should be allowed to clone data to titles that he does not own is IF those titles are the SAME DISC ID which he holds in his hand, then I think we can presume that the data would not change, in fact I don't think it would be possible to have one Disc ID with different datasets. Once we have different disc Ids involved all bets are off.
I grok this very clearly and the damage that is being done, some apparently don't grok at all.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | The only titles that I know that we keep uncredited data without posted documentation are certain titles that are grandfathered in. For the life of me I do not remember the month and year.
Any thing that was submitted after that date (and I assume this would include all BR and HD profiles) would need documentation in the contribution notes to include the uncredited cast.
If they are not there, a contributor could opt to remove the undocumented uncredited cast (I personally would not do it outside of other data submission for profile), or to research the data, and add the documentation during a routine profile contribution.
By the way, Skip, you started to become argumentative with your post, and personally I think you went a little overboard. | | | | Last edited: by CharlieM |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Charlie:
I am watching a great deal of damage being done to the database, and data being allowed which should not, lame documentation and so forth, and it all makes me nuts. As I have said nuymerous times I will NEVER post a Contribution which says it is so because I say it is. I will always document my work for the benefit of all, and seeing the damage that is being done by a handful of users offends me. It is that that you are picking up on. Watching the hard work of several years be completely undone by a few users just is crazy-making, and it has been going on for awhile.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | I searched all of Ken's posts for comments concerning uncredited removal from existing profiles. This is what I found: From here: Quote:
I'll reiterate it here - if the source of the data is not immediately evident, there's no reason to remove uncredited entries. However, if (for instance), the data is a carbon copy of IMDB or any other third party database, that is enough reason to remove it. When removing it, be specific in your contribution notes so we don't pass it over. From here: Quote:
Contributions which contain unmodified prior uncredited entries are not required to state the source of those uncredited entries. Only if you are adding new uncredited entries (or indeed any new cast/crew), is a source needed.
If you believe the uncredited entries are a carbon copy of a third party source, and the existing contribution note history doesn't supply a source, you may remove them, but are not required to do so. From here: Quote:
Uncredited should only be removed where they are a match with a third party database. Note that they do not have to be an exact match. If they are a close match with any third party database, and there is no listed justification, it's safe to remove them. In all three cases, the data must match a 'third party' database in order to be removed...even when the source is not evident in the notes. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 270 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
I searched all of Ken's posts for comments concerning uncredited removal from existing profiles. This is what I found:
From here:
Quote:
Uncredited should only be removed where they are a match with a third party database. Note that they do not have to be an exact match. If they are a close match with any third party database, and there is no listed justification, it's safe to remove them.
In all three cases, the data must match a 'third party' database in order to be removed...even when the source is not evident in the notes. In the case of the current profile "The Rock" the above applies. There is not any documentation and it is a close match to IMDB. Jim | | | Jim
More than I need, but not as many as I want! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Unicus:
The part of ken's argument that is not rational is his reference to third party data not being evident. I have for years been aware of the potential poison pill data issue and as a result back when we QWERE all scrapiong data from IMDb I was always very careful to modify data which came from IMDb in any way I could. That changes nothing with respect to the data being COMPLETELY undocumented, which based on my own practice dating way back to pre-rules is not likely to be obvious IMDb data but it is and it is undocumented and should NOT be simply copied over without documentation. To do otherwise is both foolhardy and completely irrational, and is not encouraging accuracy of the data but instead is doing exactly the opposite.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'd say document. If there's existing documentation, it's easy enough to copy out of old contribution notes. If not, there's no way to tell if the data is accurate or not. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting eaglejd: Quote:
In the case of the current profile "The Rock" the above applies. There is not any documentation and it is a close match to IMDB.
Jim I guess that depends on your definition of 'a close match'. I checked before I voted and, yes, both IMDb and the profile have 9 uncredited cast. Of that nine, six match exactly, one has a different role and 2 don't match at all. In cases such as this, I leave a detailed vote and let the screeners decide. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting eaglejd:
Quote:
In the case of the current profile "The Rock" the above applies. There is not any documentation and it is a close match to IMDB.
I guess that depends on your definition of 'a close match'. I checked before I voted and, yes, both IMDb and the profile have 9 uncredited cast. Of that nine, six match exactly, one has a different role and 2 don't match at all.
In cases such as this, I leave a detailed vote and let the screeners decide. That definitely sounds like the best course of action to me; usually IMDb scraped data will be an exact match, when it's 6 of 9 it certainly sounds like some work has been done previously to check accuracy at least and it's best to let voters and screeners decide in cases like that (obviously with clear notes so that decision can be an informed one) | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Voltaire:
Having some very personal experience in this regard. And just for Unicus, I change it to 7 of 9. What that sounds like to me is someone like myself scraping data and who is aware of the issues involved and merely made modifications to the data. If there was verification that was done there should be notes here or in the Intervocative archive. Now what kind of modifications are we talking about, ummm"Joe" instead of 'Joe', General instead of Gen.. That's all that represents to me, because I used to do EXACTLY that, why, because I was all too aware from 2001 forward of the possible repurcussions that could crop up. How many profiles would that encompass, likely in the high hundreds or low thousands. The data stuill came from somewhere else (unverified) but miodified, because back then it was allowed and we were not where we are today or have been since July 2005.
So I stand my ground, if data is not DOCUMENTED it should be removed in ALL cases and as Ace pointed out if there is documentation with some old profile and there could be, it is a simple matter to copy it over to the new version, so that the data is doc'd.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | All that matters for contribution purposes is Ken's (repeated) stance on the issue, as Unicus was kind enough to provide. Anything else is called personal preference. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Jubal: Quote:
Voltaire:
Having some very personal experience in this regard. And just for Unicus, I change it to 7 of 9. What that sounds like to me is someone like myself scraping data and who is aware of the issues involved and merely made modifications to the data. If there was verification that was done there should be notes here or in the Intervocative archive. Now what kind of modifications are we talking about, ummm"Joe" instead of 'Joe', General instead of Gen.. That's all that represents to me, because I used to do EXACTLY that, why, because I was all too aware from 2001 forward of the possible repurcussions that could crop up. How many profiles would that encompass, likely in the high hundreds or low thousands. The data stuill came from somewhere else (unverified) but miodified, because back then it was allowed and we were not where we are today or have been since July 2005.
Skip The irony of this whole thing is that, as time goes by, those odds keep on decreasing. IMDB is slowly cleaning up their mess, while our old uncredited lists can't easily be touched. Personally, whenever I download a profile with 20 or so uncredited entries, I'm immediately suspicious. Unless it's some well researched classic, like Wizard of Oz, I typically just trash that list as a data rake. | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | As Ken has re-iterated several times, all of which is re-posted by Unicus, as long as the uncredited are not "close matches" to IMDb, then it is improper to remove them without other supporting proof. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yes I remove it locally. One man's treasure is another man's trash, or something like that. Just another section of the profile that I can't contribute, even when I fix all the other actual credited cast errors. No big deal. |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | The question I would have;
How do you prove that they are not there, to the satisfaction of the voters and screeners?
I don't want to sound sarcastic, but it is a lot easier to prove somebody is there.
for example, per web a and web b, Jane Doe appears as Emma Smith at time 1:32:12.
Acceptable for adding uncredited
For uncredited, if I don't know what Jane Doe looks like, all I can do is presume. So what proof (or realistically lack of proof), to justify removal of uncredited cast? |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |