Basically not a bad idea...

I would imagine that such feature would best be implemented by actually moving the voting feature to the local application...

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
The only problem I see with this is that if you have accepted certain changes and voted on the update, what happens if it then subsequently gets voted down?  Now you have a bunch of stuff that may not be valid in your local.  That will affect your online file and entail dealing with even more updates.

I don't think Hal wants the system to download the updates right away.  I think he's suggesting that we could flag the contribution so the local application would automatically accept those contribution when we download the updates.

I think it's a great idea.

Quoting Touti:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
The only problem I see with this is that if you have accepted certain changes and voted on the update, what happens if it then subsequently gets voted down?  Now you have a bunch of stuff that may not be valid in your local.  That will affect your online file and entail dealing with even more updates.

I don't think Hal wants the system to download the updates right away.  I think he's suggesting that we could flag the contribution so the local application would automatically accept those contribution when we download the updates.

I think it's a great idea.

No, actually, I meant update it right then and there.

As far as the contribution not being accepted, it wouldn't matter to me, since I don't ever do updates from the on-line db anyway except on a very limited case by case basis.  I would only accept updates on the voting screen that I knew were correct, so my local would always be correct, at least for me.  If someone blindly accepts any update, either from here or the "normal update" screen, then they deserve whatever they get!  Just because it gets accepted by the screeners, doesn't mean it's correct data!

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Not real sure what I think of this idea myself yet, Hal.

Though
"If someone blindly accepts any update, either from here or the "normal update" screen, then they deserve whatever they get!  Just because it gets accepted by the screeners, doesn't mean it's correct data!"

I couldn't agree more.

Skip

But you and I both know that a lot of people do just that.  I know some of them, in fact.

Following Hal's suggestion would render the voting process moot.

Supposed this feature is implemented I figure it would become the prime and possible only update function. So basically, you'll look at a submission, select what you like and don't even need to cast a vote anymore. While I'm sure that Hal would still vote nonetheless, many others probably won't.

The result would be less votes, by that a less broad input of users on the submission, and probably in the long run a less correct online db.

Because if the submission is only partially correct, and I extract the correct data to my local db right away, given the above mentioned reduction in votes, bad data might enter the online.

The main advantage of Invelos's db is that it's built by users that submit and check submissions all over the board. this is a very sophisticated version of the "four-eyes-principle", and it would be changed dramatically by effectively eliminating the necessity to vote on submissions before you can get them into your local db.

Quoting Darxon:

Quote:
Following Hal's suggestion would render the voting process moot.

Supposed this feature is implemented I figure it would become the prime and possible only update function. So basically, you'll look at a submission, select what you like and don't even need to cast a vote anymore. While I'm sure that Hal would still vote nonetheless, many others probably won't.

The result would be less votes, by that a less broad input of users on the submission, and probably in the long run a less correct online db.

Because if the submission is only partially correct, and I extract the correct data to my local db right away, given the above mentioned reduction in votes, bad data might enter the online.

The main advantage of Invelos's db is that it's built by users that submit and check submissions all over the board. this is a very sophisticated version of the "four-eyes-principle", and it would be changed dramatically by effectively eliminating the necessity to vote on submissions before you can get them into your local db.

Not sure I agree with your assessment.  Just because I accept the data that I want in my local database, doesn't mean I won't vote on the entire contribution for the main database. 

If I did not care about the main database, why would I be in the voting screen to begin with?

And since when do you have to vote on any contribution to get it into your local database? 

I just find it repetitively time-consuming to review the data for voting, and then review it again for updating.

Quoting Darxon:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Not sure I agree with your assessment.  Just because I accept the data that I want in my local database, doesn't mean I won't vote on the entire contribution for the main database. 

Which is exactly what I said above.

What you said above was that voting would become moot.  Voting would still be extremely relevant in determing what is accepted into the main database.

Quote:

Quote:
And since when do you have to vote on any contribution to get it into your local database? 

Well, since the introduction of the voting system, of course. Without enough votes, a falsely placed "Yes" or "No" may be the deciding factor for the screener, i.e. a single "No" votes could make the difference if the need to vote for getting the data is no longer there.

Sorry but there is no requirement to vote, period.

Anyone can simply go to the update functions and download profiles and updates without ever having entered the voting screen in their lifetime.

Your original post stated that being able to download while in the voting screen would be "eliminating the necessity to vote on submissions before you can get them into your local db."

That's simply not the case.

Quote:

Quote:

I just find it repetitively time-consuming to review the data for voting, and then review it again for updating.

So do I, but you could always take the risk to accept your updates without re-checking (after all, you already did...)

Not sure I follow you here.  I always check updates before accepting and would continue to do so if I could accept them from the voting screen as well.

Maybe the system could simply automatically cast a YES vote when you click the link to download the contribution.  After all if you download it you implicitely acknowledge the validity of the contribution.