Quoting Kevin Coed:

Quote:
I noticed a discernible difference when the voting system came in mainly.

Maybe but there are still contribution where I vote NO and explain the reason (I have made a post about this problem) but the contribution was still accepted... so sometime we can ask why there is a vote system if we don't follow it...

Quoting pdf256:

Quote:


I have submitted more then 180 new profiles in the last two and a half years, plus I don't know how many updates to other people profiles with almost all of them approved. If I can do it, so can you.

pdf

I have submitted nearly 400 profiles in the past three months, and all were accepted but two. So, you are right, I can do it.

That is not the problem I spoke of. It is tiring to repeat many times the same things as very few really read was is written.

The problem is that since about ten days, contribution are refused if you do not mention the source of the cast list. I wrote that this will prevent many people to contribute, and, in my case, I'm not ready to make screen caps as Skip suggested to prove that an uncredited actor is really in the movie.

Another thing, for people who do not speak english, it is quite impossible to understand anything in the horrible mess that is the contribution forum. I understand english quite well,but really it's a pain to follow what must be done (euhh, sorry, everything Skip and Rifter say MUST be done ).

The system is made complicated because there is a problem with the english zone1 profiles. There is no problem with french zone 2 profiles, and probably many profiles in countries that do not house ayatollahs.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:

The problem is that since about ten days, contribution are refused if you do not mention the source of the cast list. I wrote that this will prevent many people to contribute, and, in my case, I'm not ready to make screen caps as Skip suggested to prove that an uncredited actor is really in the movie.

Nothing has really changed since then. You have always had to provide documentation for anything you submit or change. The only difference is that it is being enforced more strictly, because of abuse.

Quote:

Another thing, for people who do not speak english, it is quite impossible to understand anything in the horrible mess that is the contribution forum. I understand english quite well,but really it's a pain to follow what must be done (euhh, sorry, everything Skip and Rifter say MUST be done ).

The system is made complicated because there is a problem with the english zone1 profiles. There is no problem with french zone 2 profiles, and probably many profiles in countries that do not house ayatollahs.

Ah. I understand everything now. It's Ken's fault for being an American.

Ken, you should be ashamed of yourself, living here. Your parents and ancestors must share this blame as well.

Quoting Cyrille:

Quote:
Quoting Kevin Coed:

Quote:
I noticed a discernible difference when the voting system came in mainly.

Maybe but there are still contribution where I vote NO and explain the reason (I have made a post about this problem) but the contribution was still accepted... so sometime we can ask why there is a vote system if we don't follow it...

How many 'yes' votes were there?

Ken doesn't have time to respond to all PMs just resubmit the correct profile with contribution notes letting the screeners know that your restoring a profile from the previous contributor not following the rules.

Quoting pdf256:

Quote:
Why should the number of other people that own the DVD lower the bar on data quality?

I wasn't just talking about the data (although I was to some extent), but also the quality of the notes (e.g. the quality of the whole submission). For example, just today I submitted updates to several fields in this profile: 4-006408-823216. Most of these updates were for things that should have been populated from the profile creation, but were not. Honestly, I can't be bothered to provide detailed note about how I found most of the information (see next paragraph as well for more reason) and summarised it as "Updated lots of missing info directly from disc and case. Disc info confirmed using VSO Inspector".

I find the submission of notes useful as you can justify anything that is likely to cause confusion or debate. However, the thought of having to justify often obvious information seem both tedious, and more importantly insulting. A profile that I voted on today (013023-186194) gave three sources of evidence in the notes to show the country of origin. For this particular title, it's blindingly obvious what the CoO is and it seem silly that someone should have to justify it. It's like starting from the point of assuming the submitter is lying and has to prove their worth.

It's this need to justify myself to such a level of detail that puts me off. In region 1, this has less impact because there are umpteen other people who are willing to do that work if you don't, but the more obscure the title or smaller the locality, the greater the chance is that no-one else will do it (the profile I mention above was for a title released five years ago). It seems wrong to update perfectly good and 'lawful' information locally, but not submit it simply because someone refuses to believe you without proof (a little dramatic, but you get the idea).

Quote:
So add real notes, list your sources. If you had just spent 30 minutes entering the full cast from the film/DVD credits, the extra time to type "entered full cast from the film credits" is not much!

I wouln't have a problem if a one liner would do the job. It's where you're putting more effort into the notes than you were for the contribution that gets to me. Remember that Ken placed emphasis on credits, but the statement of strictness was not limited to simply the credits.

I'm in the category of contributors who will put in some effort, but not a great deal. I'm not against rules. I'm not against being required to supply notes. I just think that you have to accept that the more detail is asked for the fewer people will be willing to provide it. If we really are moving down the lines of justifying every part of every submission, then lets please have category specific notes (i.e. a notes field next to each check box on the submission screen). If not, then please have some faith in the voters ability to decide whether a submission is good enough - that's what they're for isn't it?

Quoting Kevin:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:

The problem is that since about ten days, contribution are refused if you do not mention the source of the cast list. I wrote that this will prevent many people to contribute, and, in my case, I'm not ready to make screen caps as Skip suggested to prove that an uncredited actor is really in the movie.

Nothing has really changed since then. You have always had to provide documentation for anything you submit or change. The only difference is that it is being enforced more strictly, because of abuse.

Quote:

Another thing, for people who do not speak english, it is quite impossible to understand anything in the horrible mess that is the contribution forum. I understand english quite well,but really it's a pain to follow what must be done (euhh, sorry, everything Skip and Rifter say MUST be done ).

The system is made complicated because there is a problem with the english zone1 profiles. There is no problem with french zone 2 profiles, and probably many profiles in countries that do not house ayatollahs.

Ah. I understand everything now. It's Ken's fault for being an American.

Ken, you should be ashamed of yourself, living here. Your parents and ancestors must share this blame as well.

Ken, please do some genealogical research so we know which of your ancestors we should shake our fingers at.

Quoting DariusKyrak:

Quote:
I think that this is being blown out of proportion. This thread is not about following the rules or not following the rules, it's about proportionate response. If you have a profile that is 'owned' by 1000 people, you might expect more updates and challenges to get the information right and the application of very strict rules becomes important. If, however, you have a profile that is 'owned' by only 10 people and possibly only two people who will ever contribute to it, then you need to be more realistic about the quality of information you're likely to get and the level of scrutiny you can apply. As has been said more than once, some information is better than none!

As for alternatives, I think the argument is that the 'new', hard-line is a change, and the alternative is simply to go back to what it was before. And what was before? The voting systems! If you have a well maintained profile that may expect 100 votes on a change, chances are that profile is going to adhere well to the rules because of the amount of scrutiny it is put under. If you have a less owned profile which may attract only three or four votes and only two or three changes in its lifetime (e.g. vast swathes of minority interest and non-R1 profiles), you tend to be less discerning.

My concern (and it would seem, many others) is that the submissions I make (which rarely contain more than a few words of contributions notes) will receive single-figure yes votes and no no votes, but will now be rejected where it wasn't in the past. I.e. that balance of credibility has moved further away from the voting systems and towards the nameless, faceless bots.

I think the argument is not to do with the detail or the strictness of the rules, but that their implementation in a given circumtance is best suited to a jury of the submision's peers.

I think that you make some very valid points in your post.

I have been a long time user of the product and remember very well the days before a voting system or rules when a lot a rubbish ended up being accepted. For example, I regularly had Region 4 profiles for Australia overwritten by ones from Brazil! We have come a long way indeed.

The release of Version 3 has rekindled my interest in contributing and I have been making regular contributions since it was launched, something that I had not done in a long time.

When I make a contribution however, I am lucky if I get more than a couple of votes and many of my contributions get no votes at all. There are about two or three individuals in my region who regularly vote and contribute the same type of films that I have. Many of these profiles require a lot of updating to get them to a reasonable level.

I try very hard to follow the rules and provide sources for what I contribute. That said, I unashamedely draw on profiles already contributed in other regions when I update these profiles. If I had to sit down and watch the film credits and type it all in, I would never get anywhere given the state of the current profiles and the number that need updating.

Users in Regions other than Regions 1 face an uphill battle going forward unless we get more contributors. Whilst this may not affect many of you who are not interested in films from outside of Region 1, for those of you that are, it will make the database poorer if we lose contributors from these other regions. I am sure that no one wants this to turn into Region 1 DVDProfiler.

Going forward, HD media with different region coding may help solve this problem but that will take some time. In the interim, the community needs to be aware that all regions are not on an equal footing.