Quote:
I agree with Skip on this one especially in the case of original covers Vs re-release. However, Invelos' current stance is that if there's enough good data in a contribution then it'll be accepted with the bad & it'll be for whoever to fix it later.

Quote:
When you get No votes, it is important to check the reasons provided for the vote (as reybr said: you can click on the vote count to see them). If you made a mistake or inadvertently did not follow the rules, you can withdraw your contribution (click on the Title of the profile in question at the link I provided above to get the Withdraw and Edit options), make corrections and resubmit. Thus, you will increase your chances of getting your contribution accepted.

Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
I agree with Skip on this one especially in the case of original covers Vs re-release. However, Invelos' current stance is that if there's enough good data in a contribution then it'll be accepted with the bad & it'll be for whoever to fix it later.

And with all due respect to ken in this regard he is dead wrong. What the relativity effectively does is require me to setup another system and another layer of work, which I need like I need a hole in the head, to make sure that I know that I originally voted NO on this particular update and why, so that I can keep that particular piece of data out of my local. One piece of bad data should either be fixed or declined, good enough is NOT good enough.

Skip

Quote:
I guess it's time to repeat Invelos' official stance on the matter yet again:

Quoting Ken Cole (link to original post):

Quote:
The Invelos evaluators' standing policy is to accept profiles that add significant value.  They do not have to be complete, nor even completely accurate.  If you're submitting 50 painstakingly correct cast entries but get the production year wrong, the profile should be accepted and corrected later.

"No" votes are equally valid in this case, however.  They allow the contributor a chance to correct their submission if they choose, and save someone the effort of the correction later on.

I've sent out a notes reiterating this policy to the evaluators.

Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
That is why I've suggested before that the Screeners should have the option of approving/declining individual sections as well as separating out the cover scans from the data. That would then allow more people to be "happy". For most contributions it would work the same as it does now, applying a Approve or Decline across the whole contribution. A percentage would get the data approved & scans declined (or vice versa) and another percentage would have individual areas approved/declined (ie Studios, Cast, Crew, etc...).

This would allow much more valid data to be added in while keeping out the bad.

Just wanted to add that this is how DVDspot worked, and it worked really well IMO. 

The all or nothing contribution process can discourage some people. Having put a lot of work into a contribution only to get it declined for a minor flaw can turn some people into non-contributers, while if the majority of said contribution gets accepted, it would help this train of thought.

I have personally grown accustomed to DVDprofiler's way of doing things, and fully support it's current state, but I have seen numorous people express their frustrations about similiar cercumstances and agree that what Forget suggested would help. And hopefully cut down on a bit of the bickering that goes on in the forums as an added bonus.