I am usually trying to stay out of those arguments, but I think we are reaching a point here where Invelos has to step in.

Many longtime members are leaving because a very small minority is runing the fun for them here.
As I do not know who is writing those unnecessary insulting PMs, I think KEN should step in and ban those people here immediately. This place would be much nicer then and maybe even the ones that left would came back.

Do not let a few trolls ruin this place here.

Please KEN , take some action on those users.

greetings
Donnie

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
The problem as I see it here is that while he could PM/Forum ignore the user in question, that user could still cause trouble by voting on titles not in his/her collection. We already know from Ken that some people carry different weight with their votes so if this particular user carries quite a lot of weight & they vote on loads of titles that they ideally shouldn't, then we could be seeing a lot of valid contributions being declined & an equal amount that aren't correct being accepted.

So yes, he could ignore the user but that doesn't mean that the problem would go away.

I don't see this as a problem as that coin has two sides.  While some users carry more weight than others, there are users who carry little to no weight.  As I understand it, voter weight is based on quality of vote and reason for said vote.  So a user who constantly votes against contributions, even when they are correct per Ken's instructions, will carry less weight.

A user who is voting on discs he does not own should be permanently banned from ANY VOTING AT ALL!!

I would really lile to know who that user is and what he thinks by voting NO on a contribution where he does not even own the disk from.

This is ridiculous !

KEN, please take some action on this.

cheers
Donnie

Since some users are asking about this, I'll post my contribution without citing names. Here are the notes I put in my contribution (which probably weren't even read by said user, taking into account his remarks) :

[i]changed video format to 2.40:1 (instead of 2.4:1) to be uniform with other submissions.

With BDInfo.v.0.5.2 I found the following:
- audio: English, Japanese, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese. Added the missing Japanese audio track.
- subtitles: English, Japanese, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch

Note on audio tracks and subtitles:
All audio tracks and subtitles are playable by ANY BD player, regardless of region. Depending on the settings for main language, the available options in the menus change:
- main language = western language: French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese
- main language = Japanese: Japanese
- English is available regardless of the main language settings.
The same is valid for the subtitles.

note 2: The rules state that when the cover does not match what is encoded on the disc, the tracks as they are encoded on the disc is the highest valid source:
"Use the Audio specified on the DVD Cover unless you can verify there is a discrepancy between that and the actual Audio included on the disc. When contributing accurate, DVD based Audio, include your verification method in your Contribution Notes"
I used BDInfo.v.0.5.2, WinDVD on PC as well as a PS3 and European standalone Sony BD Player to verify. The tracks are available on all configurations.

note 3: this kind of differentiation depending on the settings of the BD player's main language is not uncommon for Warner Brothers Blu-rays. Similar submissions have been made in the past and accepted (The Dark Knight UK edition, Constantine, Speed Racer UK, etc)[/i]

And here is the response on the NO vote:
The Japanese language is a "hidden" audio track, the data is misleading and INCORRECT, this has already been declined everytime it has been submitted

He calls my data INCORRECT, but I challenge him to find anything in my contribution notes that isn't correct. In fact, he himself can't because he doesn't even own a BD Player. Please note that this vote was cast before Ken made a statement on how we should handle such audio tracks.

Apparently, such blatant abuse is OK by Invelos, so I'm calling it quits, but still like to thank anyone that posted kind messages or PMs. It really means a lot to me, everyone, so thanks!

Don't know if it's currently like this for the reviewers but I suspect that separating out the votes into those who have the profile in their owned collection vs those who have it in their wishlist/ordered collection will grant the screeners extra information on applying weight (or less) for a particular vote.

Likewise, I would really like to have my list of pending profiles to vote on tell me which collection I have it in.  I tend to vote neutral on anything I recognize being in my wishlist.

Very sad to see so many quality contributers leaving, basically due to one person's behivior. I hope Invelos eventually will finally do something about it!

Well, for instance, if someone submitted a pre-release boxset profile and included audio, video, cast or crew data, I would vote no.

If someone submitted a pre-release and use improper capitalization in the title, I would vote no.

If someone submitted a pre-release and selected TV instead of Film for the rating system, I would vote no.

Shall I go on.  The above examples apply if they are not pre-releases but I do not won them.

There are lots of fields that can legitimately be voted on without owning the disc itself.

Audio and sub-title tracks would not be among them.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Well, for instance, if someone submitted a pre-release boxset profile and included audio, video, cast or crew data, I would vote no.

If someone submitted a pre-release and use improper capitalization in the title, I would vote no.

If someone submitted a pre-release and selected TV instead of Film for the rating system, I would vote no.

Shall I go on.  The above examples apply if they are not pre-releases but I do not won them.

There are lots of fields that can legitimately be voted on without owning the disc itself.

Audio and sub-title tracks would not be among them.

I agree with all quoted... and then there is anything that just plain breaks the rules (whether pre-release or not)... and you know they do at first glance.

- Spine in cover image
- Notes that say Cast/Crew from IMDB (or anywhere other then the credits)
- Birthyear added for everyone (or many people) in the cast/crew... or even just someone we know does not need a birthyear.

The list can go on and on... there is many times you can safely vote on titles that you do not own.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
There's a simple answer to this...don't allow changes to pre-release profiles.  I mean if folks are updating pre-release profiles that much, we have a problem right out of the gate.  Let's face it, these things are really just placeholders until we actually can get our hands on the disc.  If we're using them in any other fashion short of the projected release date, then we're likely corrupting the database.  For that matter, limit the use of certain fields when creating new pre-release profiles.

Just my thoughts.

But there is many legitimate reasons to be able to change a pre-release.

- The studio releasing more info on the title before it's release
- Cover-art coming out later then the official announcement
- Something added in the initial contribution was just wrong (as in a mistake was made)... there has been more then once I did a pre-release profile and I had to make a second contribution to it because I missed something... or misread the announcement.