Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting reybr:

Quote:
This is the "Is it OK to use an e-mail as a source?" all over again. I say "let's trust the contributor". Why would they lie?

And for the record, the contribution notes for this specific contribution reads as follows: "Added my old drama teacher, Mr. Morse. He appears as the 'Young Scientist' who invents the infinite improbability drive during episode two."

Needles to say, I voted yes

Let's take a look at those notes and see if they pass invelos muster.

These are the requirements set out by invelos...

You have personally identified the cast by viewing the film

-OR- The cast is copied from a previously accepted profile with documented uncredited cast

...since there is a huge 'OR', the contribution only needs to comply with one of them.  Since the notes indicate the role the person played, and the episode he was in, the contribution complies with the first.

Yes, I know, there is the part that says "Be sure to specify the source in your contribution notes."  Well, that was done.  The source is personal knowledge of the person being added.

Despite popular belief, there is no requirement that we supply a time stamp or screen shot...not that it would matter in this case as the odds of any of us knowing this person by sight are fairly small.

In addition, another popular myth, there is no prohibition on third party sources.  We can't copy a single third party db, but that isn't the same thing.

One last myth to bust, there is no requirement that the entry be verifiable by other users.  Yes, a source has to be listed but, that's where it ends.

Bottom line, while some may not like it, this contribution passes invelos muster.  Any vote of 'no', asking for further documentation, is based on personal preference and not the rules. 

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

In addition, another popular myth, there is no prohibition on third party sources.  We can't copy a single third party db, but that isn't the same thing.

Well on the first page of the rules

Quote:
Please don't submit content from a third party database, and always verify the specifications printed on the cover.

The community has generally relaxed that when if more than one source is provided they'll accept it.

Listing a third party database as one of your sources is not the same thing as submitting content from a third party database.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:

Listing a third party database as one of your sources is not the same thing as submitting content from a third party database.

The keyword there is "one". This contribution is ONLY using what is effectively a 3rd party source. If it had been submitted listing IMDb as the source no-one would have any doubt about which way to vote but because they give a "I know them" all of a sudden it makes it ok?!

If the submission can be backed up in some way so that others can check on it & verify then that's ok but as I've said as it is, anyone can easily add anyone without any actual proof of involvement.

Others don't have to check it and verify it. There's no mention of that in the instruction on the contribution screen. "I know them" is one of the two methods of contribution. Yes, it's ok.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:

Others don't have to check it and verify it. There's no mention of that in the instruction on the contribution screen. "I know them" is one of the two methods of contribution. Yes, it's ok.

Surely that's why the system was changed to not allowing blind copying from places like IMDb - So that it can be verified. It's one thing if it's an A list actor such as Bruce Willis when "everyone" knows what he looks like. It's completely different though when it's "Mr Jones down the road" & to say it's acceptable as an ONLY source makes a complete mockery of what we're supposed to be after IMHO.

To use an analogy - If someone sold you a car and said "it's a smooth runner, never had any problems", would you blindly accept it or want to see its service history?

You are approaching this from what you think is best. I'm approaching this from what Invelos has said. I'm not trying to read any more into it than is written.

Bottom line is you have to trust the contributors. I trust people all the time when they say the used the DVD for the credits, measured the pixels on an aspect ratio, checked the actual run-time with their player, etc., etc. Trusting someone on uncredited is no different.

Heck, a few weeks ago we had someone make a change base on them "going and verifying XYZ at his neighbors house".    We trust people all the time as we have no other choice. You can't demand video of the person going to the neighbors house and more video of the 'whatever' being documented. 

Yes, I do admit there are a FEW people who have lied in the past. Most are caught pretty quick by the community and Invelos and their successful contributions decline rapidly from that point. The system works pretty good at this point I believe.

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Bottom line is you have to trust the contributors. I trust people all the time when they say the used the DVD for the credits, measured the pixels on an aspect ratio, checked the actual run-time with their player, etc., etc. Trusting someone on uncredited is no different.

Heck, a few weeks ago we had someone make a change base on them "going and verifying XYZ at his neighbors house".    We trust people all the time as we have no other choice. You can't demand video of the person going to the neighbors house and more video of the 'whatever' being documented. 

Yes, I do admit there are a FEW people who have lied in the past. Most are caught pretty quick by the community and Invelos and their successful contributions decline rapidly from that point. The system works pretty good at this point I believe.

Except any of those points CAN be checked & verified, this can't.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Bottom line is you have to trust the contributors. I trust people all the time when they say the used the DVD for the credits, measured the pixels on an aspect ratio, checked the actual run-time with their player, etc., etc. Trusting someone on uncredited is no different.

Heck, a few weeks ago we had someone make a change base on them "going and verifying XYZ at his neighbors house".    We trust people all the time as we have no other choice. You can't demand video of the person going to the neighbors house and more video of the 'whatever' being documented. 

Yes, I do admit there are a FEW people who have lied in the past. Most are caught pretty quick by the community and Invelos and their successful contributions decline rapidly from that point. The system works pretty good at this point I believe.

Except any of those points CAN be checked & verified, this can't.

Sure they can. I'll agree in some cases it may not be easy and it's hardly practical but it's wrong to say someone using themselves as a source "can't" be verified. Personally I "can't" verify a BD disk ID, but that doesn't mean someone else can't.

It is not our job nor is it required for us to verify everything everybody says or contributes. I know some do, and more power to you if you can or do, but it is not required by Invelos, and it is their program.

I trust no one that refuses to provide source data, Rick. No one. If you terll me that you have extensively researched on the internet and use Invelos's own CLT.   Then you better provide the data to back it up, not just the claim. Telling me it is so because you say it is so doesn't wash, EVER. If you can't take the keystrokes to provide some of the backup for your alleged intente research or your CLT results, then as far as I am concerned your are making it al up and lying to everyone, Invelos' screeners especially.

Skip

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
I trust no one that refuses to provide source data, Rick.

But when you vote, you don't go by your trust, you go by the rules. If you don't trust someone you can always vote neutral, but it doesn't give you a right to vote no. Unicus has a very valid point, source vs. database.