Author |
Message |
Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,934 |
| Posted: | | | | There are times when notes are very important.
Take the information on the package...
If the package says aspect ratio 2.35:1 That was put into the original contribution Another user audits and decides to do an actual measurement using his computer and finds the raio to be 2.20:1. He contributes with new aspect ratio. If he doesn't detail how he came up with the new ratio, why should we believe him. Another user audits 6 months later. He discovers the package says 2.35:1, without the previous notes, he figures the profile has an error and submits the correction..
This can happen with subtitles, audio tracks, and a number of others where we rely on packaging instead of disc.
Charlie |
|
| Corne | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
Registered: April 5, 2007 | Posts: 1,059 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote: There are times when notes are very important.
Take the information on the package...
If the package says aspect ratio 2.35:1 That was put into the original contribution Another user audits and decides to do an actual measurement using his computer and finds the raio to be 2.20:1. He contributes with new aspect ratio. If he doesn't detail how he came up with the new ratio, why should we believe him. Another user audits 6 months later. He discovers the package says 2.35:1, without the previous notes, he figures the profile has an error and submits the correction..
This can happen with subtitles, audio tracks, and a number of others where we rely on packaging instead of disc.
Charlie Disc info precedes the package info. The first thing I do when I see that the info in the profile is different from what's on the back cover I verify this with the content on the disc. So in your example of 2.20:1 vs. 2.35:1 I would come to the conclusion that 2.20:1 is right and I won't change this. The actual content of the disc is the deciding factor and not the contribution notes. | | | Cor |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,759 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Winston Smith: Quote: I will not EVER contribute a clone dataset without personally verifying the data and stating such inmy notes..NOT EVER Maybe, but you have in the past. |
|
Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,018 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote: There are times when notes are very important.
Take the information on the package...
If the package says aspect ratio 2.35:1 That was put into the original contribution Another user audits and decides to do an actual measurement using his computer and finds the raio to be 2.20:1. He contributes with new aspect ratio. If he doesn't detail how he came up with the new ratio, why should we believe him. Another user audits 6 months later. He discovers the package says 2.35:1, without the previous notes, he figures the profile has an error and submits the correction..
This can happen with subtitles, audio tracks, and a number of others where we rely on packaging instead of disc.
Charlie Just state how you verified the actual ratio in your notes and you'll be fine (and any attempt to change it back should be voted down and declined). |
|
| johnd | Evening, poetry lovers. |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 298 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Winston Smith: Quote: I feel the Community is completely unapprediative iof the work that i have done in Contributing and otherwise. You have contributed a lot to the DVDProfiler database, but the community has decided that the contributions you make are outweighed by the angst you bring to the forums. This is your problem, Skip. You have stepped over the line too many times for the community to continue to accept your behaviour. People have decided that they would rather lose your input (good that is is many, many times) than put up with your obnoxious behaviour any more. |
|
Registered: May 26, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 599 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting johnd: Quote:
You have contributed a lot to the DVDProfiler database, but the community has decided that the contributions you make are outweighed by the angst you bring to the forums.
This is your problem, Skip. You have stepped over the line too many times for the community to continue to accept your behaviour. People have decided that they would rather lose your input (good that is is many, many times) than put up with your obnoxious behaviour any more. Hear, hear!!! And I think the moderators are finally beginning to see the light too. |
|
Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,934 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Corne: Quote:
Disc info precedes the package info. The first thing I do when I see that the info in the profile is different from what's on the back cover I verify this with the content on the disc. So in your example of 2.20:1 vs. 2.35:1 I would come to the conclusion that 2.20:1 is right and I won't change this. The actual content of the disc is the deciding factor and not the contribution notes. You missed the point. The point is the importance of notes. If the person that did the verification didn't document correctly, then how does the next person now. Trust me, I understand all to well that the disc takes precedence. Quoting dee1959jay Quote: Just state how you verified the actual ratio in your notes and you'll be fine (and any attempt to change it back should be voted down and declined). Again missed the point... Charlie |
|
Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,018 |
| Posted: | | | | Nope: what I said was: if the verification method has been included in the notes any subsequent attempt to alter it based on the cover should be voted down. Which underlines the importance of notes. |
|
| Corne | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
Registered: April 5, 2007 | Posts: 1,059 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
You missed the point. The point is the importance of notes. If the person that did the verification didn't document correctly, then how does the next person now. Trust me, I understand all to well that the disc takes precedence. I get your point but I partly don't agree. This topic is especially about the copying of cast and crew and how to deal with that in the notes. In that case just a note with a reference to the profile from which the cast/crew is copied from will suffice. In case of common names it would be nice to add links for common names established on the forums because those can't easily be verified by the voters without these links. | | | Cor |
|
Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,934 |
| Posted: | | | | OK, back to the OP then Quoting Darknite: Quote: Should the Contributor who is just Copying and Pasteing the info from one profile to another also add in their notes about the BY's, Common names and Uncredited Cast info they are adding as well.
If they are copying the Data, why not copy the Notes over as well. Not just put from this (xxxxxxxxxxxx) profile. Invelos does allow copying of cast and crew. I personally will remove uncredited entries from my contribution(if they were not in the profile when I started), since I did not verify them (If somebody wants to add the appropriate documentation later, then fine) To copy the notes for all BY's and common names may involve going through several contributions to get all the notes. while not required, would be nice for verification purposes (although, you would be relying on other profilers notes for your contribution, which for common names may be outdated). If it is a new profile, the voters will not see it anyway, so the screeners get to make the decision. If it is not a new profile, then the voters will leave there comments (if any). In my opinion, copy and pasting profiles without verification leads to inaccuracies (incorrect names, roles or just plain old IMDB Garbage) and unnecessary information (propagating unneeded BY's) To reiterate I personally will copy from one profile to another. I will verify from the DVD all information and verify BY's and Common names for myself (add notes myself). I will make sure that I am comfortable with contributing an accurate profile. Charlie | | | Last edited: by CharlieM |
|