 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 7 8 9 10  Previous Next
|
|
[yet another derailed thread] |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: April 7, 2007 |  Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Graveworm:
Quote:
If the entry is not blank or limited then it should be a no vote AFAICS?
That is one example that Ken gave, but he didn't limit it to only that one example. The basic rule is summed up in the last line you quoted. What ken said was the general principal was don't contribute for profiles you don't own. He gave an example where it was blank or limited as an exception. I agree that doesn't imply it's the only example but that does tend to suggest where the cast is full populated then it doesn't fit into the exceptions. Or it would make more sense to say .Don't contribute for profiles you doin't own except cast from another locality. Why add in the Blank or limited? As I said I already vote yes after checking but a no vote is valid from these guidelines. There are variations I suspect far more than have come to light since few comparisons have been done. Cross pollinating CLT is good by me as these will apply across the regions but adding or removing cast is a bit less clear cut. No matter what T!M should include in his notes that he does not own the disk otherwise how can the voters make the necessary judgement? T!M's notes at present tend to suggest that he has made extensive checks on the basis of the submited disk not made the checks for the accepted disk. | | | | Last edited: by Graveworm |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Graveworm: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
Quoting Graveworm:
Quote:
If the entry is not blank or limited then it should be a no vote AFAICS?
That is one example that Ken gave, but he didn't limit it to only that one example. The basic rule is summed up in the last line you quoted.
What ken said was the general principal was don't contribute for profiles you don't own.
He gave an example where it was blank or limited as an exception. I agree that doesn't imply it's the only example but that does tend to suggest where the cast is full populated then it doesn't fit into the exceptions.
Or it would make more sense to say .Don't contribute for profiles you doin't own except cast from another locality. Why add in the Blank or limited?
As I said I already vote yes after checking but a no vote is valid from these guidelines. There are variations I suspect far more than have come to light since few comparisons have been done. Cross pollinating CLT is good by me as these will apply across the regions but adding or removing cast is a bit less clear cut. No matter what T!M should include in his notes that he does not own the disk otherwise how can the voters make the necessary judgement? T!M's notes at present tend to suggest that he has made extensive checks on the basis of the submited disk not made the checks for the accepted disk. Precisely correct and it is FULLY POPULATED fields that he manipulating or adjusting to his self-imagined gold standard. And users such as James who take what Ken has said an twisted it beyond recognition, but I won't go there. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Graveworm: Quote:
What ken said was the general principal was don't contribute for profiles you don't own.
Here's the recap he gave at the end of the discussion: Quoting Ken Cole:Quote:
To recap:
- We do not (currently) prevent users from contributing or voting on profiles they don't own.
- If you are contributing to a profile that you don't own, our only requirement is that the notes submitted accurately reflect the source of the data, and state the specific profile used as the source.
I think where he says "our only requirement" is important to note. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | That recap fits in very nicely with the approach I suggested. What I think is crucial here is to avoid creating a hide-and-seek game for voters and screeners alike. |
| | Registered: February 23, 2009 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,580 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Graveworm:
Quote:
What ken said was the general principal was don't contribute for profiles you don't own.
Here's the recap he gave at the end of the discussion:
Quoting Ken Cole:
Quote:
To recap:
- We do not (currently) prevent users from contributing or voting on profiles they don't own.
- If you are contributing to a profile that you don't own, our only requirement is that the notes submitted accurately reflect the source of the data, and state the specific profile used as the source.
I think where he says "our only requirement" is important to note. m.cellophane is 100% right. One is not required to own a disc in order to vote or even submit data on it, provided there are decent contribution. Some time ago I opposed a contribution on a profile's Easter Egg section made by a user who doesn't own said disc and Ken, again, confirmed his stance on this, namely that not owning a disc isn't a valid reason to cast a no-vote on a submission, provided the data is correct and sufficiently documented of course. | | | Blu-ray collection
DVD collection
My Games
My Trophies |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
This endless smearing of T!M by those who disagree with his methods and who disagree with Ken's ruling on the subject -- well, it's just really in poor taste and ill-mannered and disrespectful. You may not agree with what he's doing, but on at least 22,748 occasions he has successfully contributed to the database in such a manner that Invelos has accepted his work.
He may not "show his work" or document to your satisfaction, but he does so to Invelos' satisfaction quite successfully. Acknowledge that and move on. And if you don't like his attitude, check your own first. And move on. Please be so kind as to show me where I have smeared T!M. I expressed my opinion that I do not trust anybody that refuses to show their work. I am sorry if that rubs you the wrong way but, the person who says "trust me," without giving me reason, is the first person I distrust. Trust is earned, not demanded. Quote:
I've tried doing what he does. It's a heck of a lot of work. Not only that, but one subjects oneself to this barrage of insults by those discontent with Ken's ruling. I have a lot of respect for him that he's willing to endure it all for our benefit and to improve the Credit Lookup Tool. I tried doing what he does too. I even got all my attempts approved. I guess it is a matter of perspective as I didn't find it to be "a heck of a lot of work." I just don't care enough about my contribution numbers to continue the process. As someone who has been on the receiving end of his "my opinion is better than your opinion because my contribution numbers are so high" rants, I have a different perspective than you do so you will fogive me if I don't share your respect. That being said, even though I disagree with what he is doing, and Ken said he "would tend to allow the voters who actually own the submitted locality to make the call," my only 'no' vote, on any of his contributions, has been for his use of IMDb as the sole source for a 'credited as' name. All other contributions have recieved a 'yes'. Have I expressed my disagreement with the situation? Yes I have. This is a discussion forum and I assumed that was allowed. At least I did it without being insulting and demeaning...something I can't say about certain other users. Needless to say, I too, am deeply disappointed.  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | Registered: April 7, 2007 | | Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Graveworm:
Quote:
What ken said was the general principal was don't contribute for profiles you don't own.
Here's the recap he gave at the end of the discussion:
Quoting Ken Cole:
Quote:
To recap:
- We do not (currently) prevent users from contributing or voting on profiles they don't own.
- If you are contributing to a profile that you don't own, our only requirement is that the notes submitted accurately reflect the source of the data, and state the specific profile used as the source.
I think where he says "our only requirement" is important to note. Yes that's the only requirement and they dont "(CURRENTLY) PREVENT" users from contributing. Not preventing is completly different from you should or can. The guidelines are still you SHOULD NOT unless a situation akin to the empty or limited cast exists I saw nothing where he modified that. | | | | Last edited: by Graveworm |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Please be so kind as to show me where I have smeared T!M. My post was in response to many posts by many users, not you personally. I do think that it's out of line to repeatedly bring up a trust issue when he's doing something which is condoned by the owner of the program. If he were outside what is acceptable to Invelos, I could see the issue. But repeatedly (by a group of users and not just yourself) beating the drum about trust is unfair when his actions are within the scope of the rules. For example, if I say in my notes that I took the crew from the film credits, that's enough; right? That's within the rules. Should a group of users make it a trust issue that I didn't list all of the exact crew roles and how they correspond to the crew chart because that is their preferred method of documentation? No. That would be out of line because it's not called for in the rules. That's how I feel about the repeated comments about not trusting him when he says he researches the internet and uses the CLT. He only has to reference the CLT. That's per Ken's statement: Quoting Ken Cole:Quote:
It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT. If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary. However, in most cases it is not required.
I have notified the evaluators to disregard general demands for specific documentation of common name outside the use of the CLT.
Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data. I don't recall the details of the singular use of IMDb, but even if so, I don't find that's cause to say he is not to be trusted if he is documenting his work within the rules and Ken's directives. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
This endless smearing of T!M by those who disagree with his methods and who disagree with Ken's ruling on the subject -- well, it's just really in poor taste and ill-mannered and disrespectful. You may not agree with what he's doing, but on at least 22,748 occasions he has successfully contributed to the database in such a manner that Invelos has accepted his work.
He may not "show his work" or document to your satisfaction, but he does so to Invelos' satisfaction quite successfully. Acknowledge that and move on. And if you don't like his attitude, check your own first. And move on.
Please be so kind as to show me where I have smeared T!M. I expressed my opinion that I do not trust anybody that refuses to show their work. I am sorry if that rubs you the wrong way but, the person who says "trust me," without giving me reason, is the first person I distrust. Trust is earned, not demanded.
Quote:
I've tried doing what he does. It's a heck of a lot of work. Not only that, but one subjects oneself to this barrage of insults by those discontent with Ken's ruling. I have a lot of respect for him that he's willing to endure it all for our benefit and to improve the Credit Lookup Tool.
I tried doing what he does too. I even got all my attempts approved. I guess it is a matter of perspective as I didn't find it to be "a heck of a lot of work." I just don't care enough about my contribution numbers to continue the process. As someone who has been on the receiving end of his "my opinion is better than your opinion because my contribution numbers are so high" rants, I have a different perspective than you do so you will fogive me if I don't share your respect.
That being said, even though I disagree with what he is doing, and Ken said he "would tend to allow the voters who actually own the submitted locality to make the call," my only 'no' vote, on any of his contributions, has been for his use of IMDb as the sole source for a 'credited as' name. All other contributions have recieved a 'yes'.
Have I expressed my disagreement with the situation? Yes I have. This is a discussion forum and I assumed that was allowed. At least I did it without being insulting and demeaning...something I can't say about certain other users. Needless to say, I too, am deeply disappointed. No, Unicus, you are not allowed to disagree or anything when certain users are involved. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
Please be so kind as to show me where I have smeared T!M.
My post was in response to many posts by many users, not you personally.
I do think that it's out of line to repeatedly bring up a trust issue when he's doing something which is condoned by the owner of the program. If he were outside what is acceptable to Invelos, I could see the issue. But repeatedly (by a group of users and not just yourself) beating the drum about trust is unfair when his actions are within the scope of the rules.
For example, if I say in my notes that I took the crew from the film credits, that's enough; right? That's within the rules. Should a group of users make it a trust issue that I didn't list all of the exact crew roles and how they correspond to the crew chart because that is their preferred method of documentation? No. That would be out of line because it's not called for in the rules.
That's how I feel about the repeated comments about not trusting him when he says he researches the internet and uses the CLT. He only has to reference the CLT. That's per Ken's statement:
Quoting Ken Cole:
Quote:
It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT. If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary. However, in most cases it is not required.
I have notified the evaluators to disregard general demands for specific documentation of common name outside the use of the CLT.
Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data.
I don't recall the details of the singular use of IMDb, but even if so, I don't find that's cause to say he is not to be trusted if he is documenting his work within the rules and Ken's directives. James: I also disagree with, Tim, vehemently so. I find his conduct on this matter to reprehensible abd NOT in the best interests of the database. I would say the exact same thin with regards to any user who knowingly enters data which may very well be erroneous as outlined...or any of the other various behaviors I see, not just by Tim. Erratic voting, users making up their own Rules so they can vote NO are just two of them. I don't believe Tim has been attacked in any way by anyone, has his behavior been described...yes appropriately so. If Tim is offended or insulted, then perhaps he should consider that his behavior and attitude offends and insults OTHERS as well. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
Please be so kind as to show me where I have smeared T!M.
My post was in response to many posts by many users, not you personally. I am the one who said I didn't trust him because he doesn't show his work. Since you used that phrase, in quotes, I saw no other way to take it other than personally.  Quote:
I do think that it's out of line to repeatedly bring up a trust issue when he's doing something which is condoned by the owner of the program. If he were outside what is acceptable to Invelos, I could see the issue. But repeatedly (by a group of users and not just yourself) beating the drum about trust is unfair when his actions are within the scope of the rules. The fact that Invelos has a low standard for documentation doesn't mean I have to trust his work. Quote:
For example, if I say in my notes that I took the crew from the film credits, that's enough; right? That's within the rules. Should a group of users make it a trust issue that I didn't list all of the exact crew roles and how they correspond to the crew chart because that is their preferred method of documentation? No. That would be out of line because it's not called for in the rules. The fact that detailed notes are not required has nothing to do with trust. Trust is earned, and because you have earned mine, for your contributions, it is enough. If it were someone I didn't know, or someone I have caught lying, it would not be enough. For those people, I double check their work until I am confident I can trust it. Quote:
That's how I feel about the repeated comments about not trusting him when he says he researches the internet and uses the CLT. He only has to reference the CLT. That's per Ken's statement:
***snip***
I don't recall the details of the singular use of IMDb, but even if so, I don't find that's cause to say he is not to be trusted if he is documenting his work within the rules and Ken's directives. Let me see if I can explain...when someone tells me that they do all this work, then makes a point of telling me they are not going to prove it, because they don't have to, I get suspicious. I have to ask myself why they are so unwilling to give an example...any example. I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but people who act like that are people I do not trust. Minimal documentation may be fine with Ken, and because it is I will not vote 'no' based on that, but that has nothing to do with trust. JMHO | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Agreed, Unicus on all counts.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Minimal documentation may be fine with Ken, and because it is I will not vote 'no' based on that, but that has nothing to do with trust. JMHO That's fine that you vote that way. You don't have to trust him. My issue in posting (and yes, I used your phrase but truly was responding to points from many users' posts) is that it seemed like when T!M tried to establish a resource in this thread, it became a fighting zone over issues that ought to be considered settled: 1. Trusting T!M's contributions should not be an issue in a resource thread. 2. Documentation outside use of the CLT should not be an issue. 3. Contributing to profiles you don't own, within the guidelines laid out by Ken, should not be an issue. Instead, several users saw this as an opportunity to debate all of those issues in this thread to the point that the resource is now lost. #1 should occur in user votes on his contributions. #2 and #3 are settled IMO, but if there needs to be discussion, that shouldn't be done in a resource thread such as this -- should anyone dare to try to start it up again. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
Minimal documentation may be fine with Ken, and because it is I will not vote 'no' based on that, but that has nothing to do with trust. JMHO
That's fine that you vote that way. You don't have to trust him.
My issue in posting (and yes, I used your phrase but truly was responding to points from many users' posts) is that it seemed like when T!M tried to establish a resource in this thread, it became a fighting zone over issues that ought to be considered settled:
1. Trusting T!M's contributions should not be an issue in a resource thread.
2. Documentation outside use of the CLT should not be an issue.
3. Contributing to profiles you don't own, within the guidelines laid out by Ken, should not be an issue.
Instead, several users saw this as an opportunity to debate all of those issues in this thread to the point that the resource is now lost.
#1 should occur in user votes on his contributions. #2 and #3 are settled IMO, but if there needs to be discussion, that shouldn't be done in a resource thread such as this -- should anyone dare to try to start it up again. 2. When you REFUSE to provide CLT results and simply claim that you checked, well I believe recently a user posted that he was ummmm not being entirely factual. 3. Given the known errors, it's a problem, James. Afgain, because Ken says OK, does NOT mean that we SHOULD and i will not condone nor support such behavior. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
Minimal documentation may be fine with Ken, and because it is I will not vote 'no' based on that, but that has nothing to do with trust. JMHO
That's fine that you vote that way. You don't have to trust him.
My issue in posting (and yes, I used your phrase but truly was responding to points from many users' posts) is that it seemed like when T!M tried to establish a resource in this thread, it became a fighting zone over issues that ought to be considered settled:
1. Trusting T!M's contributions should not be an issue in a resource thread.
2. Documentation outside use of the CLT should not be an issue.
3. Contributing to profiles you don't own, within the guidelines laid out by Ken, should not be an issue.
Instead, several users saw this as an opportunity to debate all of those issues in this thread to the point that the resource is now lost.
#1 should occur in user votes on his contributions. #2 and #3 are settled IMO, but if there needs to be discussion, that shouldn't be done in a resource thread such as this -- should anyone dare to try to start it up again. I see where you are coming from, I just saw it from a different perspective. That perspective being, there is no way this type of resource thread can work as there is no way to check every copy of every disc. From that point of view, this smacked of a PR attempt. I will admit that I could be misreading the intent, but that is how I read it...and , if we are being honest here, T!M had a hand in causing this thread to take a sharp left turn.  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Again I have to agree with Unicus. And as I noted somewhere recently, and I think Unicus sees things much the same. While many users seem to come at things from the perspective of I want, I come at it from a far broader perspective of what is best for the database and the community, and in my view doing things which will knowingly enter erroneous data into the database, is neither good for the database nor the Community. Do we know what that erroneous data is NO we don't, for one thing the user has never bothered to ASK the Community to assist by CHECKING their ACTUAL credits against his copy, he just presumes to set the gold standard. It will probably be some time before I can do any back checking but I WILL when I am able to.
Now if he were to ask how i would handle it. We have to remember that Vote Notes NEVER are part ofthe record. But IF I were to begin doing this again, which I will not, I would (1)ask for users to assist by checking my data against their ACTUAL credits, then (2) if somebody left me a note that said they checked it and it was OK, I would copy that note from that user and edit into my notes. That way we would have a documented permanent record that a user had in fact crioss-checked the data and pronounced it OK. But in my view, the user does not think of the database ior the Community but only what he can do and get away with in order to continue inflating his Contribution numbers.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 7 8 9 10 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |