I am in absolute utter agreement.

Skip

Hence the reason I always vote no when someone states in their notes that the cast/crew was cloned from a profile and don't include that they verified the credits.

As an added bonus, on more than a few occasions I've gotten ranting and raving pm's calling me all kinds of names and others telling me that they're washing their hands of updating the profile and it now falls squarely on my shoulders to complete it. Those are always fun.

And as an extra added bonus, I have yet to see a single contribution that clones the cast/crew from another profile without verification, that I've voted no on specifically stating why I'm voting no, be declined. Batting 1000 for all profiles with those changes that I own being approved without problems.

Quoting Dragon 6:

Quote:
Cloning a profile with out verifing the accuracy should be stopped.

Cloning profiles is allowed, and i think its good that way. Theres always an exception, a bad example, of everything. But lets not let that blur our vision from the bigger picture.

I am not saying do not clone profiles, what I am saying is we must verify the data and not always trust the original contributor because people do make mistakes. I am all for cloning profiles and I do it myself.

To: richierich

Quote:
next time I will leave the profile blank

I think you are a person who wants a great data base so please if you find a blank profile don't leave it that way. It took me two minutes to verify the contribution and once I found it to be very bad info it took ten minutes to fix.

If we all don't have time to verify the clone data against our own disc then we should hold off on submitting the profile untill we do.

At the very least you should spot check the info that you're copying. If the data was entered by a user I trust I'll check less of the entries but everyone can make mistakes so looking over a couple of the cast/crew never hurts.

Quoting whispering:

Quote:
Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
It's the exceptions (e.g. a user lying in his contribution notes, like richierich encountered) that make verification necessary. So I agree with Dragon 6.

I'm sorry, but i have to disagree with you there. The vast majority of contributers do not lie in their contribution notes. Maby i'm naive, but thats what i at least like to think.

Did you actually read what I said? I was talking about exceptions, of which I gave an example, namely lying contributors.

Quoting Dragon 6:

Quote:
Why is it so hard for some one to check the clone copy to there own disc. If I clone another profile of the same title that I own, the hard work was done by someone else (typing), now all I have to do is put the disc into my player skip to the end credits and watch and compare the new clone profile and make sure it is the same (99% of the time it is). It should take you a few minutes and you are continuing to add good data or even make it better.

Exactly.

Quoting Dragon 6:

Quote:
Why is it so hard for some one to check the clone copy to there own disc. If I clone another profile of the same title that I own, the hard work was done by someone else (typing), now all I have to do is put the disc into my player skip to the end credits and watch and compare the new clone profile and make sure it is the same (99% of the time it is). It should take you a few minutes and you are continuing to add good data or even make it better.

Switch on projector, close all curtains, slap disc in, transfer collection to my laptop, verify data, go back to my desktop, contribute. A lot more then just 2 minutes. But thats beside the point. Lets think that it would take 5 minutes of time to verify all credits (i couldnt do it in 2 minutes, no matter what software i had). At that time i can contribute at least 1 profiles cover scans, with all the rotating, cropping, histogram using, resizing and contributing. I have flagged 149 profiles in my collection that dont have "good enough" cover scans. I have also flagged 20 profiles that arent in the database yet at all. That 5 minutes of little work is away from another profile that needs that 5 minutes much more. I'm sorry to say this but to me 10 almoust perfect profiles is much better then 5 perfect profiles. The problem here is that people lie in their notes and brake the rules, not the cloning.

This is a user built database, even bad cast and crew is better then nothing. Someone can make them more perfect later on. But in the mean time, anyone that is using this software to get a good database of their collection will appreciate the work i add. It may not be perfect, but it most definately is better then nothing.

Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
Did you actually read what I said? I was talking about exceptions, of which I gave an example, namely lying contributors.

I thought you were partly replying to my first post, sorry.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
I'm sorry but how do you reason that? Bad data is useless as it doesn't give us info that we need.

Other users are saying my data is bad (as its unverified, potentially could be from IMDB). However in my use of DVD Profiler, i usually need the main cast the most, and sometimes the other ones too (in those, "where else have i seen that actor" -situations). The only places where ive encountered a situation that DVD Profiler isnt adding a movie to an actors list, is when the movies credits are blank. That leads me to believe that even bad data is better then nothing.

That does not (in my opinion) mean bad data is good though, it simply means its better then nothing. Or am i hallucinating in believing that the usefulness of the database is its key role?