I picked up a another New Line cheapy dvd at Big Lots yesterday, a movie called "Felony" from 1995, dvd 2005. Despite it having a cut in the UPC, I could clearly read the numbers. I plug the numbers in and Soap: the Complete 4th Season pops up!
So Felony is already in the database under disc ID, but today I try clicking preview for that Soap set. I see 2 front cover scans and some disc ID #'s. Then I run this UPC 794043841323 in google, and every single link is about the Felony dvd. This can only mean the Soap box set does not have this UPC. I can prove my movie does, the scans are up (I clone-stamped and painted out the small cut in UPC, but would happily revert them and show again if anyone wants that). Can anyone with Soap season 4 tell us the UPC? The existing contribution is from Hal9g in 2007 and no action on it since (probably just brought over an old error profile from the old site). Not saying he did anything wrong, and if you're reading this hal please check your UPC especially.

So, how do we get rid of the bad info and let the rigfht stuff in? I'm hoping bringing it to light is the proper first step.

Ok I just changed my UPC and fortunately the CORRECT profile is already there. So all you have to do is overwrite the old bad data with the detailed explanation

Skip

No, I have a profile for 043396-117549 now,  not Disc ID, just changed  it over and the UPC was right there in the Online

Skip

Mistakes happen, I am a little surprised at it, but they do happen.       Glad to see there are more "humans" around here.

Skip

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
Does hal have a rep for bad profiles?

Quite the opposite if you ask me! I consider him a very trusted and reliable source for updates. 

BTW, Rick I have to wonder why you felt the need to respond. I ignored bigdaddy's reference because it wasn't relevant to anything. And i chose not to mention the user's name for exactly the same reason. I was amused, but mistakes happen, just like dung. I was certain that with bigdaddy's explanation comes up for vote, the user would read and say whooops, I would, there is no need to make a public spectacle of it, even if you or I think he is usually reliable.

Skip

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
Does hal have a rep for bad profiles?

Quite the opposite if you ask me! I consider him a very trusted and reliable source for updates. 

BTW, Rick I have to wonder why you felt the need to respond.

I responded because he asked a question.   

It is considered polite when someone asks a question to respond with an answer.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
I would say not necessarily, Rick. But that's your choice.Or I might have PM'd him rather than making more of a spectacle of it than it needed to be. Just my opinion.

Skip

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting bigdaddyhorse:

Quote:
Does hal have a rep for bad profiles?

Quite the opposite if you ask me! I consider him a very trusted and reliable source for updates. 

BTW, Rick I have to wonder why you felt the need to respond. I ignored bigdaddy's reference because it wasn't relevant to anything. And i chose not to mention the user's name for exactly the same reason. I was amused, but mistakes happen, just like dung. I was certain that with bigdaddy's explanation comes up for vote, the user would read and say whooops, I would, there is no need to make a public spectacle of it, even if you or I think he is usually reliable.

Skip

Don't feed the troll, Skip. I'm sure if you ignore Rick's negative-attention-seeking public spectacle of actually complimenting and vouching for the good quality of a user's updates that he'll stop.