| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can only occasionally talk myself into voting on contributions these days, and it's mostly when I know there is a problem with the contribution. Even so, Invelos still manages to discourage me at every turn. This contribution had 75% "No" votes when I last checked...  So... why do I even bother at all? --------------- |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 824 |
| | Posted: | | | | Cause you like it.  | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,550 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
I can only occasionally talk myself into voting on contributions these days, and it's mostly when I know there is a problem with the contribution. Even so, Invelos still manages to discourage me at every turn.
This contribution had 75% "No" votes when I last checked...
So... why do I even bother at all?
--------------- Wow. Which profile is it? I recognize it (and positive I voted no if I did come across it) but want to make sure it doesn't get into my database... |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me: New Line Platinum Series UPC 794043-489129.
Edit: This is another profile that has the same documentation. But, this one has 0 of 40 Yes Votes. | | | | Last edited: by Kathy |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMovieman: Quote:
Wow. Which profile is it? The Thief of Bagdad (UPC 027616-881533). One cast name was changed from correct to incorrect (per film credits), and two uncredited actors were added without being flagged as uncredited. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,550 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me: New Line Platinum Series UPC 794043-489129.
Edit: This is another profile that has the same documentation. But, this one has 0 of 40 Yes Votes. Yeah, that's the one and I think I've come across that user's "contributions" before... Edit: And holy crap, it was just approved!  | | | | Last edited: by The Movieman |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,550 |
| | Posted: | | | | Looking at this user's profile, they have 4 approved contributions. Two of them are the one's listed here, I have to wonder what the other two are... |
|
| Registered: March 24, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,044 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
I can only occasionally talk myself into voting on contributions these days, and it's mostly when I know there is a problem with the contribution. Even so, Invelos still manages to discourage me at every turn.
This contribution had 75% "No" votes when I last checked...
So... why do I even bother at all?
--------------- Because your a masochist.. likr me!  Rory  (btw I don't get it either.) | | | DVD Profiler for iOS as of 3/5/2013
DVD Profiler for Android as of 5/17/2013 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting TheMovieman:
Quote:
Wow. Which profile is it?
The Thief of Bagdad (UPC 027616-881533).
One cast name was changed from correct to incorrect (per film credits), and two uncredited actors were added without being flagged as uncredited.
--------------- Thanks for posting the UPC. I had just voted yes on the Criterion changes a couple of days ago and thought, "what the heck, I know those were good." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | This particular user is well known to me and continues to ignorer the Rules and provide drek for notes. Why he gets anythin approved EVER is beyond me. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Winston Smith: Quote:
This particular user is well known to me and continues to ignorer the Rules and provide drek for notes. Why he gets anythin approved EVER is beyond me. Same person with the BY's? I saw the contribution it had all no votes. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,550 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:
Quote:
This particular user is well known to me and continues to ignorer the Rules and provide drek for notes. Why he gets anythin approved EVER is beyond me.
Same person with the BY's?
I saw the contribution it had all no votes. Yeah. This user merely says "rotten tomatoes" in the notes. That's it. Even if the BY's were valid (they aren't), the notes alone should get it immediately declined. Doing it once could be a simple mistake, but twice on the same day? | | | | Last edited: by The Movieman |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMovieman: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:
Quote:
This particular user is well known to me and continues to ignorer the Rules and provide drek for notes. Why he gets anythin approved EVER is beyond me.
Same person with the BY's?
I saw the contribution it had all no votes.
Yeah. This user merely says "rotten tomatoes" in the notes. That's it. Even if the BY's were valid (they aren't), the notes alone should get it immediately declined. Doing it once could be a simple mistake, but twice on the same day? just voted on the other contribution for austin powers. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,678 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | It is rather pathetic when the screeners allow such obvious issues to be approved. Thios particular user should have nothing approved even IF there are no votes at all | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | Exactly... If the screeners aren't reliable what is the point to have them to begin with. Seriously this kind of contribution note is supposed to be rejected automatically in the same way a note with only imdb would be.
I can understand an error in the approval process, but from what I understand this isn't the first time... |
|