What do the No votes say? When there are similar counts for yes and no votes, profiles are often declined.

Quoting Nosferatu:

Quote:
It's strange and a bit frustrating why there isn't consistency so you can have two identical contributions with identical wording and one will be approved the other will be rejected.

I would say that the screening process has succumbed to the same apathy as the technical support.  The powers-that-be behind Invelos have lost interest.

It seems likely that the approval process is automatic for contributions with no "no" votes, and a coin toss for the others.

---------------

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting Nosferatu:

Quote:
It's strange and a bit frustrating why there isn't consistency so you can have two identical contributions with identical wording and one will be approved the other will be rejected.

I would say that the screening process has succumbed to the same apathy as the technical support.  The powers-that-be behind Invelos have lost interest.

It seems likely that the approval process is automatic for contributions with no "no" votes, and a coin toss for the others.

---------------

It does feel like that. As you can see from the screenshots, something with a 1-1 'score' was declined when others with the same contribution notes were approved, and the contribution which was 3-5 (in yes-no votes) was approved when one which has more updates and was less contentious (2-3 in the yes-no votes) was declined.

I get the feeling that a contribution with nonsense data and a 3-0 vote would be approved but another with real substance and a single vote against would be declined. My whole point is that it's a bit arbitrary and inconsistent, so the same update could be approved or rejected, with that decision resting on the presence of a single No vote and which screener sees it.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
On the edition.... You say you took from the packaging and website....You said the no vote said no where on the packaging. So I would have to ask ... is the edition on the packaging or not.

Because the rules say it must come from the packaging....

Rules Quote:

Quote:
If you are using a non-standard edition, take it from the DVD box, and ensure it will help distinguish between different releases of the same title.

As for why some goes through and some don't... do the ones going through have no votes? The Screeners only see similar to what  we see when we vote. So (unless they have the same disc theirselves... all they can go by is what the votes say and what the rules say.

As for The Walking Dead. You probably had different screeners... which can read the rules differently just like we do.

On a personal note. I always vote no to removing the word "Episodes" from the list. As Ken said himself they are allowed and there is not standard to how they have to be written. And we are to vote for our preference. And I always perfer it to be there.

The packaging generally states "limited edition booklet" in the extra features section; the Black Label comes from the website; the spines have a black label on the top with a number at the bottom. It doesn't have the words 'black label' on the packaging, but it does have the black label on the spine, something which is explained on the website. This is why I mentioned both in the contribution notes.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
It is not like the screener has the disc in front of them to check... they rely on the votes.

When cover images are online the screeners do not need to rely on the voters.  They can look.

Quote:
Plus Ken stated they will accept some wrong info if the majority is right.

This appears to be random.  Sometimes this happens and sometimes it does not.  As I've said, it almost seems as if it's a coin toss when "no" votes are received.

---------------

Whether or not they can look at the cover is immaterial in this case as the words "Black Label" and "Limited Edition" are not on the cover and "limited edition booklet", listed as an extra feature, does not make it an edition.

As Pete points out, the single 'no' vote, and subsequent decline, were correct per the rules.  As for why the rest were accepted, well, without any 'no' votes, there is no reason for the screeners to doubt the contribution and no reason to check a cover scan.  Assuming they have that ability, in whatever screen they are using, it would not have helped here as the black logo is on the spine and we don't scan the spine.

Indeed, none of those "Black Label: Limited Edition" contributions, words that do not appear on the cover of these releases, should have been approved, not for any of those titles. It's nice that the distributor's website labels these releases as such, but their website is not enough to qualify for entry as an "Edition" into DVD Profiler. But when there aren't any no-votes, the screeners have no reason to doubt what you're saying. As long as nobody votes "no", pretty much anything can and will get through - but that doesn't make those contributions correct.

While I agree that these editions should all have been declined, otherwise, I do agree that it can be extremely annoying when the screeners' decisions are so inconsistent. It's baffling when you contribute the exact same change to twenty of your profiles, with the exact same contribution notes, and then having it approved in eighteen of them and declined in the other two. If an actual person was behind this, you would hope that they'd go back and either decline them all or approve them all - you'd hope they'd simply pick a stance and apply it consistently. But automatically approving the ones without no-votes and automatically declining the ones with no-votes is just lazy. It looks like the (first-level) screening process is purely an automated process these days, just an algorithm. Given the lack of any other input from Invelos that wouldn't be very surprising, but it isn't exactly a token of appreciation towards the contributors either...

Quoting Nosferatu:

Quote:
the point of this thread was to see if it was only happening to me or whether others had done something similar, contributing a number of identical changes with identical contribution notes to find that one has been declined when the others have been accepted and released.

No, it's not just you, I share that experience. Again, it seems like at least the first-level screening process is purely an automated process these days, just an algorithm.