I think it would be a good thing if Invelos decided what their target customers are – and made it known as well. They have a whole range of customers with different wants and needs. If I may generalize, I would divide them into three (very broad) categories;

Group 1) The “uninvolved” users. They don’t contribute at all. All they want is to be able to keep a record of their DVDs. They don’t care very much about the details. They don’t care if William Shatner is listed as “Commander James T. Kirk” or just “Kirk” or whatever. They don’t lose any sleep over a mismatch in running time of a minute or two. But when they enter the UPC for their new purchase they do expect it to be in the database.

Group 2) The “good enough” users. Like the ones in group 1 they are more interested in having a comprehensive database rather than a perfect one. They do contribute. Most of them try to do it right, but they probably won’t spend an hour to check every little detail.

Group 3) The “perfectionists”. They would rather have 10 perfect database entries than 100 “good enough”. They spend hours and hours debating if Jane Doe Smith is Jane//Doe Smith or Jane/Doe/Smith and may even get abusive if anyone tries to enter the name “incorrectly” without massive documentation.

The problem (if one cares to see it as such) is that though group 3 is probably a very small minority of the users, they are a very vocal minority. So vocal, in fact, that they are chasing away many of the group 2 people. And by doing so, they reduce the comprehensiveness of the database, which in turn alienates the group 1 users, thus giving the program a bad reputation among them and among potential new users in their circle of acquaintances.

So – the bottom line is this: Does Invelos want a comprehensive, good but not perfect, database, or do they want a smaller but perfect database. And don’t say comprehensive and perfect, because that’s just not going to happen.

I know that this is a touchy subject, so let’s try to keep it civil and out of the moderators’ line of fire… Thank you!

I don't believe that Ken knows what he wants.

I'll sort myself into group 2 with a tendency to 3.
I don't really care how a name is parsed as long as we have a consistency throughout the database.

But since I'm somewhat tired of fighting contribution wars I went for "Do it right -> Submit -> Lock -> Forget". This works perfectly for me.

EDIT: But since the topic is: What does Invelos want
I don't know, and neither does any of us except for Ken and Gerri.
But possibly they just want their peace and (of course) our money.

Bear with this long post.  As someone who's been using the program since 2001 it's hard to argue I'm anything other than group 1, as you've broken it down.  That said, I'm an active lurker, perusing "Today's Active" regularly.  As such (and maybe the caffeine's just kicking in at the right time) I just wanted to ramble a bit in this thread.  I can't say I'll be responsive, but not as a dodge.  It's just my way, I suppose.

In the past (not since the 2.x days) I'd submitted corrections and some info to some titles.  There have been times I've wanted to update some entries but have opted not to mainly because by nature I'm in group 2.  I daresay I have some group 3 tendencies, but do believe that the great can be the enemy of the good.  I'm also not one who thrives in vigorous debates over minutiae. 

This is not to take sides.  As much as I read on here, I generally focus on content and don't pay too much attention to who's saying what -- everyone has their valid points in debates.  I recognize people's handles, but I honestly can't remember who I tend to side with most.  The reason I bring this up is because, while I am in favor of the goals of group 3 and understand the rigor required to maintain standards (I'm a perfectionist in my own work), some of the heated debates here have definitely discouraged me from doing group 2 gruntwork. 

As an anecdote -- not a complaint -- I recently purchased the complete "Six Feet Under" (when I read about an Amazon deal on these boards ) and have been dismayed that there are only spotty grandchild (disc level) profiles.  I've been tempted to at least use Disc ID and get basic profiles ready for greater scrutiny and revision.  Why haven't I?  Well, this probably says more about my own neurosis than anything else, but I don't want to rock any boats, get caught up in debates, etc.  It's not that this board is any more or less confrontational than others, but it's the one board I visit that really is about making something, not just bantering.  Thus, I find it suits my temperament best to sit on the sidelines, keep up to date and enjoy the program for what it is and where I hope it's going (of which I only have a vague concept).  As such, I rarely even do private entries, concerned that at some point I may want to contribute and not be able to discern what's submittable and what's not.

Anyhoo, I'm glad for the program, for the forums, for those who treat this with passion.  I may be alone, but then again I may also represent another group:  not the ones on the field, not the ones in the crowd, rather the ones who sit in the dugout.  Man, I hate sports metaphors.

Edit to add:  It just occurs to me that when I first started using DVDProfiler I only had ~35 discs -- about 5% of what I have now

edit

edit

I swing somewhere between 2 & 3. While "Some data is better than no data" is right, "Some inaccurate data is better than no data" is not. I would rather have incomplete profiles than complete profiles that have inaccurate info.

I agree with Forget as well. I'd position myself somewhat closer to 2 than 3: I'll always try to do it right, but I can't be asked to engage in endless discussions on correct parsing of a name as if the lives of my loved ones depend on it. Life's too short for any of that.