 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3  Previous Next
|
|
Partial Contribution Acceptance (read post before voting) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: September 29, 2008 |  Posts: 384 |
| | Posted: | | | | With the recent discussion of the contribution system I felt like posting my own opinion on the matter to see what you all thought. I'm sure this fits just as well in the Feature Requests forum but since it only relates to the contribution system, this forum seemed like a good place. My proposed change would be in two areas. 1. Each area of a contribution could be accepted or declined. With this change, each area of the contribution that happens to be declined would have more specific options for the screeners to select as reasons for the decline. **This in my opinion would lead to a healthier and more forgiving system. People often get discouraged if all of their work is declined based on one error. Having parts of their contribution accepted while others declined with more specific reasoning will encourage users to resubmit those specific areas. Also, more specific itemized decline reasons would leave no room for interpretation of why something didn't make the cut. The current system's messages for declines are far to ambiguous and often just state something about third party database use.** 2. The voting system remains the same, but the "No" vote is simply changed to an "!" signaling an error rather than a straight rejection. **While this may seem minor, the "No" vote as we have seen on many occasions can be taken too personally. And if users were only directed to discover errors in the contribution, I think the "message" sent to the contributer would be far less harsh. I also think the comments for an "!" vote would be worded differently in many cases just due to it's change in meaning. While some people don't believe their "No" votes come off as offensive, just in the idea that you are basically rejecting the contribution, can be off putting.** Let me add that the second suggestion isn't something that has directly effected me. I don't take No votes personally but I do know that it is an area that pops up far too often on these forums. A simple "Found an error? Let the screeners know -----> ' !'" would be far less misunderstood as something personal. Let me also add that this is by no means in reaction to something that happened to me, and I'm feeling burned by it, it is merely an observation of how I believe the system could be improved. I really enjoy this program and this isn't meant to come off as a "DVDprofiler sucks" thread in any way.  Edit: Additionally in regards to the itemized reasoning for declines, these reasons should be viewable in the Contribution Notes left on the profiler for others to see. This would allow new users to see exactly why something got declined and in the process teach them how to properly contribute more quickly. | | | | "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire | | | | Last edited: by Vittra |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've suggested 1 before & agree with what you've said, for the reasons said. However, as much as I'd like to see them implemented I'm not sure they will be for the simple reason of the extra workload that would give to the Screeners. As it currently stands, it looks like they've got 3 options - Accept, Decline, Elevate. Well, 6 if you separate data & cover scans.
For 2, I don't really see this as a problem. In most cases when a "No" seems harsh, it's only because of the space in the field. Numerous times I've had to take out a lot of what I wanted to say because I simply couldn't fit it all in. That said, I don't object to the renaming. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Agree with Forget on both. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Agree with Pete's agreement. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: September 29, 2008 | | Posts: 384 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Forget_the_Rest: Quote:
I've suggested 1 before & agree with what you've said, for the reasons said. However, as much as I'd like to see them implemented I'm not sure they will be for the simple reason of the extra workload that would give to the Screeners. As it currently stands, it looks like they've got 3 options - Accept, Decline, Elevate. Well, 6 if you separate data & cover scans.
For 2, I don't really see this as a problem. In most cases when a "No" seems harsh, it's only because of the space in the field. Numerous times I've had to take out a lot of what I wanted to say because I simply couldn't fit it all in. That said, I don't object to the renaming. Thanks for the replies! While I agree "1" might increase the workload for the screeners, I would hope that eventually it would lead to less repeat info being submitted. There would be more information being put in our database. The all or nothing attitude causes a lot of good info to not make it in due to people just giving up. And especially with the more descriptive options given and viewable in the contribution notes. This would limit the amount of repeat mistakes people make. This would be more beneficial for new contributers and give us a larger contributing base in my opinion. While I agree that "2" doesn't effect me much either, I do believe it sends the wrong message to our contributers, especially new ones. A straight No votes gives the impression that we have way more power then we really do. We are only voting to *help* the screeners in their decision, not actually rejecting it ourselves. And while I agree that sometimes due to the length of the comment line things can be misread, I think minor changes such as this can actually change people's view of what a "No" vote *actually* is and that is just an eye opener for the the contributer and the screeners alike. | | | | "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire |
| | Registered: September 29, 2008 | | Posts: 384 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hmm, thinking back I wish I could change the options in the poll. I'm curious to hear from those who voted no cause as it seems so far the only reasons given for this not working or being a good idea is due to it possibly raising the workload of the screeners. I suppose it would have been better to word the " Yes, this would be nice to see (no matter how unlikely it may be)" and " No, this would not help at all (please explain)". Although this doesn't change the fact that everyone who has posted has said that the ideas would be nice if implemented (Although in the case of #2 being just ambivalent). So please discuss away! Any feedback is welcome.  | | | | "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire | | | | Last edited: by Vittra |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | Best not to have multiple options in a single answer to the poll. I agree with the 1st point, not the 2nd and don't know how to vote. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,321 |
| | Posted: | | | | I like option 1 and in an ideal world I'd support that request. But knowing the extra workload that would place on screeners, I have to agree with everyone else. I do like the idea however and if Ken could find a way to make it work, I'd be for it. | | | Get the CSVExport and Database Query plug-ins here.
Create fake parent profiles to organize your collection. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting gardibolt: Quote:
Best not to have multiple options in a single answer to the poll. I agree with the 1st point, not the 2nd and don't know how to vote. Pretty much the same here... so I didn't actually vote in the poll. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | How many declines of do we have (of contributions which include both correct and incorrect data) that result in the contributor (or another user) never contributing the correct data that was collateral damage in the decline? My hunch is that we don't really have a problem to solve here, but if we could quantify the data that is getting lost with the current decline system, perhaps my hunch is incorrect. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think the current system is working. It's not great, but it's working. The only option I miss is the ability to vote for data and cover scans separately since cover votes are often very subjective in nature depending on your setup. Better not make things too complicated though. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
| | Registered: September 29, 2008 | | Posts: 384 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
How many declines of do we have (of contributions which include both correct and incorrect data) that result in the contributor (or another user) never contributing the correct data that was collateral damage in the decline? My hunch is that we don't really have a problem to solve here, but if we could quantify the data that is getting lost with the current decline system, perhaps my hunch is incorrect. You make a good point, and I can only speak from what I've seen myself. I have seen on a couple occasions a large update being declined due to a few errors and then never pop up again. It may not be a super big problem as you suggest, but I believe that this change would give a more welcoming atmosphere to beginners. While I understand the current system really doesn't bother most veterans because they are used to it, I'm trying to view it from how I felt when I first started. The all or nothing was quite hard to get used to. Quoting gardibolt: Quote:
Best not to have multiple options in a single answer to the poll. I agree with the 1st point, not the 2nd and don't know how to vote. Hmm, I'm not particularly sure if I understand your question, but if you mean my "1" and "2", I feel they kinda go hand in hand. If you aren't voting for the whole thing to be declined via a "No" vote, then really all you're doing is pointing out any errors you see in any particular field. This was why I added "2" due to the fact that if partial contributions were to be accepted, the "No" vote as it stands now wouldn't make as much sense unless they were only contributing one field. And I think we all don't want to have to vote on each field submitted separately. My commentary on why "2" would make the system better was only something I thought of after brainstorming this change. I see the benefits and thought I'd share my thoughts. With all that said though, that's why I added the "Other" because I was curious to hear if people liked one aspect and not the other, or had a problem with my reasoning or maybe even a whole new idea. I do apologize for having a somewhat long winded suggestion and so few options to choose from on the poll. This is my first poll in any form so chalk this one up as ignorance.  Quoting Kinoniki: Quote:
I think the current system is working. It's not great, but it's working. The only option I miss is the ability to vote for data and cover scans separately since cover votes are often very subjective in nature depending on your setup. Better not make things too complicated though. I agree that the current system is working. Like I said, I really like this program and this was merely a bit of constructive criticism.  Just because something is working though, doesn't mean we can't make some tweaks to make it "great". I also agree that the ability to be able to vote separately for cover scans and I believe the system I suggested would allow just that because the "!" or whatever symbol/comment they choose to signify an error would not be so over encompassing to the whole submission. You were merely pointing out an error in a part of the contribution signaling to the screener that one particular piece of said contribution was flawed. Anyway, thanks for all the replies. If nothing else I enjoy the discussion even if it never sees the light of day. | | | | "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire |
| | Registered: May 26, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 599 |
| | Posted: | | | | The person who needs to weigh in on this is samuelrichardscott, he was one of the contribution editors at DVDSpot, where we used a partial acceptance format.
I used to contribute new DVD's and edit mistakes in submitted discs all the time there.
The reason I don't here is because of the all or nothing system that is in place.
Sam will tell you; we didn't have 1/10 of the confusion or aggravation that is inherent in the system as it it now. And, our database was a lot more accurate. |
| | Registered: March 10, 2009 | | Posts: 2,248 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Vittra: Quote:
With the recent discussion of the contribution system I felt like posting my own opinion on the matter to see what you all thought. I'm sure this fits just as well in the Feature Requests forum but since it only relates to the contribution system, this forum seemed like a good place.
My proposed change would be in two areas.
1. Each area of a contribution could be accepted or declined. With this change, each area of the contribution that happens to be declined would have more specific options for the screeners to select as reasons for the decline.
**This in my opinion would lead to a healthier and more forgiving system. People often get discouraged if all of their work is declined based on one error. Having parts of their contribution accepted while others declined with more specific reasoning will encourage users to resubmit those specific areas. Also, more specific itemized decline reasons would leave no room for interpretation of why something didn't make the cut. The current system's messages for declines are far to ambiguous and often just state something about third party database use.**
2. The voting system remains the same, but the "No" vote is simply changed to an "!" signaling an error rather than a straight rejection.
**While this may seem minor, the "No" vote as we have seen on many occasions can be taken too personally. And if users were only directed to discover errors in the contribution, I think the "message" sent to the contributer would be far less harsh. I also think the comments for an "!" vote would be worded differently in many cases just due to it's change in meaning. While some people don't believe their "No" votes come off as offensive, just in the idea that you are basically rejecting the contribution, can be off putting.**
Let me add that the second suggestion isn't something that has directly effected me. I don't take No votes personally but I do know that it is an area that pops up far too often on these forums. A simple "Found an error? Let the screeners know -----> '!'" would be far less misunderstood as something personal. Let me also add that this is by no means in reaction to something that happened to me, and I'm feeling burned by it, it is merely an observation of how I believe the system could be improved. I really enjoy this program and this isn't meant to come off as a "DVDprofiler sucks" thread in any way.
Edit: Additionally in regards to the itemized reasoning for declines, these reasons should be viewable in the Contribution Notes left on the profiler for others to see. This would allow new users to see exactly why something got declined and in the process teach them how to properly contribute more quickly. Itemized reasoning as you put it was used at Spot and worked very well as i had mentioned in the thread about editors it prevents threads about minor issues flooding the forums. Also if this error system was put into practice what source would screeners have to go on other than what resources can be found online to check info on a title. Otherwise it would just revert back to being a no vote cause they have no info to hand. |
| | Registered: September 18, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,650 |
| | Posted: | | | | As an ex-Spot editor I agree with Forget_the_Rest. The partial declinations worked very very well and people were very eager to resubmit the one section and if not, they could actually PM us to discuss in further depth for necessary action to be taken. I personally think a more personal approach from screeners would be better, a way to contact them and a way to perhaps solve problems. Yes, it did add time to how much workload we could get through, but I certainly think, for the most part, people were happy with the hands on approach and whilst there were a lot of grievances, at least it was discussed and people weren't left in the dark wondering wtf happened.
(voted other as agree with 1 b ut not 2) | | | | Last edited: by samuelrichardscott |
| | Registered: September 30, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,805 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm not sure I understand why people think that partial acceptance or partial declines of a ticket would overly increase the workload for screeners.
Forgive the lengthly post coming up... I'll try my best to explain it simply.
I was an editor at DVDSpot for years ("retired" from the job a few months before we basically got a big middle finger and the site closed with barely a "thanks" for the endless hours we had put into the friggin' place...) and that is basically the system that was in use there.
It was very simple.
As an editor/screener, you would open up the contribution. On the left hand side of the screen were check boxes for each field within the contribution.
If an error was found in one of the fields, you simply unchecked the check box (or checked it… can’t remember if they all started checked or unchecked), and when you clicked the accept button for the contribution, all the fields with checkboxes were accepted, and all those that didn’t have a check in the checkbox were declined. If there were no changes to a specific field, it wouldn’t matter one way or another. (It worked the same way in reverse, declining, contributions as well).
Since the screeners here are supposed to be combing over every single field anyway, the time it takes to make one click of a mouse would absolutely not increase their workload.
And these days, the only contributions that seem to be coming through my collection are small ones anyway (italics in the overview, correction of media companies), so it’s not like there’d be much of a change and ONLY small contributions would be coming through.
What it WOULD do, is make the entire system seem WAY less daunting that it currently does. I remember my first contribution for a crappy Canadian release being completely declined after I had worked on it for… oh… three hours or so (the rules don’t really become super clear until after you’ve had a bit of experience with them), and being completely mystified why. The generic note I received didn’t help, and I had absolutely NO idea what fields I had entered incorrect information for. At least this way, people would be able to see where they messed up, re-read the rules for that specific field, and give it another go. Now, you’re left feeling your way around in the dark.
So count me in for one of those that thinks partial acceptance of contributions is a great idea, and count me out of the group that thinks it would cause this overwhelming workload for the screeners. If implemented correctly and simply, it absolutely wouldn’t cause any excess work on their part. | | | | The night is calling. And it whispers to me soflty come and play. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |