 |
|
|
|
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 4  Previous Next
|
 Contribution notes (Locked) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
  | Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 |  Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | How extensive should the contribution notes be? When adding for example a BY at least three sources should be given (or a link to the Accepted list of birth years).
When I'm doing a complete auditing of the cast and crew I check the corrections and additions by CLT and also check via google whether it's the same person of course. I never add CLT results in the notes when I'm doing such an auditing, but I write in the notes that I checked it with CLT. I only add the CLT results in the notes when I'm correcting/adding only one or two crew/cast corrections. I do this for a long time and no problems so far, but now I get a few NO-votes that say to mention every single CLT result. First of all, is everyone so lazy that they can't even do it themselves? Secondly, where is the trust? You can expect that someone who bothers to add/correct every single cast/crew member to be very thorough. And finally, where will it all end? Should we add screen captions for every addition/correction of a cast/crew member as well? I don't think so.
There is even a rule in the Voting Rules that states: "If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible." When you vote, you should check the info as well. | | | | Cor | | | | Last edited: by Corne |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Corne: Quote:
I never add CLT results in the notes when I'm doing such an auditing, but I write in the notes that I checked it with CLT. I only add the CLT results in the notes when I'm correcting/adding only one or two crew/cast corrections. I do this for a long time and no problems so far, but now I get a few NO-votes that say to mention every single CLT result. There is no need to include the CLT numbers in your notes - this is not required by Invelos at all. And rightly so, because it's pointless. For instance: those numbers could have changed by the time the contribution is evaluated by the screeners - heck, they could have changed five minutes after contributing. There's absolutely no use in creating a snapshot of those numbers at a certain random moment. If someone really wants to know them, they can always find the correct, accurate-at-that-very-moment, numbers right here on the site. As to those who don't "trust" it - what's the difference? If the contributor is lying when he says that any "credited as" usage is supported by the CLT results, why wouldn't he lie when he pastes in those numbers? If the first was a lie, why wouldn't he fake those numbers, too? If you're somehow - although I can't image why someone would bother - intent on getting bad data into the database, that's still possible regardless of whether the CLT numbers are included or not. It just doesn't make any difference whatsoever. The only thing that such a demand does, is create even more work for the earnest contributor, yet another hurdle in getting correct data into the database. For someone who's put a lot of work into compiling an accurate set of data, it's really annoying when there are a few users merely sitting by the sidelines and just shouting out "nah, I don't buy it" for no particular reason. And that's what these generic no-votes are, IMHO. Personally, I always monitor any no-votes, as it's always possibly that I made a mistake. And if someone points out a specific problem, I'm always happy to fix it, or to clarify what I've done. But these generic "nah, I don't buy it" votes give me very little to go on... I agree with the rules that such votes are "an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible." Quote:
How extensive should the contribution notes be? Invelos prefers them to be "short and simple" ( link). | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Corne:
Quote:
I never add CLT results in the notes when I'm doing such an auditing, but I write in the notes that I checked it with CLT. I only add the CLT results in the notes when I'm correcting/adding only one or two crew/cast corrections. I do this for a long time and no problems so far, but now I get a few NO-votes that say to mention every single CLT result.
There is no need to include the CLT numbers in your notes - this is not required by Invelos at all. And rightly so, because it's pointless. For instance: those numbers could have changed by the time the contribution is evaluated by the screeners - heck, they could have changed five minutes after contributing. There's absolutely no use in creating a snapshot of those numbers at a certain random moment. If someone really wants to know them, they can always find the correct, accurate-at-that-very-moment, numbers right here on the site. As to those who don't "trust" it - what's the difference? If the contributor is lying when he says that any "credited as" usage is supported by the CLT results, why wouldn't he lie when he pastes in those numbers? If the first was a lie, why wouldn't he fake those numbers, too? If you're somehow - although I can't image why someone would bother - intent on getting bad data into the database, that's still possible regardless of whether the CLT numbers are included or not. It just doesn't make any difference whatsoever. The only thing that such a demand does, is create even more work for the earnest contributor, yet another hurdle in getting correct data into the database.
For someone who's put a lot of work into compiling an accurate set of data, it's really annoying when there are a few users merely sitting by the sidelines and just shouting out "nah, I don't buy it" for no particular reason. And that's what these generic no-votes are, IMHO. Personally, I always monitor any no-votes, as it's always possibly that I made a mistake. And if someone points out a specific problem, I'm always happy to fix it, or to clarify what I've done. But these generic "nah, I don't buy it" votes give me very little to go on... I agree with the rules that such votes are "an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible." I couldn't formulate it better Tim, thanks. I 100% agree with that. The votes for the two contributions are 50 - 50 now. With such No-Votes I feel really upset. You are doing the hard work and some %^&%&$ No-voters are telling you to do their work! I'm not perfect and can make mistakes. If someone points out that I made a mistake in the CLT outcomes I'm willing to correct that. In this case they don't even bother to check.  | | | | Cor |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | I include the results when there is room in the notes. It only takes a second to do so when you've actually already checked the CLT. On large cast lists and TV seasons, there is often no space for this info after describing other changes. Although it is not required by the Rules, I think it's a reasonable thing to do. As far as trust goes, I am sorry to say that I have seen more than just a few blatant falsehoods in contribution notes.  | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm with Hal on this one. I usually always include them myself. Even if it is not necessary per rules.
Not only do I do that... another thing I always do is add the disc IDs to my notes if I am adding an alternate Disc ID. It is not required per Rules... but I believe it helps so we have at least some kind of (even if partial) list of Disc IDs for that profile. My notes will look something like...
DISC IDs:
Old: XXXXXXX
New: XXXXXXX
And like Hal... I have also seen blatant falsehoods in contribution notes before. | | | | Pete |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I have also seen blatant falsehoods in contribution notes before. As have I. But whether or not CLT numbers are included has nothing to do with that. |
| | Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | But adding the CLT results doesn't mean that the contribution isn't false. The results can easily be made up. Hence, it could even be different 5 minutes later! Adding CLT results in the notes will only encourage people not to check and that will make it even easier for the contributors to enter faulty info. | | | | Cor |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I believe I already covered that by saying I personally do it whether required by the rules or not. I never once said I expect others to do the same... did I? Don't believe I seen Hal say he expected it from others either. Just that he thought it was reasonable to do so... as do I (or I wouldn't do it). | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Corne: Quote:
How extensive should the contribution notes be? The least possible, just what is required by rules. What is important is to spend time to fill empty fields, as we have hundreds of profiles that are still with quite nothing in them. Instead of doing that useful job, we have people that think they have to write encyclopedias about parsing of people for whom there is no doubt. As for people lying, they can lie by omission, or writing their encyclopedia. How extensive are their contribution notes change nothing. | | | | Images from movies |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
I have also seen blatant falsehoods in contribution notes before.
As have I. But whether or not CLT numbers are included has nothing to do with that. Just because someone says they have checked the CLT, doesn't actually mean they did, does it? Providing the results (even if they have changed, which they don't typically do during the contribution evaluation period) provides assurance that they actually checked and increases my level of "trust" in the contributor. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
.... or writing their encyclopedia. How extensive are their contribution notes change nothing. Totally agree on this one. An epic novel is absurd! | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Providing the results (even if they have changed, which they don't typically do during the contribution evaluation period) provides assurance that they actually checked and increases my level of "trust" in the contributor. I agree with this line of thought as well. | | | | Pete |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Just because someone says they have checked the CLT, doesn't actually mean they did, does it? Just because someone says "added full cast and crew, taken as credited from the film credits", doesn't actually mean they did, does it? In fact: I've literally seen hundreds of contributions where those exact notes accompanied a batch of incorrect IMDb-mined data. What bothers me, is that "added full cast and crew, taken as credited from the film credits" hardly ever attracts any no-votes, while Corne's contribution, painstakingly compiled from the actual credits and fully researched to include some much-needed common names does attract some of these far-fetched and generic "nah, I don't buy it" votes. It's this double standard that bothers me: when you mine the data from IMDb and lie that it's all "as credited", you get more yes-votes than you can handle, but when you actually bother to do the work, including spending additional time on researching and including some much-needed common names and birth years, then you're faced with these "nah, I don't buy it" no-votes. As such, I seriously believe that some voters are consistently channeling their lack of trust towards the wrong people. While it should really be the other way around - we should all be extremely wary of any set of cast and crew data that doesn't have a single "credited as" usage or a birth year - generally, that's a sure sign that the profile is in dire need of an audit... | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:
Quote:
.... or writing their encyclopedia. How extensive are their contribution notes change nothing.
Totally agree on this one. An epic novel is absurd! I consider myself a midway contribution notes writer. I do add info that is not required per rules when I feel it can help not only the contribution but future contributors to see what was done as needed. But I also don't feel the need to write a novel either. For example. if there is no Credited As or BY used... - Cast list from the credits in order of the Credits ...say all needed for that section | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | I try to keep my notes thorough yet succient. Although I might be accused of verbal diarrhea from time to time.  I include CLT results as they are accurate for the time that I include them. I trust people and believe that they are doing exactly what they say. Errors might occur of course but if I were to find blatant deception, I would not trust that person's contributions again. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Just because someone says they have checked the CLT, doesn't actually mean they did, does it?
Just because someone says "added full cast and crew, taken as credited from the film credits", doesn't actually mean they did, does it? The difference, which I know you realize, is that there is no documentation that can be offered to corroborate that you actually took the credits from the film. There is corroboration available for stating that you used the CLT. | | | | Hal |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |