| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can easily understand that somebody disagrees with a no vote. But putting an answer directly in the contribution notes, naming the no voter, is in my opinion an abuse. If the contributor wants to say something, there is a simple way to do that: PMs, not contribution notes that remains after the decision of screeners. | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Agree with you on that one Yves. The only time I mention a voter's name in contribution notes is to thank them for any help they have given me. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,678 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Agree with you on that one Yves. The only time I mention a voter's name in contribution notes is to thank them for any help they have given me. That goes for me, too. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: March 28, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,299 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
But putting an answer directly in the contribution notes, naming the no voter, is in my opinion an abuse. I only agree with that because of the "naming the no voter" part. I have no problems with addressing specific no votes in the contribution notes though, as long as the user name is withheld. Meaning, I find something like this to be perfectly acceptable: Quote:
Regarding the No vote: Running time taken from the actual playing time as measured using VLC, not from back cover. Stuff along those lines I have no problem with. | | | Tags, tags, bo bags, banana fana fo fags, mi my mo mags, TAGS!
Dolly's not alone. You can also clone profiles.
You've got questions? You've got answers? Take the DVD Profiler Wiki for a spin. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Agree with that as well. That is after all the reason Ken gave us the ability to edit the contribution notes. Because we weren't able to defend out contribution notes against some of the no votes we got. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: January 1, 2009 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,087 |
| | Posted: | | | | A direct adressing is not very nice and also not very helpful, but with general notes "to the No-voters" or "regarding the no votes" I do absolutely not have a problem.
But also without a direct adressing such contribution notes can be "bad", that's why we should always try to stay objective in the contribution notes and also in the votes.
Personnally I do both ways: Sometimes per PM, sometimes per contribution notes.
In some cases it is better to do per contribution notes: Depending on the matter there could be not just one voter you have to explain to. |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Agree with that as well. That is after all the reason Ken gave us the ability to edit the contribution notes. Because we weren't able to defend out contribution notes against some of the no votes we got. Agree also with that. But when notes contain things like "but don't invent fake reasons to vote against my contribution", this is a direct attack against the no voter's opinion, which is one of the main causes of the fetid atmosphere we have with contributions. Knowing that I vote 25 times less than I contribute, I'm not a maniac of no votes. PMs are a perfect place to explain things in a quiet manner, public attacks will never bring anything good. | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: August 23, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,656 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with the majority here for the most part. Unless the no voter is exceptionally negative. Then I will have no problem calling them on it. | | | Reviewer, HorrorTalk.com
"I also refuse to document CLT results and I pay my bills to avoid going to court." - Sam, keeping it real, yo. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with Astrakan. That is how I handle 'no' votes that I don't agree with. | | | 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: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | I treat "no" votes in various ways. I often send a pm to the voter to explain my rationale or request further clarification.
Then, depending on the communication, I change my contribution or edit my notes for clarification.
In the rare instance the "no" voter's comments are rude or inappropriate, I ignore them and let their own words speak for themselves.
Edit: As far as naming a voter - I don't see any benefit to doing so. | | | | Last edited: by Kathy |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 950 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with most of what's being said here...names in the contribution are not necessary but being able to have a rebuttal to comments is as well. However, I've had contributors swear at me for legitimate no votes in the contribution notes as well. Not very fun... | | | | Lori |
|
| Registered: June 21, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think I'd only call out a voter if they continued to boggle me with no's I couldn't understand and not reply to PM's, which I will send to any no vote I don't fully understand, asking for clairity. Then it would feel personal.
Thankfully this has never happened to me, all my PM's got answered and usually with good reason, or votes changed when I was right and the voter err'd.
The way some carry on in the forums, I wouldn't be shocked by personal attacks via bogus no votes. If that is the case and they won't reply to PM's, send a note to Ken. There's rules in place for abusing the voting system to deal with this, and as much as calling them out sounds good (and would be tempting), the proper avenues will serve you better I'd think. |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Astrakan: Quote:
I have no problems with addressing specific no votes in the contribution notes though, as long as the user name is withheld. There's the key: how do you address a specific no-vote without any means of identifying that specific no-vote? It seems to me that the only way to do that, to be specific, is to include the user name. What if there are more no-votes? What if there follow more, and possibly entirely different no-votes, several days after you've edited your notes to address the first one? It seems to me that it's extremely useful for both the users and the screeners to specifically identify whose comment you're responding to. As long as that response is given in a factual, on-topic fashion, including the name seems highly preferable. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
As long as that response is given in a factual, on-topic fashion... Agree also with that. The problem is that "but don't invent fake reasons to vote against my contribution" is not a factual on topic sentence, but an attack made by a user that is totally unable to accept others' opinions, and discuss man to man with them. Hiding behind a PM block (though I never send him any PM) just shows how this user understands discussion. T!M, of course what you wrote just above is right. I hope the nasty guy who refuses any explanations in private will read you... | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: March 28, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,299 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Astrakan:
Quote:
I have no problems with addressing specific no votes in the contribution notes though, as long as the user name is withheld.
There's the key: how do you address a specific no-vote without any means of identifying that specific no-vote? By context. If there's a no vote about running time and I make the comment above, it should be clear. Or, if you want to be super specific, you can do something like this: Quote:
In response to the no vote that reads: "The existing running time is CORRECT. Don't enter FICTICIOUS DATA into the database! The back cover is NOT a good source!", I would like to point out that the submitted running time is taken from the actual playing time as measured using VLC, not from back cover. Point is, I don't think user names should be entered into the contribution comments since they then enter the permanent record of that profile, while the voting comments do not. | | | Tags, tags, bo bags, banana fana fo fags, mi my mo mags, TAGS!
Dolly's not alone. You can also clone profiles.
You've got questions? You've got answers? Take the DVD Profiler Wiki for a spin. |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Astrakan: Quote:
Point is, I don't think user names should be entered into the contribution comments since they then enter the permanent record of that profile, while the voting comments do not. I understand that line of reasoning, I just don't see any kind of problem with the user name entering "the permanent record of that profile". |
|