I submitted the main stars to The Ten Commandments. Why it doesn't have cast or crew or even a cover scan, I don't understand. However, the contributions info I saw said one had to have a source - what does that even mean?

I own the movie, it's a well-known classic and all of the cast (and director) are established actors in the database. For further "proof" I included the web address for the film's IMDb webpage (and perhaps the Blu-ray.com page as well, I can't recall) - but my submission was denied with this : "An invalid source, such as a third party database, was listed in the contribution notes. Use of a third party database is not allowed per the contribution rules."

IMDb is accepted as "proof" at every other movie/TV site I submit to. If that's not valid "proof" for Invelos, what do they want, a note from the director? The Ten Commandments is not some unknown movie, there was nothing mystical about my submission - so what should I have done differently - and where, pray tell, are these "contribution rules" posted? 

The Rules are HERE

As was said... per the rules you take the info from the actual film itself. That is the only source allowed for cast and crew info (other then uncredited cast of course).

Sorry for the delay in responding, I clicked "subscribe to this thread" when I started it, but that doesn't seem to work unless you go back to the thread and click there. Look, I realize that I'm a newbie here, and I don't wanna step on any toes, but I gotta say that the process for submissions here leaves a lot to be desired - and leaves me figuring "why bother".    For example, I submitted a cover scan of The Dark Knight Trilogy. Why there isn't one already for a set that's been out for 16 months now I don't understand (all the Trilogy sets have the exact same front cover) - to say nothing of no individual movie or extra discs info (it's a 5 disc, 3 movie set and I own the Target version). The scan of the front cover is an exact match for the BD set yet I was rejected with the statement saying "The UPC/EAN of the contributed cover scan does not match the profile's UPC/EAN." So, I then deleted the scan I included (for my own collection) of the back of the "slip" because it did have a different UPC (even though, other than that, all the "slips" are the same) but now the system won't let me upload the front cover scan - so the profile which Invelos downloads still has a blank cover. Where is the sense in that?

Some responses to catch up:

DJ : No, IMDb is not infallible (no site or any other method - including eyeballing - is), but, as a long-time editor on TV.com, I can tell you that they're pretty damn good and before I added info from them or accepted subs citing them, I always checked multiple (other) sources. For some of the shows I edited, we had better info then they did. Again, as I said, my sub only included "the main stars" and the director - no-one that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the movie wouldn't recognize as fact. And, no, cast lists are NOT copyright protected info for IMDb or anyone else - only original work can be copyrighted. Cast/crew lists can be found in a thousand places, including the movie itself. If the studio can't copyright that sort of info, and it can't, IMDb certainly can't. Information cannot be copyrighted, only original creative work or, in some instances, proprietary intellectual research/ideas.

Addicted : Thanks for the link. I'll study. 

scotthm : Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps a note from my mom would help as well? 

Nothing I've said is intended to be cute or insulting to anyone who responded. I truly appreciate the help. I just find aspects of this process to be absurd. Anyone who thinks that eyeballing credits - and on modern movies and especially TV shows (if they're not totally obscured by "pop-up" network/station ads), they often just whip by - is better than checking against published lists by respected sources is kidding themselves. Eyes get tired and confused, hands get cramped, original mistakes are made ad nauseam. Before TVC was taken over by CBS (and ruined), I wasted hours of my life compiling info from end credits. In order to limit mistakes one had to go over the credits again and again, constantly freeze-framing. Other sites had to be checked and consulted for spelling of strange names listed onscreen with tiny or unclear fonts. It's hard, tedious work rife with potential errors even for the most arduous of researchers.

The thought that mistakes on a published list from reputable sources would be passed on and compounded is … shortsighted at best. Odds are, those lists have already been checked, rechecked and corrected to reasonable degree. Add to that the checking of the contributor and the peer review process here, and you have even further protection. Perhaps requiring 2 or 3 published sources + an eyeball check would be better. But a note!?!    So no folks who are anxious to be listed as contributors are ever going to copy data and then say that they saw it themselves? Bull!    It's the easy way to get info and there are always folks who take the easy way.

Sorry if I seem perturbed, but I donated the time it took to compile that small cast list for The Ten Commandments. I own the movie, I've watched the movie countless times and the list was absolutely correct. I didn't do it for money … or glory. I only did it because I didn't like seeing it blank in my collection. And why would such a classic be blank anyway? This wasn't some rare, 1930's foreign film - it's an Oscar-winning film and everyone I listed was an A-list name brand. And why is a gray, empty space for a big set like The Dark Knight Trilogy preferable to a correct, hi-res cover scan? In summation, sub rules should encourage diligence, not non-participation - and folks who are found to be subbing crap can and should be barred from making further submissions. But good work should never be excluded by an automated, unresponsive, unappealable mechanistic process. 

I do all the credits from watching the film/TV series. I never use any outside source. But I have checked the on-screen credits compared to imdb... and I have found imdb to be anything but accurate for the titles I own. Especially for the role names. I have seen many credits where the on-screen credit (for example)... say on-screen credit for William Shatner is Kirk.... imdb sees fit to change this to Captain James T. Kirk (or however they decide to change it)... just because some user sees it as more info = better. But what we are after here is exactly as the on-screen credits show (including the exact order they are listed). That is what the rules for contributing tells us to do. Since Captain James T. Kirk don't match what the screen credits say then it is against the rules and should be declined.

As for your problem with the cover art. Same is true. Exactly per release for it's release... which includes the UPC #. Sounds like you just deleted the back cover art and tried contribute just the front cover alone. This can't be done you need something in both the front and back cover fields.

As was said... even though some may think so... there is no automatic mechanical declines. Even if you mention such sites as imdb.

While I hate to see anyone decide not to contribute to the database... that is a decision everyone has to make for themselves. Either contribute following the rules that DVDProfiler put up or don't contribute.

I do a lot of cast lists for TV Shows and movies both... and never had a problem with the way we do it here. I personally much prefer it.

Quoting Early Memphis:

Quote:
I just find aspects of this process to be absurd.

Don't worry, you are not alone with this feeling. And as a newbie, you have probably not seen the worse (rules oblige contributors to recopy spelling mistakes (for example if in Credits, you get Harison Ford, you have to create a new actor : Harison Ford  , who will not link with the filmography of Harrison Ford). Same with all accented names who loose, more than half the time, their accents. We have also a mess with all Asian names, as "Zhang Ziyi" does not link with "Ziyi Zhang".

The result is a database with most functions (sorting, linking, searching) that return uncorrect results, so what I call a useless database.

At the beginning (->2007), we had consistent rules, and the profiles were really good. At that time, I was very happy to contribute. Now, new rules are inept, and I stopped loosing my time with contributions. I prefer helping other users sharing data that are not contaminated by stupid rules, as headshots or images from movies to fill profiles galleries.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
for example if in Credits, you get Harison Ford, you have to create a new actor : Harison Ford  , who will not link with the filmography of Harrison Ford

You are not only complaining about the same thing in every one of your postings in this forum, now you are also lying. "Harrison Ford" is the common name for this actor and therefore you can link this credit to the actor via the "credited as" field.

If you want to contribute to the online database, the rules can be found at the top of profiler: Database > Tools > Contribution Rules.

Invelos has also clarified some things in the forums, these can be found: Forums > Contribution Discussion > Pinned:  Collected Statements from Invelos on contribution discussion.

If you want to contribute cover scans, both fields must contain a cover. If you only have the front, place that in both the front and back areas.

Contributing to the online database is optional,and appreciated, but the rules need to be followed in order to do so. You can use IMDb if you want, there are even plugins to make that task easier, but you must not contribute that data. Ken, the owner of this program has prohibited that for legal reasons.

Locally, you can do whatever you want, including copying third party data , but please remember to lock that  data so that it does not get accidentally overwritten.

No program is perfect - not IMDb, not DVD Profiler - because there are always things that can be improved or changed.

If you only read the forums, you might get the impression that it is difficult to contribute. Personally I do not think so and the more you do it, the easier it gets.

Quoting Early Memphis:

Quote:
But a note!?!    So no folks who are anxious to be listed as contributors are ever going to copy data and then say that they saw it themselves? Bull!    It's the easy way to get info and there are always folks who take the easy way.

You are correct.  I've caught more than one person claiming to contribute cast/crew "from the credits" only to be disproven by me looking at the credits.  A few screencaps in a tech support ticket to Invelos seems to help with such people.  Invelos' stated policy is to ban people who blatently lie in their contribution notes from future contributions.

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