| Author |
Message |
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
But just because a user thinks it is incorrect or something is more correct does not warrant a change. Sorry but that is just completely wrong. If a user believes something is incorrect of course they will submit it for a change. Then the community & screeners will decide if it's valid or not. That is the entire point of the contribution/voting process! | | | | Last edited: by Ardos |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | That is not what the rules say, Forget.
Then we might as well go back to playing ping-pong with the data, which will annoy everyone very quickly, as users battle over their favorite interpretation of the data. You weren't here when this place resembled the Wild West in this regard and we had one title edited and re-edited virtuall several time per week, over 2000 times in 5 years.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
I ignore it, hal because it is not relevant in the context of the Rules. So (your interpretation of) the Rules are more important than actually having the most accurate Genre reflected in the online database. Is that what you're saying? | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't interpret the Rules, hal. I read them and I know what they say and this is simply not allowed PERIOD. You can spin it, you can rationalize it anyway that you wish, my friend, but the rules do NOT allow for it. They, infact, expressly forbid it and specifically spell out how it should be dealt with.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Skip, as has tried to be explained, the rules CAN be read in more than one way so yes you are interpreting them as are those who read them the other way. Without Ken stepping in to say who is "right" we can not be 100% sure about what Ken's intent was. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Further, i don't interpret Crime to of necessity be more accurate than Suspense/Thriller. That isi why the rules refer to personal interpretation may differ from one user to another. Dial M for murder i would not call a Crime film, though a crime is clearly involved, it is a Suspense/Thriller.
The Rules further do not allow for such interpretations as you posit, Hal
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, I'm more interested in getting the most accurate information into the database than I am about an overly restrictive interpretation of the Rules. This kind of inflexibility does not serve anyone.
New genres were added to the program. It only makes sense that we should apply those genres to profiles where they should be applied, especially when the previously used genre only approximates the correct genre, as in this case.
I would vote yes on this change and let the screeners be the final arbiter. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | No, if you read the Rule in its entirety, Forget, there is not multiple interpretation. As I noted when taken in its entirety the Rule is clear, lack of clarity is only created when someone takes one word or phrase out of the Rule, while ignoring the entire context, in order the create an interpretation to rationalize a breaking of the Rule, as has been done in this case, complete with inroduction of words and terms whcuh are not a part of the rule, such as "more appropriate, closer, etc.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | And when it come to genre, Hal, as the rules have noted, who are you, Tim, I or anyone else to determine "accuracy". Genre are subjective PERIOD and one users Suspense/Thriller is another's Crime, both are correct, who is User Ab to determine that an existing piece of data that is correct is less correct that his piece of data. It is that mentality that used to cause us all kinds of grief once upon a time.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | From the Overview of the DVD in question: Quote:
From their uniquely equipped office at SFPD headquarters, Chief Ironside continues to lead his special police unite, fighting crime others can't. His crack team includes Sgt. Ed Brown (Don Galloway), ex con turned assistant Mark Sanger (Don Mitchell) and beautiful policewoman Eve Whitfield (Barbara Anderson, who won an Emmy for this role.)
With superb story lines dealing with socially important topics like racism, drugs, abortion, and terror on a college campus, Ironside's second season continued the tradition of attracting special guest stars including Milton Berle, Anne Baxter, Bill Bixby, Ricardo Montalban, Burgess Meredith, Ed Asner and many more. Looks like a crime series to me.  The simple fact that T!M is adding 26 episodes worth of cast and crew (Thank you, T!M) should get this approved. | | | ...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: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
The simple fact that T!M is adding 26 episodes worth of cast and crew (Thank you, T!M) should get this approved. Going by a fairly recent statement from Ken (or was it Gerri?) that if the majority of the data is correct & valid (I've not checked as I don't have it) then the contribution will be accepted I'd say it probably would be. - Thanks T!M for posting the link to Ken's post. | | | | Last edited: by Ardos |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Do YOU have any idea how much data I have voted Yes for or not submitted myself over the years because per the Rules I will not vote against something that is allowed, even though I might not agree iwth it personally or how much data i have not submitted because it is inappropriate for me to impose my will when the rules do not permit it. There are many genre which I, personally do NOT agree with and will not use, but I cannot per the Rules replace someone's opinion with my own UNLESS it is blatantly incorrect...I just keep it as my data and keep it LOCKED. A lot of user simply want to force their own opinions on everyone else no matter what the Rules say to do, and they create a variety of rationale to support their breaking of the Rules, for example the $.01 change in SRP, despite the FACT that the Rules specifically prohibit such a change.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
From the Overview of the DVD in question:
Quote:
From their uniquely equipped office at SFPD headquarters, Chief Ironside continues to lead his special police unite, fighting crime others can't. His crack team includes Sgt. Ed Brown (Don Galloway), ex con turned assistant Mark Sanger (Don Mitchell) and beautiful policewoman Eve Whitfield (Barbara Anderson, who won an Emmy for this role.)
With superb story lines dealing with socially important topics like racism, drugs, abortion, and terror on a college campus, Ironside's second season continued the tradition of attracting special guest stars including Milton Berle, Anne Baxter, Bill Bixby, Ricardo Montalban, Burgess Meredith, Ed Asner and many more.
Looks like a crime series to me.
The simple fact that T!M is adding 26 episodes worth of cast and crew (Thank you, T!M) should get this approved. And I would decline it based on the Rule violation ALONE. If the screeners will not enforce the rules then we have no Rules. And sadly I am seeing for too much refusal to enforce the Rules, which leads to this nonsense. I am rejecting an increasingly large quantity of data which gets approved but does not follow the Rules for one thing or another. Lately we have some users who are willing to not only ignore the Rules for contribution but for voting as well, this is leading an increasing failure of usability of the data, which is sad. And before someone launches into usability, this too is SUBJECTIVE, what is uable to one is not usable to another which why we try have coherent data in the Online, which can then be manipulated and massaged to meet the usability requirements of each individual user. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
A lot of user simply want to force their own opinions on everyone else no matter what the Rules say to do, and they create a variety of rationale to support their breaking of the Rules
If you look at it from the side of those who read (any of) the rules a different way to you, they can say the exact same thing. |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
The simple fact that T!M is adding 26 episodes worth of cast and crew (Thank you, T!M) should get this approved. And for that we should be thankful to Ken for choosing screeners who can use their brains.  |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,722 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
The simple fact that T!M is adding 26 episodes worth of cast and crew (Thank you, T!M) should get this approved. You're very welcome! Quoting Forget_the_Rest: Quote:
Going by a fairly recent statement from Ken (or was it Gerri?) that if the majority of the data is correct & valid (I've not checked as I don't have it) then the contribution will be accepted I'd say it probably would be. If you're interested, that statement (by Ken) is here. Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
If the screeners will not enforce the rules then we have no Rules. Not exactly. It's not that we have no rules, it's that you have a long-standing tendency to misinterpret them. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
|