Quoting T!M:

Quote:
So, still not entirely accurate, but certainly a huge improvement from the previously reported, woefully incorrect 17 titles (!) for what's actually the least-used name variant. Those that insisted on taking those obviously flawed numbers on face value can start fixing their incorrect entries right now.

Was it really necessary to take a dig, at those that didn't agree with you, in your last sentence?  You jump on people for gloating then turn around and make a snide remarks about them.  Am I the only one who sees a double standard here? 

O.k. let's look at a post, from Ken, that wasn't cherry picked.  In this post, from March 7, 2009, Ken said:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT.  If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary.  However, in most cases it is not required.

I have notified the evaluators to disregard general demands for specific documentation of common name outside the use of the CLT.

Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data.

According to that post, we don't have to do anything other than check the CLT results.  We don't have to prove they are the same person, we don't have to prove that the CLT results are correct, we don't have to do anything outside the use of the CLT.

People who prefer more rigidly documented common names, are free to enforce those rules on their local data.  And make no mistake, that is exactly what is being done with all these common name threads so this post does apply...though I am sure someone will claim it doesn't. 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Kluge:

Quote:
OK, please explain me what is a common name (and I don't think that common name is an opinion).

A common name is the most credited form, based on the title count in the CLT.  That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less.

So the common name is the most credited form, good. And CLT is the tool that we use to estabilish which is the most credited form, very good. However:

Quoting Ken Cole

Quote:

Posted: November 13, 2007 10:26 PM
The lookup tool is not to be blindly trusted, however it does outweigh other sources, including autographs. The common name is not intended to always reflect the "real name", but the most commonly credited name.

However, if a user documents errors in the database where the credit is not entered properly, that can and should be considered.  Better yet, correct the entries, assuming you own the discs in question, thereby correcting the lookup results.

Furthermore, in this case, there are not ambiguous credits, for all the different copy of every title is reported the same credits, so we don't have to estabilish which is the correct credit, we know reading the results that in every copy of Aliens vs. Predator 2 and Monkeybone is credited Hiroshi "Kan" Ikeuchi, doesn't matter which EAN or which locality, and even if the CLT result is 4 titles, we see the the real titles are only 2, and so on.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
If you want to, that is fine, but you can't expect everyone to go that extra mile nor can you force them to accept your findings.

I think that's overstating things a bit. It's true that no one can force someone to accept their findings. That's not the way contributions work. Contributions are put up for a vote, voters vote and screeners screen. There's never any forcing, no matter what the issue is.

Does someone have to drill-down beyond the CLT to contribute a common name? No.

Can you vote against them if they don't?
- On the basis that the CLT might be flawed, No.
- On the basis that you as a voter have information to show that the CLT is incorrect, yes. 

You can vote no with a comment just as you would in any situation where can show that the documentation is flawed. That doesn't force anyone to withdraw or do anything differently. It's a tip to the screeners and they decide.

Can someone drill-down beyond the CLT and present that research to document a common name? Yes.

Can you vote against them if they present drill-down CLT info to override the CLT?
- On the basis that the info is not the CLT, no.
- On the basis that you as a voter have information to show that the drill-down is incorrect, yes.

But if someone presents documentation to refute the CLT, you can't vote no just because it isn't CLT info. And a voter can't vote no just because they don't trust the info.

That's my take on it anyway.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I am coming at this from a different perspective.

That is only to be expected, after all, you do hail from another planet...and you seem right ticked off about it too. 

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
I agree, Martian, BUT i do not interpret that to mean simply stating that someone USED the CLT without posting the results is an acceptable practice. It is NOT acceptable, i expect to see the results. For all we iknow these users are out and out lying and simply making up the data while CLAIMING to have checked the CLT, I seem to recall such a case recently, where are user claim was challenged by another user citing specific results to prove that the Contributior was ummm let's just say less than honest.

Skip

I voted on a contribution like that except, in that case, the contributor did include the CLT results...or what he claimed were the CLT results.  I, and another user, checked the numbers and came up with the same answer...his numbers were wrong.  So, for me at least, it doesn't really matter whether or not they include the CLT numbers.  If it is a person I don't trust, I am going to check them anyway.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Woola:

Quote:
I agree, Martian, BUT i do not interpret that to mean simply stating that someone USED the CLT without posting the results is an acceptable practice. It is NOT acceptable, i expect to see the results. For all we iknow these users are out and out lying and simply making up the data while CLAIMING to have checked the CLT, I seem to recall such a case recently, where are user claim was challenged by another user citing specific results to prove that the Contributior was ummm let's just say less than honest.

Skip

I voted on a contribution like that except, in that case, the contributor did include the CLT results...or what he claimed were the CLT results.  I, and another user, checked the numbers and came up with the same answer...his numbers were wrong.  So, for me at least, it doesn't really matter whether or not they include the CLT numbers.  If it is a person I don't trust, I am going to check them anyway.

I agree with this. I think Pantheon once explained this stance rather well once. If I don't trust someone's work, I'll always go and verify that it is correct myself. There might always be people who try to lie to get what they want into the database. I don't believe T!M is one of these people though. As far as I'm aware, has any of his information been proven wrong? So why so much lack of trust. If someone doesn't trust his work, I suggest you (Skip or anyone else that doesn't trust someone's work) start checking if it's wrong, and if he really is submitting bad data (which I don't believe to be the case), then vote against it. Only then do I believe it's perfectly understandable that you don't trust him.

Only after I have proven that someone is not to be trusted will I stop trusting them. Not just because they won't prove their basis to me. It just seems backwards and rather cold to me to do otherwise. Don't get me wrong though, I'm a skeptic at times as well. But I think people take skepticism to a whole new level sometimes. 

Quoting Vittra:

Quote:
I don't believe T!M is one of these people though. As far as I'm aware, has any of his information been proven wrong?

Yes it has. I won't go into the how's and where's here as this would only instigate further derailing of this thread. But, the answer is YES - he has been proven wrong - several times!