Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
I can't get my head around how anyone can think that bad data is better than nothing. If it's bad then you could potentially have people credited for a film that they played no part in, either cast or crew. Or it could just be a miss-spelling of a name. That info could then get propagated to other profiles & that would then push our CLT figures even further out.

The way I see it is that bad data is bad data is bad data & should be kept out at all costs.

I have to agree with this... especially with cast and crew where the bad data effects our CLT.

Quoting Dragon 6:

Quote:
Cloning a profile with out verifing the accuracy should be stopped. This profile 629159036311 was cloned and all the contributor state 

Quote:
cast and crew from approved profile 629159036311 This is replacing an empty profile, and in Kens comments there is no stipulation the credits must be verified

so I verified the data because he would not. I found the cast not to match the end credits. However it matched IMDB word for word. So how are we to make this system better when we clone other profiles and not verify the accuracy all we are doing is making it worse.

If we copied/clone a profile that we own from another profile we need to verify the work because we can not be sure it is correct until we can match it against our own disc/end credits.

Just to clear this up, Ken did say the credits must be verified.  In this post he says "...and the submitter would like to fill it in with their verified cast from their own locality..."

No matter what, if you make a contribution, you must verify that the data is correct.  You can't just copy data from another version and submit it.

Quoting whispering:

Quote:
That would mean that 100% of titles i contribute wouldnt have cast/crew. Almoust half of my contributions are new profiles. When someone else would step up on those profiles, they would more then likely copy the credits from another profile without checking. While i think its absolutely fantastic that users do check the credits, and think users like you are the biggest reason we have so good database, but making it mandatory would severly harm smaller localities.

But it is already mandatory.  The rules say that you must validate the data before you contribute:

"If the locality in your database is incorrect, and the correct one is not in the main database, you can change the locality of an existing profile for the same title. To do this, select DVD->Change Locality from DVD Profiler's main menu. Make sure you validate all information in the profile (including the UPC) before contributing the new locality to the main database."

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting whispering:

Quote:
That leads me to believe that even bad data is better then nothing.

I totally agree with that. There is nothing worse for the program than a quite blank profile downloaded by a potential user who wants to test dvdprofiler and finds only partial data.

What is called "bad" data is generally "good" data, but with people discussing different interpretation of rules. The "good" data for ZHANG Ziyi is Zhang//Ziyi, but this data is in fact incorrect in real life. Some will argue that Francois Truffaut is "good" data, though is is an enormous grammatical mistake. But all this nit picking have quite no importance for thousands of users who just want to have the cast list in their profile.

So, yes, "bad" (good) data is much better than no data (and often better than "good" (bad) data.

Only to you, only to you.

I absolutely agree, Unicus.

Too many people trying to create shortcuts of various kinds and being allowed to get away with it, usually under the guise of useability or ease of entry, and it is not for them to define either of those things, some of these users useability and ease of entry is a whole lot different from my own and their useability in fact reduces mine and other users. Anything that reduces useability for one while allowing other users to have their useability is nothing more than permitting the introduction of personal biases into the Online, the Online is to be user-neutral for a reason, it CANNOT achieve the requirements of 500,000 different users, one subset of users is guaranteed to have different requirements from some other subset who will in turn be different from another. That is why we have our LOCALS, so that we can make individual databases do what WE as individuals) do waht we want it to.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Just to clear this up, Ken did say the credits must be verified.  In this post he says "...and the submitter would like to fill it in with their verified cast from their own locality..."

No matter what, if you make a contribution, you must verify that the data is correct.  You can't just copy data from another version and submit it.

IMHO that refers to the people adding credits for various profiles they do not own. And i was referring to profiles i do own

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
But it is already mandatory.  The rules say that you must validate the data before you contribute:

"If the locality in your database is incorrect, and the correct one is not in the main database, you can change the locality of an existing profile for the same title. To do this, select DVD->Change Locality from DVD Profiler's main menu. Make sure you validate all information in the profile (including the UPC) before contributing the new locality to the main database."

I remember a contributer not so long ago asking why hes contribution got declined, he said he had copied the credits from another profile. Ken replied to that topic saying he forced the contribution through and said it followed the rules. Ihave done this for many years, in the past 2 years i dont remember a single one of my contributions getting declined. I havent reseaved a single no vote complaining about my credits. I havent reseaved a single private message fromanyone asking me to do anything else but continue doing what i do.

I do not wish to start nitpicking, but if i check the profiles contribution notes from where i copy the credits, wouldnt that be validating? But i would much rather discuss whats best for the database and the users of the program, then the wording of the rules.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
The way I see it is that bad data is bad data is bad data & should be kept out at all costs.

Since cloning credits is not the only possible source of bad data and because we are all human and prone to errors, the only way to keep bad data out of the database at all cost, would be to remove all data.

It always depends on the cost-value ratio.

Quoting whispering:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Just to clear this up, Ken did say the credits must be verified.  In this post he says "...and the submitter would like to fill it in with their verified cast from their own locality..."

No matter what, if you make a contribution, you must verify that the data is correct.  You can't just copy data from another version and submit it.

IMHO that refers to the people adding credits for various profiles they do not own. And i was referring to profiles i do own

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
But it is already mandatory.  The rules say that you must validate the data before you contribute:

"If the locality in your database is incorrect, and the correct one is not in the main database, you can change the locality of an existing profile for the same title. To do this, select DVD->Change Locality from DVD Profiler's main menu. Make sure you validate all information in the profile (including the UPC) before contributing the new locality to the main database."

I remember a contributer not so long ago asking why hes contribution got declined, he said he had copied the credits from another profile. Ken replied to that topic saying he forced the contribution through and said it followed the rules. Ihave done this for many years, in the past 2 years i dont remember a single one of my contributions getting declined. I havent reseaved a single no vote complaining about my credits. I havent reseaved a single private message fromanyone asking me to do anything else but continue doing what i do.

I do not wish to start nitpicking, but if i check the profiles contribution notes from where i copy the credits, wouldnt that be validating? But i would much rather discuss whats best for the database and the users of the program, then the wording of the rules.

As I noted, whispering what is best for you as user is not necessarily best for me. Simply follow the Rules and verify your data, that way we get an acurate not some sort of mish-mash because some users believe that garbage data is better than no data at all, which then in turn skews rthe results of the CLT and makes it less useable for ALL. Ken is trying to appease people and the Program is suffering for it, as well as the quality of the data in the Online as has benn graphically demonstrated by this particular thread and whichever user it was that lied about the what they had done while inserting bad data into the database. Every time Ken tries to clarify something or appease people, it results ultimately in more fights and disagreements, less clarity in some cases and gross laziness on the part of users.

Sure it takes me a couple of hours to build a Profile that complies to the Rules, I don't spend that time for myself, I have other things to do, I do it for YOU and every other user. If you are not willing to spend your time complying with the Rules and thereby creating data that is user-neutral and of benefit to all, then I can only say one thing...DON'T do anything..PLEASE.

You have no idea how angry I get when I run across some profile generated by some user, and his data was allowed to get in, and I have now have to spend my time to re-work the entire Profile top to bottom. Some of this crap is generated by some very well-known users who are more interested in their shortcuts than they are in helping the Community.

Skip