I agree with Forget, Addicted, and dee.  Incomplete, accurate data is acceptable where complete, inaccurate data is not.

My tendencies are toward 3.  I don't contribute too often, though, for a number of reasons, the main one being I don't want to do a partial job and haven't taken the time to do full audits of my titles.  Lately it's been a big job just keeping up with the contributions other people have made.

I think I am a perfectionist, but not at all in group 3. As I understand, people in group 3 want a perfect "per the rules" database. In my case, I want a perfect "as in real life" database. That means no typos, no Francois, no unknown Zhang ZIYI (but yes to ZHANG Ziyi), no T4xi, and good linking for cast and crew... And I also customize useless fields (for example, I use rating details field for French Box-office)

For the online, I would put myself in group 2 users. The only usefulness of online is to be a base for local databases. Group 1 users don't really mind what is precisely in the profiles (but want it to exist), so they probably will not edit them. On the other hand, people as me find the online all the more inadequate for themselves as it follows strictly rules, and will modify their profiles as they wish. The perfection (as per the rules) of the online has only importance for those for whom it is a hobby to follow rules (nothing wrong to have that hobby, but as Gsyren said , you have not so many such users, even if they are very vocal in contribution rule forum...)

Good enough is not good enough. In the old days users could submit whatever they liked, we even scraped IMDb. Once ken made IMDb off limits, a couple of us saw the problem coming and decided to begin to take some steps to head it off at the pass. Unlike surfeur's comment, the Rules are based on real data not user fiction or imaguination, that includes typos because that is user fiction if it is correcting a film company typo (as opposed to a user-generated typo). Real life has nothing to do with the online, that is what your local database is for.

Along with ken's change relative to IMDb, this place used to be a mess, as users battled on a weekly as users battled over how titles were to be sorted, whose Overview would be in the database, even which database the Actor data might come from, which had nothing to do with the ONLY real source for such data, the film, tell me which film IMDb or any other outside database has produced. This became painfully apparent as problem as my collection grew from 1 DVD to thousands. While I sympathize with Yves' position, it simply does not belong in the Online database because it is based on the user's imagination or preference. Let's take a sample typo, collor, is it color or colour, either could be correct, but not according to the real data which the Online is based upon, if you (the user) wants to use the Queen's English it would be colour, OTOH if an American wished to fix that typo it would be color, again both of which are correct for the USER but neither of which are correct to the data, and it sets up a battle such as we used to have as users fight over their own interpretation.

If the data is based on the REAL data then data input is easier for everyone, and they are then free to manipulate their own data as they wish. WE had users trying to manipulate the Sort field, their wishes for sorting were perfectly reasonable for THEM, but they completely disregarded every other user in the Community. The Online being based on real data, not imaginary data, eliminates the ping-ponging we used to see ALL the time. How many of you saw the recent Contribution in which a user, instead of following the Rules, and taking the Overview from the back cover, decided to write the great Ammerican novel summarizing the movie. And in the words he wrote me, his was better than . It's this kind of nonsense we are trying to avaoid.

I am sorry surfeur, I have told you before and I will always tell you that, what you want belongs locally, NOT in the Online, unless you are fixing a user-generated typo, God knows I do generate enough typos to fill a computer.

For those that like to whine about documentation. It's not that hard either, I have sai before teh Notes I generate and documentation I provide is for YOU and to a lesser degree for ME (in the future). That way we can all see what was done, how and why. Creating a CLT link based on the Name Variant Tool ALONE is usually pretty dangerous. There are times when I am willing to grant some slack in this area, for example a Credit in a TV show that reads Howard Johnson and the very next show says Howard E. Johnson, I think we can reasonably conclude that they are the same person, who for reasons unknown to us changed his billing. My collection is larger than many of you, but nowhere near as large as some, I do not find the Rules in any way difficult to deal with or comply with, I really do believe that perhaps with some language issues aside, that there are users who simply want to create problems where none really exist, I don't know why, I don't really care. I will continue to offer guidance when I can, this has been a labor of love for me for five years now....a thankless labor of love, but I will continue.

The function of the Rules was to create a single page from which all users operate from instead of allowing the Online to be ruled by the opinions and preferences of a users. That is why they are completely based on REAL data which is culled from whatever the source is to be, back cover, the DVD Menus, the film credits et al. Not what somebody thinks it should be, but what it REALLY is, what somebody thinks or wants has a place but it is not the Online.

Skip

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
So – the bottom line is this: Does Invelos want a comprehensive, good but not perfect, database, or do they want a smaller but perfect database. And don’t say comprehensive and perfect, because that’s just not going to happen.

One can only speculate, but I think Invelos is structured for a comprehensive, good but not perfect, database. I'm sure they would love perfection, but they have acknowledged in recent comments that they will accept a contribution if it contains mostly correct information. They allowed in their comments that an error could be accepted and fixed later.

Also, their recent comments that one generally only needs to source to the CLT for common name linking included statements that users desiring a higher level of accuracy could do so in their own db. This to me says Invelos strives for good but not perfect.

I try to make my contributions as accurate as possible. For voting, I keep Invelos' recent comments in mind and I try not to demand perfection of others, unless there's some good data being removed or something. But if the user is adding an overview without the bold and italics, it's not a big deal.

While I understand what James is saying above... Ken also made the statement that such a small thing wrong/against the rules is a legitimate reason for voting no as well. So personally I always vote no with reason for anything that is against the rules, incorrect or against statements made by Ken and/or Gerri... knowing full well that it could still go through... but it will highlight for the submitter and the screener that there is something wrong no matter how small it is.

Then it is...

1. Up to the submitter if they want to fix the problem or take the chance that the contribution could get declined.

2. Up to the screener if what I point out is reason enough to decline it or if they want to let it go through anyway.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
I guess I'm in a minority (in the forum, at least) because on reflection I realize that I'm in group 2 leaning towards group 1.

I collect films (and TV series), not film data. So for me DVD Profiler is just a tool to help me keep track of which DVDs I own and which I have watched.

I try to use it in accordance with the rules when I contribute, but quite frankly I see very little practical benefit from insisting on perfect data. Typos may be "real data" but they carry no real value for me. What I want from the overview is some idea as to the plot of the movie. Formatting adds very little to that, typos nothing at all. In this regards I guess I see things a little like Surfeur does. But I accept the rules and don't argue about it...

It would be interesting to know if those who lean towards group 3 have pondered why "good data" is so important to them. Is it just the principle of it all, or do you actually find that it has a practical impact of some sort? If Jean-Claude//Van Damme didn't link up with an erroneous entry of Jean-Claude/Van/Damme, would you be likely to think that you were missing one of his films and go out and buy it, not realizing you already owned it, for example?
(No, I'm not a JCVD completist, it was just an example  )

With a library of DVDs up well past 1,000 something like this is a possibility.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
This is in no way meant to deride those who do require perfect data. I'm just curious as to your motives.

I always wanted the information in Profiler to be accurate to the actual DVD release. that is why I like cast and crew to be per the credits... why I like to see a typo in the overview if there is one on the back cover... and why I like to see Bold and Italics in the overview if there is bold and  Italics on the case. In a collection program I like accuracy to the source material... and in our case that source material is the DVD itself.

Off topic so: Spoiler:  (Select to view)

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
With all due respect, james. You make the statement that Invelos might like perfection and I agree. But that is up to us, those who are willing to settle for less, or those who are npt providing comprehensive notes are not moving us toward that goal. I find those failing to provide comoprehensive, simply because it is not required to be the far more objectionable of the two

The goal of what you refer to as "comprehensive notes" (which I understand your shorthand to refer to things like: listing all crew roles in the notes, Name A=Name B documentation for every name link, listing the Disc ID in the notes, etc.) is not an Invelos goal. If you want comprehensive notes, you will have to convince them to add that requirement to the rules. Regarding what you find "objectionable", if Invelos' goals and their rules are not in synch with your goals and preferences, you will continue to be dissatisfied with Invelos and those of us who follow their lead.