Quote:
Ken has already set up a method to determine what will get in the online database, without any need of arguing in the forums or intervention by Ken--it's the contribution/voting/screening process.  If we all contribute what we believe is per the rules, and the voters all vote according to their understanding of the rules, then Ken and his screeners can decide what will be in Invelos' database.  There is little need for Ken to visit and referee our discussions.

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

Quote:
Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
I don't need any input from Ken on the rules. What I need is a set of guidelines from the leftovers on what is to be contributed. So why don't the handful of you pre-2008 get together and decide for us. Just as soon has you decide on the hot topic of with or With, maybe 6 pages and no resolution.

Why do you need guidelines from anyone, other than the rules?  You're capable of reading them just as I am, and coming to your own conclusions.  So what if your contributions receive "no" votes, or aren't incorporated into the online database?  Your local database would have been amended as you like and you move on to another profile.

As to the hot topic of "with" vs. "With", it makes absolutely no difference that there isn't a resolution.



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

Quote:
Look how often we have posts about "spelling errors" in the database.

Quote:

Of course, as in every settled debate, there are always going to be a few people who are disappointed, who would have wanted to see the ruling go another way. That's unavoidable, that's what deciding one way or the other does. This particular ruling has one enthusiastic opponent in surfeur51, but him voicing his disappointment over and over (and over!) again doesn't entail that it's still under debate - it's not. As far as the contribution process is concerned, we have a clear and concise ruling that works, whether everyone agrees with the ruling or not.

Practical: before the ruling, someone like surfeur51 could (and did) vote against contributions that, say, converted a credit of ANDRE MARANNE as André Maranne, going by his own particular interpretation of the rules, but now that Ken has given us his "É=é and E=e" ruling, that's no longer possible. Instead, since the ruling, I have never had any problems entering, submitting and, if needed, correcting uppercase credits converted into lowercase letters - since then, I've been able to handle them consistently, not having to fight with someone like surfeur51 every week because he had a different "interpretation" of the rules. Instead, we have a ruling that works, and the matter has never bothered me again. Again: sure, he can voice his disappointment, but the matter is settled, and it has made things a lot easier. There's a difference between ongoing arguments and one person repeatedly beating a dead horse. Despite the latter, the matter is settled, and is no longer under debate. One person's disappointment doesn't change that.

Quote:
Quoting ateo357:

Quote:
I don't like to revisit profiles ever week for the new this is how we're doing it this week thread.

Then don't.  Just contribute (if you desire) according to your understanding of the rules, then hand it off to the voters and wash your hands of it forever after.

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

Quote:

Some of you that question the contribution rules, get together via a email and rewrite them.
Then put it up for a vote in the forum, section by section.

Quote:
A contribution system is not made to please the contributors, but to please the users of contributed data. And I'm sure that a great majority of those downloaders want exact and usable data.