Quoting Berak:

Quote:
As said by many, many times before - this is not a popularity contest, but rather a strive to achieve a "perfect" database.... 

Exactly. Which is why Invelos's approach "to accept profiles that add significant value" is the best way to go. Of course, giving the screeners the ability to accept and/or reject parts of the contribution would be good, but I guess it would make the screening process a bit more time-consuming. Within the current system, it's ridiculous to turn down huge improvements on one tiny detail, which is why the "significant value" stance makes perfect sense.

I'm with you, Berak. Tim is very loud, but relative value is simply wrong-headed as demonstrated by the amount of bad data he has refused to correct. But there it is in the database anyway.

Skip

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I guess it's time to repeat Invelos' official stance on the matter yet again:

Quoting Ken Cole (link to original post):

Quote:
The Invelos evaluators' standing policy is to accept profiles that add significant value.  They do not have to be complete, nor even completely accurate.  If you're submitting 50 painstakingly correct cast entries but get the production year wrong, the profile should be accepted and corrected later.

"No" votes are equally valid in this case, however.  They allow the contributor a chance to correct their submission if they choose, and save someone the effort of the correction later on.

I've sent out a notes reiterating this policy to the evaluators.

I am curious as to why you felt this had to be repeated.  While the statement does say that the screeners have been directed to "accept profiles that add significant value," it has nothing to do with us as voters.  You will notice that he did not say we should vote 'yes' because the profile adds significant value.

In fact, his statement, ""No" votes are equally valid in this case, however.  They allow the contributor a chance to correct their submission if they choose, and save someone the effort of the correction later on," indicates that we should vote 'no', pointing out the errors, and let the screeners decide whether or not to accept it.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I am curious as to why you felt this had to be repeated.

Because I'm sick and tired of a few "loud" (ha!) users repeatedly presenting their own preference as fact, like Skip declaring in every other thread that one single piece of incorrect data should get any contribution declined. Now, he's just as welcome to his opinion as I am to mine, but if he chooses to repeat it here every other day, then I'll do the same with my take on the matter. And if he doesn't keep repeating it, then there'd be no need for me to do so either. As for the rest, I obviously agreed with everything you said: yes, a no-vote pointing out the error is certainly valid, and would hopefully lead to the error being fixed. That is, indeed, all in the statement I quoted and obviously agree with.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Berak:

Quote:
I disagree - it is ridiculous for a contributor to disregard a valid no-vote and correct the error, rather than leaning on a "statement" from Invelos and let it slip!

It's not "leaning on a statement" - this is about keeping the contribution process open to as many participants as possible. The overly strict approach you're advocating has resulted, in the past, in quite a large number of users giving up on contributing altogether. We've seen some of them expressing their disappointment about that right here in the forums. Of course fixing the error would be best - no doubt about that. And hopefully, the no-vote would achieve that. But if not, it's better to accept a 90% correct contribution instead of declining it and hoping that a 100% one will ever come around.

It is obviously time to repeat...... 

If contributors stopped viewing NO-votes as personal attacks, and started viewing them as pointers to bad data and correct them accordincly - we wouldn't have this discussion. But I know you disagree
T!M, as you continue to add garbage with personal attacks in your notes, rather than listen to reason... 

Quoting Berak:

Quote:
But I know you disagree

I don't disagree at all, actually, which you would have known if you bothered to read what I've been saying.

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
You are the ONLY user I have noticed who absolutely refuses to prvide ANY form of documentation for your Contributions

Strange: I have seen about a hundred of them. And by the way: I DO provided documentation wherever needed, and I know you know, as I've even seen you comment on it in your votes. "Wherever needed" is the key, though. Pointless as it may be, I'll gladly include the CLT numbers for you if that makes you happy. I just don't believe it will make you happy.

It will not make me entirely happy, Tim. I think you should also provide Name variant documenation, not just assume that two names are the same are the same person. But CLT results are the minimum. How you can conclude particularly in Crew data that two similar names must be the same person is beyond me, since many times bio information and pictures for these people are nigh to impossible to obtain and that to me playing with a stick of dynamite and one day it will go KABOOM on ALL of us, not just you. But Like I said CLT results are the barest minimum for the record. But then, in my life I have nevr bought minimum standards, I have always set my standards higher than whatever is the minimum because I want whatever i do to be right, including database construction.

Unlike some users Tim, i don't hold data that has not been documented, under any sort of altar of accuracy, should some user at some point change such data because it was not properly documented I won't vote to protect it just because it was accepted. Acceptance does not convey sanctity, only documentation can convey sanctity to the data, and as I have said I do review previous notes on all Contributions i vote for or against.

Skip