Quoting northbloke:

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!

You're assuming that all users go back and check on the voting. It may be "good practice" among the more seasoned users but I'm sure not all contributors do this.
I see Ken's comment about accepting mostly accurate submissions is to make sure we still get the good data in the database rather than lose it simply because someone never saw a "no" vote.

I see your point, but in my opinion it would be better if the screeners declined these submissions with an explanation, rather than accepting them on the basis that some good data is good enough.

By all means - I see the other side of the fence, but my stance in this particular matter is pretty adament... 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
(***)
Of course nobody is under any obligation to anything, but to constantly pick on others who ARE doing the work, while following Ken's directions to the letter I might add, that is quite something else. All this talk would come off a bit more sincere if there were a bunch of contributions to match, WITH all the necessary common names applied and the extensive documentation you brag about. As long as I don't see that, I'm afraid it all sounds a bit hollow, I'm sorry to say...

Please, let's not start this 'I do the work, you don't' garbage.  I have done the research and, if I did what I know some users here are doing, I would have contributions numbering in the thousands as well.

In addition, unless I missed it somewhere, there is no 'minimum number of contributions' requirement in order to voice an opinion or vote on profiles.  With that in mind, and knowing what I know, the "who does the most work" argument rings just as hollow...if not more so. 

In my opinion, the screeners missed that one.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
unless I missed it somewhere, there is no 'minimum number of contributions' requirement in order to voice an opinion or vote on profiles.

And I obviously didn't say anything like that - on the contrary: I specifically stated that nobody is under any obligation to do anything. You really can't put those words in my mouth, as I simply haven't said it. I just have a problem with Skip repeatedly asking for the kind of documentation that I've basically never seen him supply himself. That's all.

As for CharlieM's example: the way the program deals with birth years is completely messed up. No, that contribution shouldn't have been approved. But most "big stars" which don't really need birth years per the rules somehow have gotten their birth years approved in the system (I can easily name about fifty of them), resulting in no checkbox when someone contributes it, and likely results in no alarm bells with the screeners as they don't get to see a big red "new birth year" flag with those contributions either. I guess that's why they think it's fine. Also, as we're tracking more and more crew (3.5 art credits), the need for birth years has increased exponentially, and unfortunately, it's often impossible to find the necessary birth years. I must have about fifty fake birth years in my database by now, all desperately necessary to keep people with the same names separated from eachother. But it's starting to be a lot of work to keep track of all of that, and to make sure nothing gets contributed accidentally. I can imagine others have similar problems. Bottom line: it just doesn't work this way - the whole issue really needs to be addressed somehow, although I don't see a quick 'n easy way out... 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
And I obviously didn't say anything like that - on the contrary: I specifically stated that nobody is under any obligation to do anything. You really can't put those words in my mouth, as I simply haven't said it.

Yes, you did say that nobody was under any obligation to do anything, but you also stated that Skip doesn't contribute much, picks on people who ARE doing the work, would seem more sincere if he had more contributions with fully documented common names and sounds a bit hollow because he doesn't.

So, while you didn't 'say' anything like that, the undertone is that his opinion isn't very important because he doesn't make the contributions you do.  Granted, I am a little biased...as you made that sentiment quite clear, about my opinion, a little while back...so I might be misreading your meaning. 

Quote:
I just have a problem with Skip repeatedly asking for the kind of documentation that I've basically never seen him supply himself. That's all.

Now here is the problem.  First, if anything, Skip over documents his contributions.  I don't see how anyone can claim otherwise.  Second, Ken's clarification dealt with contributions, not forum posts.  I can understand getting upset at a 'no' vote, but not at a request for documentation in a 'common name' thread...especially since I have seen a user try to link a father and son to the same common name.  In my opinion, if someone wants help verifying credits for a common name, they better do the research first.

Just as a note about the birth year bit - I have noticed that birth years have shown up in profiles of mine, even though I have not added them.  I was recently looking at a profile and noticed Charlton Heston has a birthdate listed.  I didn't put it there, and when I clicked to contribute the profile (for something else) it wasn't in the online profile either.  How this happens, I have no clue.

(Didn't end up contributing, because the something else that I had corrected was already corrected in the online after all.)

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
I noticed that to, it seemed to happen after the Headshot db update... I will have to investigate..

I think, and I will have to do some tests to find out for sure, it also happens when you add a new DVD.  I don't preview new additions so, sometimes, those pesky BYs get downloaded with that profile and merge with my DB.

The last Headshot db update(dated 3/15) I did added over 200 birthyears to my database most of which weren't needed.