 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4  Previous Next
|
|
CLT |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting jgilligan: Quote:
Boy, this seems more than simple to me.
As voters, if a cast or crew member is contributed with a 'credited as' name, we need the documentation that shows this person did go by multiple names. We don't need a copy of the information, but where to find it should we not trust the contributor. We always accept links to external web sites as valid documentation, we don't require the contributor to copy the information found into the notes.
That's what half of us wanted. I've not seen anyone asking for the actual info, just the links. However Ken ruled that it wasn't necessary to provide them in most cases. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yes, I will continue to vote No to data which I consider to unsupported and undocumented and therefore whose value as a Contribution is zero, questionable at the very best. It is because someone says it is simply is NOT good enough.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting jgilligan: Quote:
Boy, this seems more than simple to me.
As voters, if a cast or crew member is contributed with a 'credited as' name, we need the documentation that shows this person did go by multiple names. We don't need a copy of the information, but where to find it should we not trust the contributor. We always accept links to external web sites as valid documentation, we don't require the contributor to copy the information found into the notes. This is what some of us wanted. Others felt that they didn't need to do this. Ken agreed that they didn't need to do this. Simply saying that the CLT shows one name is more common than the other is, generally, good enough. As it stands right now, the contributor does not have to prove that the person went by multiple name. Instead, the voter has to prove that he/she didn't. Quote:
When it comes to the CLT, why do we need the numbers in the contribution? If we can go to the links to check the validity of the various names, it seems that we can accept that the CLT information is always available to be checked too. Plus, it ensures us that the contributor didn't make up numbers that LOOK like CLT numbers.
In the case where a 'credited as' name is contributed, use of the CLT should be assumed. Anybody wishing do the validation has the information readily available. This, to me, is just as backwards as my having to research the name again. Isn't it easier for the contributor, who claims to have done the work, to show that work? Why do we, the voters, have to do the work again? Anyway, as I said before, I am done fighting it. I just vote 'neutral'. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
This is what some of us wanted. Others felt that they didn't need to do this. Ken agreed that they didn't need to do this. Simply saying that the CLT shows one name is more common than the other is, generally, good enough. What Ken said is unfortunately up to interpretation, thus why I created this thread for clarification and included a poll to see how the users viewed it. Judging by the high counts on each side, it's still not perfectly clear. | | | | Last edited: by Dr. Killpatient |
| | Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | I believe that users who take the time to contribute data do so honestly. If they say that they followed the rules and spent the time looking up that data I trust they did so. If one wants to provide additional documentation that is fine but, as Ken has specified in regards to this topic, that is not necessary. Of course, looking at the results of this poll...  |
| | Registered: April 7, 2007 | | Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting tweeter: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Quoting tweeter:
Quote:
I'm not familiar of a use of "use" that would turn it into a requirement.
I am: this one, for instance.
No matter how many times you repeat it there is no requirement in the statement:
Use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name. That's a bit harsh. Actually it is parsed as an order, If it were an explanation it would be The Credited as field is used Does "Use the left hand lane" mean you can use the left hand lane if you like but you can also use all the other lanes or that you should only use the left hand lane? Personally I don't think this was the intention or spirit of the rules; but it is what they mean literally and I have no way of really knowing what was intended. | | | | Last edited: by Graveworm |
| | Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Graveworm: Quote:
That's a bit harsh. Actually it is parsed as an order, If it were an explanation it would be The Credited as field is used
Does "Use the left hand lane" mean you can use the left hand lane if you like but you can also use all the other lanes or that you should only use the left hand lane? Personally I don't think this was the intention or spirit of the rules; but it is what they mean literally and I have no way of really knowing what was intended. The only command in the phrase is that if the person's name differs from the credited name, the "Credited As" field is the one to use. It is simply describing the use of the "Credited As" field. The sentence isn't dictating that all names must be verified to either be the common name or must be linked to the common name. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
| | Registered: April 7, 2007 | | Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | You say tomayto etc. so it may be an across the pond thing; but because you needed to change the parsing of the phrase to clarify your meaning then, I suspect there is not really such a huge difference.
In general, if there is ambiguity, you take the phrases as if they are nested in order of importance. So here you have Use the credited as field. That is your instruction, then you have the qualiying statement that tells you how to do that. So you use it unless the names are the same.
I do tend to think that you have captured the intended meaning but it's subtly different to what is written. It would probably be clearer if it read. If the person's name differs from the credited name, use the credited as field.
Since we are a source led forum my source has a conflict of interest because I sleep with her but she (My wife) is, amongst other things, a lecturer in postgraduate linguistics and language. In a rare event she agrees with me. (I do have a TEFL qualification) However I think entirely too much bandwidth has been devoted to our nit picking of what is clearly irrelevant to most people who, on the whole, just read it and apply common sense over pedantry. | | | | Last edited: by Graveworm |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Graveworm: Quote:
However I think entirely too much bandwidth has been devoted to our nit picking of what is clearly irrelevant to most people who, on the whole, just read it and apply common sense over pedantry.  | | | | Images from movies |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Graveworm, the problem with that statement is that common sense isn't common at all. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | And varies from person to person, as I have noted numerous times. it is a universal concept, but there is not a universal definition.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
Graveworm, the problem with that statement is that common sense isn't common at all. Not so much. Take an example that has been discussed in Contribution Rules Committee. Nit picking of the rule about title made some very voicy users say we should use F.R.I.E.N.D.S instead of Friends, because of the . we find on the covers. Now, when we look at what actually did the average contributors, we find 936 Friends against 1 F.R.I.E.N.D.S. That is the meaning of common sense : about only one person among 1000 doesn't see the same thing... | | | | Images from movies |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Quoting Dr. Killpatient:
Quote:
Graveworm, the problem with that statement is that common sense isn't common at all.
Not so much. Take an example that has been discussed in Contribution Rules Committee. Nit picking of the rule about title made some very voicy users say we should use F.R.I.E.N.D.S instead of Friends, because of the . we find on the covers.
Now, when we look at what actually did the average contributors, we find 936 Friends against 1 F.R.I.E.N.D.S. That is the meaning of common sense : about only one person among 1000 doesn't see the same thing... ROFLMAO. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |