Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Then why have notes at all?  If all we care about is the data, and the contributor doesn't have to tell us where it came from, why have them?  As I said, I already know what has been changed so I don't need the notes for that. 

The notes are to communicate what you have done. In this case, the user could have been more descriptive. I would have been. But the only purpose for being more descriptive is to ensure that voters and screeners understand what you are doing to avoid 'no' votes and drama threads like this. But if the voters know your data is correct in spite of what you've written in your notes it is my opinion and reading of the rules that it is improper to vote no. Vote on the data; not the notes.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I think this topic has been sufficiently covered. Isn't it time to break out the fruit cake?!?

Probably. The table has already been cleaned up nicely. And by table I mean thread. The forum moderators seem to be back from the holidays.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
The notes are to communicate what you have done.

But the comparison screen already tells me what was changed.  As I said, I don't need the notes for that. 

Quote:
In this case, the user could have been more descriptive. I would have been.

Not only could this user have been more descriptive, he should have been.  As Gerri said to a user who complained that his un-sourced contribution was declined, "You should also be sure to include sources for all your information, and keep your notes concise and to the point."

Quote:
But the only purpose for being more descriptive is to ensure that voters and screeners understand what you are doing to avoid 'no' votes and drama threads like this.

Ah, but there is the rub, I don't know whether or not the data is correct.  My memory is not that good.  Kudos if your memory is.

Quote:
But if the voters know your data is correct in spite of what you've written in your notes it is my opinion and reading of the rules that it is improper to vote no. Vote on the data; not the notes.

This is the rule I believe you are talking about: "If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible."

I simply do not read it the way you do because there isn't a single 'or' in the rule.  The use of the word 'and' means the contribution must meet all the requirements, not just some of them.  This is further reinforced by the very next rule that says, "voting "Yes" to a contribution which violates these Contribution Rules should also be avoided."

In my opinion, leaving out your sources is a violation of the rules.  Because of that, I have to vote 'no'.  Should Ken or Gerri decide otherwise, I will, as always, comply with their wishes.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
This is the rule I believe you are talking about: "If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible."

I simply do not read it the way you do because there isn't a single 'or' in the rule.  The use of the word 'and' means the contribution must meet all the requirements, not just some of them.  This is further reinforced by the very next rule that says, "voting "Yes" to a contribution which violates these Contribution Rules should also be avoided."

In my opinion, leaving out your sources is a violation of the rules.  Because of that, I have to vote 'no'.  Should Ken or Gerri decide otherwise, I will, as always, comply with their wishes.

Aspect ratio verification is only required by the rules if you have to show a discrepancy between the ratio shown on the box and the measured ratio. That's why -- to me -- this specific contribution does not break any rule. For this specific type of change, we are told when to provide a method of verification. That excludes data taken from the box, otherwise, there's no point in mentioning that exception. 

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:

Wasn't this thread started with that very purpose?  It was assumed that the 'yes' voters wern't voting properly.

Oops, with the various similar threads I had this posted in the wrong one!! 

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Aspect ratio verification is only required by the rules if you have to show a discrepancy between the ratio shown on the box and the measured ratio. That's why -- to me -- this specific contribution does not break any rule. For this specific type of change, we are told when to provide a method of verification. That excludes data taken from the box, otherwise, there's no point in mentioning that exception. 

But I didn't ask for a verification method...I asked for a source.  In my opinion, as I noted above, the rules require a source for the data submitted.  The contributer did not supply one, his contribution violated the rules, I voted accordingly.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
I'm curious to know -- since Invelos has said that 'no' vote comments help evaluators decide on a contribution -- if comments from 'yes' voters help evaluators in terms of solving these form-over-function conundrums by providing verifications and sources through 'yes' votes.

Yes, absolutely they do.  Both yes and no votes with comments automatically sort to the top of the list for evaluators when the contribution is displayed.

Good to know. Thanks! 

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
The contribution system automatically tracks voting accuracy over time.  Users who routinely vote yes without comment, and without considering the contribution (not implying that's the case here) will devalue their vote automatically.

Interesting. I didn't know that voting yes with a comment improved vote value. I will have to become chatty.