Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
Kind of hard to do when you don't have the disc in your hand in the first place and only have them in your ordered/wishlist tag just to use the CLT for all the locality...

I'm not really fond of the idea of people contributing profile updates, or voting on such updates, if they don't actually own the item being contributed.  I think it's a bit of an abuse of the system to have lots of DVDs only in your wishlist and contribute (or vote on) them, as if you knew what was and what was not correct about such contributions.

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

I agree up to a point. If it's a section that requires the disc to be ble to check (such as subtitle options, audio, aspect ratio) I don't think people should be voting if they don't own it. If it' something easily checkable from the scans such as overview or the media companies, I'm all for it. Personally I don't use the wishlist feature so only get the options to vote on what I own.

Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
Kind of hard to do when you don't have the disc in your hand in the first place and only have them in your ordered/wishlist tag just to use the CLT for all the locality...

I'm not really fond of the idea of people contributing profile updates, or voting on such updates, if they don't actually own the item being contributed.  I think it's a bit of an abuse of the system to have lots of DVDs only in your wishlist and contribute (or vote on) them, as if you knew what was and what was not correct about such contributions.

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

I agree up to a point. If it's a section that requires the disc to be ble to check (such as subtitle options, audio, aspect ratio) I don't think people should be voting if they don't own it. If it' something easily checkable from the scans such as overview or the media companies, I'm all for it. Personally I don't use the wishlist feature so only get the options to vote on what I own.

Sam:

I have to take exception. Many users do not provide documentation. So if there is AR data, one can only presume that it came from the back cover and if it does not agree with the baclk cover...where is the documentation. Same is true for for Audio and Subs. It's not all that difficult. To put it bluntly, if I am comfortable and confident with being able to vote on my wishlist items then i will, if not then I don't, but most wishlist items I am familiar enough with to be able to spot errors.

The biggest factor for me in voting is user credibility, if a user is high on my credibility list he will not likely see me vote very much (spot checks), as he has earned my trust. Someone who is low on my list or who is new will find that i will vote on near everything i see from them.

Skip

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
To put it bluntly, if I am comfortable and confident with being able to vote on my wishlist items then i will, if not then I don't, but most wishlist items I am familiar enough with to be able to spot errors.

You recently voted "No" on a contribution I made because of your guess that my contribution notes were incorrect.  I had to provide you with screenshots to get you to change your vote to "Yes".  Is this the type of familiarity you speak of?

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

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
We are not going to continue to hash this out. If a user chooses to submit without specific CLT results, they may do so and their contribution may still be accepted depending on a variety of factors, including contribution history.

Voting users may choose to request further details and a "No" vote if the details aren't provided is not an abuse of the voting system. 

Further discussion on this will only lead to argument.

I don't understand this method. This to me sounds like contributors are at the mercy of overzealous voters who demand unnecessary details simply for the purpose of trying to control others. Contributing sounds like a nightmare with this method. One could vote no to practically anything just to be argumentative.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
We are not going to continue to hash this out. If a user chooses to submit without specific CLT results, they may do so and their contribution may still be accepted depending on a variety of factors, including contribution history.

Voting users may choose to request further details and a "No" vote if the details aren't provided is not an abuse of the voting system. 

Further discussion on this will only lead to argument.

I don't understand this method. This to me sounds like contributors are at the mercy of overzealous voters who demand unnecessary details simply for the purpose of trying to control others. Contributing sounds like a nightmare with this method. One could vote no to practically anything just to be argumentative.

They are only unnecessary to you, James. I will thank you to allow mme to state that to me they are not unnecessary.

Ken has made a statement which I frankly think encourages laziness and incomplete notes and a sloppy database, but it's his call and he has allowed me mine. Leave it at that.

@ Rick.
I don't consider such notes to be valid in any way. I find them to be the result of laziness and disregard for other members of the community, plain and simple. But Ken has spoken and I accept his word, even though I don't like it at all.

Skip

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
We are not going to continue to hash this out. If a user chooses to submit without specific CLT results, they may do so and their contribution may still be accepted depending on a variety of factors, including contribution history.

Voting users may choose to request further details and a "No" vote if the details aren't provided is not an abuse of the voting system. 

Further discussion on this will only lead to argument.

I don't understand this method. This to me sounds like contributors are at the mercy of overzealous voters who demand unnecessary details simply for the purpose of trying to control others. Contributing sounds like a nightmare with this method. One could vote no to practically anything just to be argumentative.

They are only unnecessary to you, James. I will thank you to allow mme to state that to me they are not unnecessary.

Skip

They are unnecessary to me and according to their rules to Invelos as well. Allowing someone to vote NO because they don't like or agree with something that follows Invelos' rules is a bad idea IMO.

Agreed. Voting no on something you don't agree with when the contrubution is correct and follows the rules is petty and childish.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
We are not going to continue to hash this out. If a user chooses to submit without specific CLT results, they may do so and their contribution may still be accepted depending on a variety of factors, including contribution history.

Voting users may choose to request further details and a "No" vote if the details aren't provided is not an abuse of the voting system. 

Further discussion on this will only lead to argument.

I don't understand this method. This to me sounds like contributors are at the mercy of overzealous voters who demand unnecessary details simply for the purpose of trying to control others. Contributing sounds like a nightmare with this method. One could vote no to practically anything just to be argumentative.

I have read this several times now and I think I am getting a handle on it.  Notice the use of the word 'may'.  If you choose to contribute without specific CLT results, your contribution may still be accepted, depending on other factors.  Then again, it may not.

It seems Ken didn't want to make them mandatory, but if you aren't a regular contributor, with a good contribution history, it's probably a good idea to include them.