Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
Why I think that the "Invelos Support Towards the Contribution Community" is adequate?
Easy:

1) They provide us with the online-capabilities we need to contribute.
2) They provide us with a set of rules that tell us what to contribute.

For me, this does not have to do with what the OP is concerning us with and why I gave a low rating in the poll.

What you describe is providing a "service", not "support." A service is something that is necessary otherwise at least a piece of a system goes down. Support is something that is helpful on an instance-by-instance basis and, if removed, causes the system to waver but can still continue as a whole.

If the entire online system (service) is removed, no site to download profiles from, and if the software was entirely dependent on the online db then it would become worthless. Remove the rules and there could be chaos in the online database because then anyone can add whatever they want with nothing for others to fall back on as a way to stop them which could eventually make the database worthless.

But Invelos support here is lackluster at best as we are forced to solve our own problems for someone else's company even though there are often long disagreements on tiny details. We can fumble around and find our way many times, and often the problems are easy to solve (I doubt anyone here, no matter their opinion on the support level, expects Ken to answer every single topic every day) but everything runs so much more smoothly when you have a someone that works for the business guiding you where you need to go when you ask them for help.

258 : 69 = 3.74

65% think below average

19% think above average

Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
And what have I calculated? Anyhow, I like my arithmetic mean more: it does not lower if more people vote 0.

Why are you excluding values?  Is it your intent to artificially inflate the average rating?

Quoting bbbbb:

Quote:
258 : 55 = 4.69
258 : 68 = 3.79

Which one is correct?

You're excluding more than just the zero values.

Quoting Blair:

Quote:

I agree, as I assume most of us would, that fixing the rules would be a massive help. So let's get it done! .... oh wait, we need Ken for that to happen... soooo..... yea. Ken has to be involved if anything is going to change for the better no matter what angle you look at it from. Besides, we have been shouting about the need for clearer rules since I joined back in 2008 with no change, only a few additional instructions added when new fields have been added to the database. Updating all of the rules will not be an easy task.

As I was involved in setting up those rules a few times, I just wanted to point out that you really have it all wrong.

The only reason we have "rules" today is because one of our users faced the same struggles we all do every day and took it upon himself to do something about it.  He didn't wait for Ken's help or assistance or guidance.  He took some initiative, gathered some people he wanted to work with and simply did it.  As I recall, Ken was fully aware of what was happening.  So we had his approval at a high level.  Seems like he was even invited to the site we had setup, although I don't recall him being involved.

When we were done, we simply handed the results off to Ken who gladly reviewed and then implemented them.

If you want Ken to hold your hand throughout the process you're probably out of luck.  But if you think you can improve the rules, you don't need his assistance or help.  Just do it.  You'll need his help to get them implemented of course.  But there's nothing stopping you from attempting the job.  If the task is approached correctly, I see no reason Ken wouldn't accept better rules.  I'm not claiming it would be easy.  It took a group of a dozen or so months to work through all the rules.  And I'm pretty sure Ken only listened to us because it was a diverse cross-section of our members working on it (i.e. people weren't hand picked to push any particular rules into being).  I seriously doubt that he would take a single individual seriously.  But if the community buys off on a rule change, he would be more open to it.  And I think if someone completely overhauled the rules again, he would be quite willing to take a look (no promises, that's just based on past experience.)

Sometimes we are powerless and at Ken's mercy.  I don't believe the "rules" falls into that category however.  Nor do I think the Rules Subforum is the proper place for a rules re-write.  That forum has been there for years and I've seen little good come out of it.  I think it would take a team again to take it offsite and to come back with a complete set of rules to hand off to Ken.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Ken has said (I believe in the rules committee forum) that he is against doing a complete re-write of the rules.

As am I!!!

My point was, while Ken may be against doing a complete re-write, he may (or may NOT) be more open to someone handing him a complete set of rules that is better than what we have today.  If a group came to him with a set of better rules than what we have today, I don't believe he would just toss it.

I certainly have no interest is such an endeavor.  It may be a waste of time.  Still, it seems more productive than complaining about things here.

I think the "rules committee" going off and doing their own thing was 1000x more productive than anything I've seen come out of our forum in it's entire existence.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that we're "almost helpless", not "completely helpless".  If you're serious about the rules improving, there are other avenues than complaining here.  And those avenues have proven to be quite successful in the past.

I have no interest in taking part in such a group again.  At the same time, you won't find me complaining about rules here either.