Usually, even a few No votes (with explanation) cause the screeners to take notice and refuse the modification, thus overruling the unexplained (and unexplainable) Yes votes.

I have noticed this exact trend in recent months.  Very few, if any, people are voting 'no' when the data is wrong.  My guess is that most people don't bother to check and trust that the contributor knows what they are doing...at least I hope that is what's happening.  I would hate to think that people are voting yes 'just because'.

As for the screeners taking notice, I have also found that it isn't usually the case.  I don't know why, but valid 'no' votes are being ignored.  I had a similar situation to the one Skip described.  I was the first 'no' vote, out of quite a few 'yes' votes.  Eventually, 4 other people joined my 'no' vote, yet the contribution was accepted.  My 'no' vote was very detailed, even pointing out that the contributors notes were false because the credit did not say what he claimed it said.

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Very few, if any, people are voting 'no' when the data is wrong.

Why then do they bother to vote at all?

I have been asking myself that very question.  I just voted 'no' to a contribution where Bold is being added to the overview, to replicate a 'cartooned' font.  Per the rules, that isn't allowed, yet 20 people voted 'yes'.  While I don't believe my no vote will be enough, and I know my voting reputation might take a hit, I am holding out hope.

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
I think that's explainable: Most people won't take the cover out of the shelf and simply assume that the contributer updated a pre-3.5 profile and rightly replaced the '' by bolding the text.

Why would they have to take it off the shelf?  I didn't.  I opened up profiler and checked the cover scans.  Just to be clear, this is a film that was released within the last 30 days, so there is no chance that it is a pre-3.5 profile.

Quote:
Thy simply assumed that he/she did the right thing. Why wouldn't they?

As I said in my first post, I certainly hope that is the case but, if we are going to assume the changes are all correct, why have a voting system? 

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
When I vote, I only look for obvious errors. When someone changes (for example) the overview I assume they know what they are doing.

This takes me back to your first question in this thread..."Why then do they bother to vote at all?"

Please don't get me wrong.  There are some things that I don't expect people to verify every single time...cast, crew, audio, etc....but the overview, in my opinion, is an easy thing to check.

That being said, I think I am in the minority here.  The vast majority of voters, at least from my experience, are rubber stamp 'yes' voters.  That, combined with the screeners accepting 'majority rule', makes me wonder why we still have a voting system. 

can you only vote on stuff that you, yourself have in your collection?

Quoting goblinsdoitall:

Quote:
Quoting scottiew:

Quote:
can you only vote on stuff that you, yourself have in your collection?

No, it suffices to have the profile in your Wishlist.
Even though I (and many others) think that you shouldn't vote on profiles you don't actually own.

how's that? when i goto "unvoted pending updates" all i see is one's i own. i agree you should only be able to vote on DVDs you ACTUALLY have and can verify.

Quoting scottiew:

Quote:
Quoting goblinsdoitall:

Quote:
Quoting scottiew:

Quote:
can you only vote on stuff that you, yourself have in your collection?

No, it suffices to have the profile in your Wishlist.
Even though I (and many others) think that you shouldn't vote on profiles you don't actually own.

how's that? when i goto "unvoted pending updates" all i see is one's i own. i agree you should only be able to vote on DVDs you ACTUALLY have and can verify.

You should see any and all titles that are in your collection whether they're in the Owned, Ordered or Wishlist tab.

The same applies for contributing to titles you don't own.