Cass:

Generally speaking and personally speaking I would vote Yes with a Note, I would expect you to take a little time and fix whatever it is that has been caught, that is what I would do. If you ignored the request, I would eventually change the Yes to a No.

I can also counter your question with why would you NOT fix something that has been spotted and needs fixing. Somebody will have to do it, if you don't.

Skip

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
So, I've been going through my collection and checking a few fields - publisher, rating content warning, overview - and adding/correcting those as needed as I find them.

I got 1 no vote to two different contributions today, both times the reason for the no vote cited was for information that I had not added or changed but was already there in the profile.  Yes, it is incorrectly cited information per the rules, and maybe I should have noticed it when I didn't, but I'm kind of sitting here going, why are you saying no to my good info because of the bad info that's already there? 

Any opinions?

Would it be possible to give us a little more detail.  It is hard to form an opinon based on this hypothetical.  That being said, you are not obliged to correct everything when making a change.  If your data is correct, it is correct.

Edit:  I found the contribution in question.  In a case like this, I would go ahead and make the change.  This saves someone else the time of having to come back and fix it at a later date.

Let me try and clear up your confusion.  Some users believe that, when you make a change to a field, you should make sure the entire field is correct.  In this case, you added the MP so the user feels like you should make sure all the studio data is correct.  Whether or not that belief is correct, well, I will leave that for you to decide. 

I confess that I am the guilty "No" voter.

Other than cast and crew fields, my philosophy is you are contributing all the data contained in the field that shows up in the voting screen.  If I see anything wrong with that data, I will vote "no".

The reason that I don't vote yes with a comment is that personally, I only review my own contributions that get "no" votes for errors.  If a contribution has all yes votes, I don't ever go back and look at the comments on the yes votes....I guess I don't see the point.  Either the contribution is right or it isn't.  If it's a gray/questionable area, then a PM is probably more appropriate than a yes vote with comments or a no vote.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I have to say... I see things the way Hal does on this.

Likewise.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Other than cast and crew fields, my philosophy is you are contributing all the data contained in the field that shows up in the voting screen.  If I see anything wrong with that data, I will vote "no".

I agree, but personally include Cast and Crew.  If I'm submitting any data, including Cast or Crew, I audit the whole section, and I think it's appropriate to expect others to do the same.  So assuming an audit was done by the submitter, then by me reviewing the submission, voting "Yes" despite existing errors wastes both the submitter's efforts and mine.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Let me try and clear up your confusion.  Some users believe that, when you make a change to a field, you should make sure the entire field is correct.  In this case, you added the MP so the user feels like you should make sure all the studio data is correct.  Whether or not that belief is correct, well, I will leave that for you to decide. 

That believe is of course not correct. Partial submissions are allowed

Correct.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:

also as partial fields.

Says who and where?

In general I agree with those that say they would vote "no" in certain situations.
However in this situation I would class Studios and MCs as separate fields. In a sense Ken has separated the data, I therefore don't see any obligation for someone submitting MC information to correct any Studio information.
But in similar situations I would use a "no" vote to attact attention. You have to remember it's nothing personal, and doesn't automatically mean the submission will be rejected. A "no" vote is only an opinion after all. You can agree with it or not. You also have to remember that not everyone reads the voting comments. As a voter, we have no idea if our comments will be seen by the submitter, therefore should they check back a "no" vote attract their attention much more than a "yes" vote with comment.
So I believe that Hal was right in using a "no" vote to signify his problem with the profile, I'm just not sure his vote is valid in this case - but that's up to the screeners to decide.