It's been my practice to list the names and counts, but I put that list at the end of my notes, since I don't think the screeners care about that level of detail actually. I think it's completely fine to say that you checked the CLT and that you're using the most commonly credited name.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I don't agree, but I am done fighting it.

Likewise.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
I'd like a little clarification on a ruling that Ken has given us concerning the CLT.

Quote:
It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT. [...] Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data.

For a live example, the contribution notes of a current profile that has 21 yes votes out of 22 votes with multiple changes made utilizing the CLT.

Quote:
Corrected cast and crew, all re-verified exactly as credited from the actual film credits, using the "credited as" feature where necessary - extensively researched on the internet and fully supported by Invelos' own "credit lookup tool" results.

So, documenting that we used the CLT is clearly required but should we still provide names with counts?

If it was a user I trusted I'd be more than happy to accept those notes as I'd trust them to have actually done the legwork. I don't really see the need to record the actual CLT results because they are in such a state of flux they could be different only hours after a submission.
If it were a user I wasn't familiar with I'd probably run a couple of names through the CLT myself and maybe google them just for a quick check.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
(***)
I don't really see the need to record the actual CLT results because they are in such a state of flux they could be different only hours after a submission.
(***)

This, to me, is exactly why the CLT results should be included.  If they have changed since the submission, this is the only record to show that the contributor wasn't 'blowing smoke'.

I also find it offensive as one user to another for a user to expect me to support a Contribution that provides no documentation but instead takes the attitude of "trust me, it is because I say it is". I have never and will NEVER provide such notes, I ALWAYS provide documentation explaining the Contribution and providing as detailed documentation as I can. As I said there is more involved here than just the screeners, and I want no future user or current user to ever be able to look at my notes and have any question about what was done and the way in which an answer was arrived at.

Skip

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
I think it's completely fine to say that you checked the CLT and that you're using the most commonly credited name.

Agreed!

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I don't really see the need to record the actual CLT results because they are in such a state of flux they could be different only hours after a submission.

Agreed as well - there really is no added value whatsoever in pasting them in, as those numbers are only accurate right then and there. Anyone who needs them, can look the actual, current data up at any given moment.

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
To YOU perhaps there is no value added, but to other users it is quite possibly a different story entirely.

I don't see how. As I said: the actual, current statistics can be looked up by anyone, at any given time, right here at this site - at which point they'll always be more accurate/interesting/useful than knowing what they were an hour/day/week/month/year ago. If someone's making a change based on the CLT results saying 10 vs. 2, but those results change to 2 vs. 10 (the other way around) before the contribution gets processed, then at that point, a "no"-vote would be valid. Because it's not about what the CLT results were at the moment of contributing, it's about whether the contribution is still correct at that particular moment in time. Pasting that "10 vs. 2" number into the notes wouldn't have done any good, or have made any difference. Again: the most accurate CLT count at any given moment is available for everyone right here on the website. Whatever you'll get there is far more accurate then any static value pasted into the notes - there really is no point in doing so whatsoever.

Additionally, I can't help noticing that nobody ever bothers to include CLT results for all associated name variants when contributing a "strictly as credited" entry. Yet the process is the same: you see a credit on the screen, check for name variants, find out which is the most-credited form, which then either results in an "as credited" entry or an X-credited-as-Y one. That last step is a mere technicality, simply based on the numbers: it's the process leading up to it that counts. And I hardly ever see anyone providing that kind of documentation when the end result happens to be "as credited" - so why would we suddenly require documentation when that last step just happens to fall out the other way? There really is no difference.

Tim:

When I say strictly as credited in my notes, I mean precisely that. Unless I note any sort of deviation, simply using the name varian plugin does nto assure you or anyone else that two people with similar name are indeed the same person as Ken himself has noted on more than one ocassion. I expect at least to CLT results for any entry, if i don't I will vote NO and it is my hope the screeners will recognize that and will decline any and ALL Contributions which are caught, I don't care who the offender is. Ken has even said that there are instances where further documentation is necessary, I grant such exemptions when I can, but i will take exception to any such assumptions simply based on similarity of name.

As for you not seeing how it might be of value to other users, only displays to me a lack of understanding of what the purposes are behind a bibliography. It shows me that you are only interested in reducing your own keystrokes at the expense of providing adequate information to other users. In many instances, Tim, it may be severall months before i get around to a given update, I will have obviously forgotten if I voted or what I voted for or against, so I look at the notes, those notes tell me what you did and whether you are GUESSING or actually did the legwork, if you haven't provided the legwork then you are guessing and i deal with the update accordingly, I do not blindly accept updates from anyone, no matter how much I might trust at least most of their work.  And we are talking about just a matter of a few months, let alone someone who just wants to check the validity of the data next year or the year after or even further out, it is your notes or lack thereof that talk to the user. That is why I will NEVER provide less than comprehensive notes, the user will be able to see that the legwork was done, and hopefully should he try to change something other users can also easily find out whther that data has been properly dealt with and backed up to ascertain whether a new Contribution is valid, I always look at previous notes, and frankly "it is because I claim to have doen the work, I am not going to provide the support..." is not enough to protect such data from future correction, especialyl should a new Contribution provide backup.

Skip

I think the Doc's point is that you have to justify using a common name, whereas going strictly as credited requires none (unless it's removing a common name).