I know  many of you will disagree with me on this, so I won't make it a proposal. It's just a statement as to how I would prefer the rules to be.

I would like to see them divided into two parts, Required and Desired.

Required would be the minimum requirement for each field, and for a submission. For a new submission the only required fields would be Title and id (UPC/EAN or Disc id). Requirements for fields should be set reasonably low (basically to the point where anyone can enter data without knowing any rules).

Desired would describe the perfect entry for each field.

Apart from this, the only rule would be that each submission must move the profile up towards the desired. That would mean that any reasonably correct data is better than no data. Any data that is closer to desired than the current data is good enough for submission.

The one no-no would be to replace good data with data of lesser value.

This would let us build a comprehensive database where the quality of the profiles are improved with each submission. Popular titles would rise to almost perfection quickly. Obscure titles would possibly never be anywhere close to perfect, but at least many of them would be there.

Obviously I do not subscribe to the theory that if it isn't perfect it is better left out of the database. Those who require fully audited profiles for every title in their collection may have some work to do, but at least they will usually not have to start from scratch.

I think I know who will vehemently disagree, but feel free to say som anyway. However, I'm more interested to hear how many (if any) agree with me.

/Gunnar

I think your suggestion is very reasonable, I especially like that the profile will def get betetr with each contribution.
Also very valuable that if we have a field that removes good data with less good, it would not get accepted.

Would like to see that all come in place

cheers
Donnie

Im pretty happy with this stuff as it works since begining.
The Quality of the profiles is good to very good - and every user have the possibility to improve.
Reading your suggestions, I'm afraid the quality ("full" profiles over all) would suffer from it.
No one (or only very few persons) would fill Sections, he recognized as "not important" (and "desired" is in this case only another word for that). But what's not important for one Person (e.g. the Aspect Ratio or the Mask Builder in the Movie or whatever) could be important for another...
I see the risk, that the quality level couldn't be hold, if complete profiles aren't required for a successfull contribution anymore.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Apart from this, the only rule would be that each submission must move the profile up towards the desired. That would mean that any reasonably correct data is better than no data. Any data that is closer to desired than the current data is good enough for submission.

I am not sure how to respond as I don't know what you mean by the part I bolded.  Could you be a little more specific as to what you mean by that?

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Agreed! Also, I happen to think that Invelos's point of view really doesn't deviate that much from what you've suggested. There's just a very small, yet very vocal group of people who are still refusing to accept that.

If Ken & Gerri Cole's frequent comments on the matter are anything to go by, that fortunately seems to be true.

I think it's a reasonable suggestion.

We already do this in some respects. Take the example of common names. There's a habit that users can take the film credits and enter them without checking for common names. The rule says "To determine whether to enter the name directly as credited, or to use the "Credited As" field, use the Credit Lookup tool." Yet many users don't do this and don't feel they should have to. In this example, credits from the film credits are "required" while credits using common names are "desired".

With overviews, if someone wants to enter a new overview and they don't enter the bolds and italics, I still vote yes using the "something is better than nothing" value. If however a user were to try to strip an existing overview of the bolds and italics, I would vote "no" since that would be a downgrade in quality.

Quoting Patsa:

Quote:
I don't see the problem. Complete profiles has afaik NEVER been required, but the information that you add has to be correct, otherwise it is of no use to anyone. But perhaps that is what you meant by reasonable correct...? Personally I just skip those sections that don't interest me or require too much time and work to enter. To sum it up, I'm quite happy with the way things are, with some exceptions such as the incomplete HD sound options.

I agree with Patsa. This is another case of trying to create a problem where no problem exists. Partial Contributions are Ok within the Rules.

Skip

Neither do I, Unicus. IF they are correct...but are they...that is the question. Only Gunnar can explain that, and if they are correct then why did he create the thread...it leaves me  since Partials are allowed and always have been, Full data is nice, but I don't think any of us disagree on Partials. So...Gunnar...what do you mean by reasonably correct.

Skip