Author |
Message |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 844 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote: Everyone else be damned, quite frankly. awww he's gonna take his ball and go home. What is even more childish is that Pantheon is giving out negative feedback for perfectly cordial votes that happen to disagree with him. I would call that abusive. It is also, I would like to point out, the first negative feedback I have received from anyone for anything. | | | Last edited: by bob9000 |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,819 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting bob9000: Quote: Quoting Pantheon:
Quote: Everyone else be damned, quite frankly. awww he's gonna take his ball and go home.
What is even more childish is that Pantheon is giving out negative feedback for perfectly cordial votes that happen to disagree with him. I would call that abusive. It is also, I would like to point out, the first negative feedback I have received from anyone for anything. And vice-versa I would like to point out. The negative vote was given because you are voting no to correct data which is a violation of the voting rules. I also find it ironic that you initially voted yes to the contributions and then changed your vote to follow others. Lastly, my 'everyone else be damned' statement was simply an expression of defeat. If you and Skip don't want the correct data; and seemingly can't be bothered to do the work yourselves then I can't be bothered to continue contributing the data. This wouldn't bother me so much if I was contributing a complete load of rubbish mined from IMDB or some other unacceptable source - then you and Skip would have good reason to vote NO. It's the fact that you are voting to keep good data out of the online database because YOU interpret the rules differently; rather than looking at the big picture of at least gaining the majority of the data. I disagree with your interpretation of the rules. You disagree with mine. That's already established. The difference is that, from my perspective, my disagreement with you results in 3 or 4 missing names in the cast list - whereas your viewpoint results in 60+ correct entries from getting into the profile. Explain the logic of that to me! |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 13,202 |
| Posted: | | | | This is unfortunate. I do not believe the reputation system was meant to be used as a way of expressing displeasure with someone who disagrees with your opinion. If they are being rude, that would be another story, but to give out negative marks, simply because you don't agree with their interpretation, is an abuse of the system. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand. The Centauri learned this lesson once. We will teach it to them again. Though it take a thousand years, we will be free. - Citizen G'Kar | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | I agree with bob9000 and Skip.. I haven't done any voting in the last day...day and a half. so if you resubmitted again I haven't seen it yet. But I do agree and read the rules the same as them. I also got a negative vote for voting according to how I read the rules. (also my first ever negative vote received) Which I agree is an abuse of the system. Ken even has it in the FAQs... Quote: Disagreeing with a user's opinion is not reason to rate their posts negatively. and before saying we are voting no to getting correct info into the database... that is not what we are doing as we are voting FOR how we read the rules to mean. In our opinion the info is not correct if it is missing listings from the credits. You said yourself we disagree on how the rules read... by our interpretation your contribution is wrong as it is missing credited actors... for that we have every right to vote no and bring it to the screeners attention... from there it is up to them if they want to let it slip through or not. | | | Pete |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,819 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote: I agree with bob9000 and Skip.. I haven't done any voting in the last day...day and a half. so if you resubmitted again I haven't seen it yet. But I do agree and read the rules the same as them. I also got a negative vote for voting according to how I read the rules. (also my first ever negative vote received) Which I agree is an abuse of the system. Ken even has it in the FAQs...
Quote: Disagreeing with a user's opinion is not reason to rate their posts negatively.
and before saying we are voting no to getting correct info into the database... that is not what we are doing as we are voting FOR how we read the rules to mean. In our opinion the info is not correct if it is missing listings from the credits.
You said yourself we disagree on how the rules read... by our interpretation your contribution is wrong as it is missing credited actors... for that we have every right to vote no and bring it to the screeners attention... from there it is up to them if they want to let it slip through or not. Yes, and I received negative votes for my contributions notes on these profiles (notes I may add, that simply explained my viewpoint and what I considered the rules to mean). My first negatives votes also. I gave a negative not because we disagree on the rules but because you voted NO to data that is correct as it stands. When you look at the data and compare it to what's on screen it is correct. Voting no for SOMETHING THAT ISN'T PRESENT is not right. It's unfair to vote no because something is missing IMO. You should be voting on what IS present; and in this case the data presented was correct. If it was simply a difference of opinion issue I would have given negative votes in the thread I started regarding this issue...but I haven't. I don't see our differing opinion as a reason to give a negative. I DO however feel that violating the voting rules IS a valid reason to issue a negative. As for your opinion. It may agree with Skip and Bob9000 but there are other people in here who DON'T agree. I simply don't understand why you want to keep correct data out of the db over a disagreement regarding rule interpretation. .......................................... Having said all that..... I'm really sorry to hear about your mum, Pete. I wish you and she the very best for a speedy recovery. | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,819 |
| Posted: | | | | I've withdrawn them. Sick of the debate.
For those of you that would like to compare the existing to what I submitted....here you are:
Existing profile= CAST Elizabeth Montogomery as Samantha Dick York as Darrin Agnes Moorehead as Endora
What I Submitted= 1. Nobody's Perfect Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha Dick York as Darrin Agnes Moorehead as Endora David White as Larry Tate David Lewis as Mark Robbins Lindsay Workman as Dr. Koblin Robert Q. Lewis as Diego Fenman
2. The Moment of Truth Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha Dick York as Darrin Kasey Rogers as Louise Tate David White as Larry Tate Marion Lorne as Aunt Clara
3. Witches & Warlocks Are My Favorite Th Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha Dick York as Darrin Agnes Moorehead as Endora David White as Larry Tate Marion Lorne as Aunt Clara Maurice Evans as Maurice Estelle Winwood as Enchantra Reta Shaw as Hagatha
4. Accidental Twins Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha Dick York as Darrin Kasey Rogers as Louise Tate David White as Larry Tate Marion Lorne as Aunt Clara
5. A Most Unusual Wood Nymph Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha Dick York as Darrin Agnes Moorehead as Endora Henry Corden as Muldoon Jean Blake as Maid Kathleen Nolan as Gerry O'Toole Michael Ansara as Rufus the Red
6. Endora Moves in For a Spell Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha Dick York as Darrin Agnes Moorehead as Endora George Tobias as Abner Sandra Gould as Gladys Erin Murphy as Tabatha Paul Smith as Floyd Sid Clute as Noel Arthur Adams as Desk Sergeant Paul Lynde as Uncle Arthur
7. Twitch or Treat Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha Dick York as Darrin Agnes Moorehead as Endora George Tobias as Abner Sandra Gould as Gladys Jeff De Benning as Councilman Green Willie Mays as Himself Barry Atwater as Boris Jim Begg as Morgan Joan Huntington as Eva Paul Lynde as Uncle Arthur
8. Dangerous Diaper Dan Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha Dick York as Darrin Agnes Moorehead as Endora David White as Larry Tate Don Keefer as Kimberly Alex Gerry as Mr. Wright Jim Begg as Paterson Billy Beck as Bartender Erin Murphy as Tabatha Marty Ingels as Dan
9. The Short Happy Circuit of Aunt Clara Elizabeth Montgomery as Samantha Dick York as Darrin George Tobias as Abner Sandra Gould as Gladys David White as Larry Tate Kasey Rogers as Louise Tate Arte Julian as MacElroy Leo DeLyon as Jenkins Erin Murphy as Tabatha Reginald Owen as Ocky Marion Lorne as Aunt Clara
This is what the NO voters decided to keep out of the database because they disagree with how I read the rules. Instead they would rather keep the 3 name cast list.
For what it's worth I have watched episodes 2, 4 and 9 again. Agnes Moorehead DOES NOT appear in them. The end credits as listed are correct.
This sincerely makes me wonder why I bother doing contributions at all. | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | First of all let me say if you got negative votes for your contribution notes it was not from me... as I never gave any negative vote for any reason to anyone since the reputation system was introduced. Since I disagree with how the rules read... I have every right to vote no. If there is cast missing from the list then the list is not correct. If the list is not correct per how I read the rules I do have a right to vote no. From there it is up to the screener whether to let it through or not. As been said before... I have seen the screener let minor problems with submissions go through whether there is no votes or not. (such as minor problems in the cast list) but that don't mean I should ignore something that I see as wrong. I shoul always vote for the way. And when it comes to if my interpretation is right or wrong... that only Ken can say... and if he says I am reading it wrong I will be more then happy to adjust my thoughts on the matter to how he means. As for anyone else telling me I am wrong... that is their opinion... no more right or wrong then mine. Until it is officially stated differently I have every right to my opinion on it and every right to vote and contribute to how I am reading it. Quote: I simply don't understand why you want to keep correct data out of the db over a disagreement regarding rule interpretation. And is simple to explain... the way I interpret the rule your submission is not correct. If the cast list is missing cast then the cast list is not correct. I take the field to be one thing.. if something is missing from it... it is wrong and I have to vote against it with reason... which is what I do. | | | Pete |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,819 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote: And is simple to explain... the way I interpret the rule your submission is not correct. If the cast list is missing cast then the cast list is not correct. I take the field to be one thing.. if something is missing from it... it is wrong and I have to vote against it with reason... which is what I do. Yes, but what you and the others don't seem to understand is that there are differing opinions; and until a decision is made there is an element of doubt. As it stands you would rather keep a 3 name cast list instead of accept a cast list which is complete (or practically complete in your opinion). So, here's a question if someone added the following to the cast list: David White as Larry Tate David Lewis as Mark Robbins Lindsay Workman as Dr. Koblin Robert Q. Lewis as Diego Fenman Would you vote NO? The information is correct. It's taken from the episode credits. Am I right in thinking that because this is not the FULL cast list from every episode on the disc that you would vote NO because it is incomplete? If so, you are forcing contributors to do full audits on cast lists which is NOT part of the contribution rules. The above (and my contribution) adds correct, relevant, missing data to the profile; but you would rather keep it out of the database because you disagree with rule interpretation. THAT'S what I don't understand. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | But what you don't seem to understand that by our interpretation of the rules that is wrong information. so what you are saying in effect tells us we are not allowed to vote no because of your interpretation of the rules. Until it is finally said one way or the other by Invelos you do not have the right to tell us we can not vote no due to our interpretation of the rules... because it does not match your interpretation of the rules.
with something like this.. we can vote per our interpretation of how the rules read. I have every right to vote no just like you have every right to contribute it... and anyone that agrees with you has the right to vote yes. From there it is up to the screener to decide if the addition is worth putting through or not.
The only way to get everyone on one page on something like this is for Invelos to adjust the rules. Until then everyone has the right to vote and contribute per how they read the rules... whether the other side agrees or not. I would never complain about any yes votes you would get on it. Which if memory serves you had some (at least one) yes vote the first time you tried to submit it. But I never did and never would complain as they/ that voter voted per the way he/she read the rules. | | | Pete |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Posts: 742 |
| Posted: | | | | From my point of view, leaving the different approaches to interpret the rules and that topic's relevance for casting a vote completely aside, an incomplete submission to a data field is incorrect and warrants a no vote because it forces someone else to redo all the work again later on anyway if it gets through.
Since the data is incomplete, you can't trust the existing data to be correct, as there might be other errors. so, to make a good submission, someone will have to recheck everything in that specific field even if the only change is the addition of one or two new actors, be it only to determine the proper position for their inclusion.
An incomplete submission to a field does not, IMO that is, qualify as a partial submission. It's an erronous submission, nothing more. A partial submisson is one that does not address every field of a profile, for whatever reason.
If the contributor made an honest mistake he/she should correct the submission accordingly when pointed towards it. If the contributor doesn't do that, whoever deems the submission incomplete and incorrect as such is entitled to vote accordingly. Using the reputation system for reprimanding users for expressing their opinioon is wrong in itself.
If the contributor doesn't agree with the way other users read the rules and can't bring himself to alter his submission in a way HE deems wrong, just let the contrib stand and see what happens. The contributor made a point, others raised doubts, votes were cast and the screeners decide what to do with it. | | | Lutz |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,819 |
| Posted: | | | | Given the last 2 posts I reiterate:
So, here's a question if someone added the following to the cast list: David White as Larry Tate David Lewis as Mark Robbins Lindsay Workman as Dr. Koblin Robert Q. Lewis as Diego Fenman
Would you vote NO? The information is correct. It's taken from the episode credits. Am I right in thinking that because this is not the FULL cast list from every episode on the disc that you would vote NO because it is incomplete?
If so, you are forcing contributors to do full audits on cast lists which is NOT part of the contribution rules.
The above would NOT be the full cast list but it WOULD be correct and add something to the profile. That's the point I am making.
The specific issue with Bewitched is that I have watched the episodes in question and Agnes Moorehead is NOT in them. The end credits also so NOT list her as having performed in the episode. Therefore, taking the information from the END credits (and having absolutely nothing to do with personal preference) she is NOT listed in the profile for that episode. It's hardly rocket science.
Anway, I've withdrawn the contributions and will not be resumitting them. I realise that the 3 no voters do not want the information and cannot be bothered to keep resubmitting.
Normally I would be the first person to 'back down' when there was a rule interpretation issue. However, in this instance I feel that I am correct to take the cast from the end credits. If Agnes had, in fact, been in the episode I would have listed her.
As for Darxon's statement: "Since the data is incomplete, you can't trust the existing data to be correct, as there might be other errors. so, to make a good submission, someone will have to recheck everything in that specific field even if the only change is the addition of one or two new actors, be it only to determine the proper position for their inclusion."
I can understand where you're coming from here, but, anyone who knows my contributions would disagree. Having said that, I always check all profiles personally anyway. I don't trust anyone else to get things 100% correct; everyone makes mistakes.
This is the ONLY time where I have totally disagreed with other people's interpretation of the rules.
I read the rules. I did what the rules said and people disagreed and I don't see why I should change my opinion when the actual episodes in question support my contribution.
Anyhoo....I'm sure everyone is bored to death with this endless debate which (like so many others) is going nowhere.
I've withdrawn the contributions which should make everyone happy. | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 951 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Darxon: Quote: If the contributor doesn't agree with the way other users read the rules and can't bring himself to alter his submission in a way HE deems wrong, just let the contrib stand and see what happens. The contributor made a point, others raised doubts, votes were cast and the screeners decide what to do with it. That's pretty much how I see it, both sides have made their point. Just let the contribution stand and let the screeners decide. Quoting Pantheon: Quote: I realise that I am potentially splitting hairs here, but...I am trying to get valid and correct information into the database - which other members can use as a baseline to add to. Whenever, you are basically splitting hairs you can be pretty much gauranteed some members are not going to agree with you and your going to have the possiblity of No Votes. But, a No vote does not mean the profile will not be accepted. Just let the contribution ride out so the screeners can have their chance. What I was going to suggest and it looks like what you have already done with your cast list. Is put the cast that appears in opening credits at the beginning of all your episode dividers. This is assuming they are the same cast for every episode. Since the actual appearing cast is credited in the end credits of every episode, also making that assumption. Then they would go in under the divider for the episode they are credited in. Which also, assuming this is what you have done. Then in your contribution notes which I don't know if you had already tried before. Is something like this. For this series, the major characters; Elizabeth Montogomery as Samantha Dick York as Darrin Agnes Moorehead as Endora Are credited in the opening credits of every episode regardless if they actually appear in the episode or not. So I have placed them above the episode divers. The end credits, credit the actors who actually appear in the episode. For that reason I have placed those credited actors under the episodes they are credited in the end credits. Not so say, you won't still get No votes but, this is more of a compromise giving those who want the credits from the beginning credits and those who want the end credits. | | | Are you local? This is a local shop the strangers you would bring would not understand us, our customs, our local ways. | | | Last edited: by Tracer |
|
Registered: April 4, 2007 | Posts: 884 |
| Posted: | | | | My POV on this:
1) It is perfectly fine to vote no on a contribution if you understand the rules in a way that renders the contribution irregular. If it wasn't then we could never vote no, because one could always argue that you're not reading the rules right.
2) All of you are abusing the feedback system. You are not allowed to give a negative feedback on a contribution just because you disagree with it but you also aren't allowed to give a negative feedback on a contribution vote just because you disagree with it. | | | - Jan |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,635 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
If so, you are forcing contributors to do full audits on cast lists which is NOT part of the contribution rules. I respectfully disagree. The Rules say to enter the cast list exactly as they appear in the credits. Entering a partial list does not meet the requirements of that Rule. | | | Hal |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,819 |
| Posted: | | | | hydrOx....point taken.
Where possible I have withdrawn my negative feedbacks.
I can see that by leaving negative feedback for a NO vote because I disagree with it could be deemed as unfair.
Ok...now I've done that can someone please address the question I asked regarding adding SOME CAST.
(NOTE: I ALWAYS do full audits of profiles. My question is really for all those contributors who don't have the time/inclination to do full audits. I feel it is unfair to vote no to their work if it is missing some information which is why I would like this issue discussed). | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,819 |
| Posted: | | | | double post, sorry | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
|