 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 ...7  Previous Next
|
 Fifth Element (Locked) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
Wrong correct data was NOT submitted James. The word used was "You have verified there is a discrepancy between the box and the actual content of the DVD - include your verification method."
Siimply changing 2.35===>2.40 does not provide a verificaton metjhod. Did he use the cover, did he measure it or did he use a Ouija board or maybe a dartboard. I can't tell based on hios notes and voter notes are WORTHLESS. Verification method is only required if there's a discrepany between what's on the box and what's on the DVD. In this case, there's no discrepancy between the two. Quote:
James you discredited yourself by pretending to know the Rules and clearly missed the verification method, which I call documentation...it's the same thing. Right. "Documentation" is your word, but it means something different than the word "verification". The word "verification" is used in specific areas of the rules where data discrepancies exist between the box data and the correct data. It's not a blanket term that one can use to vote against a contribution. Quote:
The Rule very specifically states that when a discrepancy is found then include your verification method. In other words tell the voters how you determined the existing data to be inaccurate. That's an incorrect inference from the rule. You are turning the verification requirement into a documentation requirement, but they're not the same. Verification method is required if you submit something different than what's on the box. No one had provided that previously. Anyone can use the box data without measuring screen caps as long as no one has previously verified a discrepancy. And if they do that without explaining it to your satisfcation, you still can't vote against it based on their explanation. The data is correct. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan | | | | Last edited: by m.cellophane |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,022 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
Why do we have so many users willing to accept a completely UNDOCUMENTED change from 2.35 to 2.40. Do you have the same Ouija board the Contributor has. 
'Splain it to me, Lucy.
Skip With due respect, rather than bringing this to the forum in a pointless post, surely the most productive way, especially with a new contributor, would have been to pm him and ask that he amends his notes to include how he checked aspect ratio? Of course you couldn't have checked the aspect ratio yourself, because you don't actually own this title.  Do you agree you should not be able to vote on something that you cannot personally verify is correct or wrong in a contribution? | | |  | | | | Last edited: by hayley taylor |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,684 |
| | Posted: | | | | Just like Skip I have 4000+ owned titles. Actually verifying every piece of data in every contribution is totally out of question. If a contribution looks good, I vote Yes, if it looks bad I vote no, if it's iffy I usually vote neutral.
If the contributor had just said that the AR came from the back cover I would probably have voted Yes. But not bothering to disclose the source gets a No vote from me.
That said, I wouldn't go after the Yes voters the way Skip did. Some of them obviously actually measured the aspect ratio. Perhaps all of them did (although I doubt it). I get upset when people vote Yes to contributions that are obviously wrong. But in this case I feel it is up to each voter to decide if he accepts the change or not. I don't, but I don't condemn those who do. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
Just like Skip I have 4000+ owned titles. Actually verifying every piece of data in every contribution is totally out of question. If a contribution looks good, I vote Yes, if it looks bad I vote no, if it's iffy I usually vote neutral.
If the contributor had just said that the AR came from the back cover I would probably have voted Yes. But not bothering to disclose the source gets a No vote from me.
That said, I wouldn't go after the Yes voters the way Skip did. Some of them obviously actually measured the aspect ratio. Perhaps all of them did (although I doubt it). I get upset when people vote Yes to contributions that are obviously wrong. But in this case I feel it is up to each voter to decide if he accepts the change or not. I don't, but I don't condemn those who do. That is all he had to say. The next user to change it would then have to meet a higher bar, but he didn't even meet the lowest bar. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Forget_the_Rest: Quote:
As I stated in my "No" vote, that the reason may be obvious but it needs to be given.
As for it not being in the rules, it is on the Contribution Screen when submitting any contribution -
 .
I'm not able to verify the change locally not having a Blu-ray drive in my PC but even if I did the vote would still be "No" without the required back-up for records. As previously noted, the vote data will be lost to the masses once accepted so although I appreciate the effort of any-one who has said it is 2.40:1, it becomes a null-point from the point the contribution is accepted. Quoted for truth. I think this bit often gets lost in the mix or is conveniently ignored...as evidenced by the fact that nobody bothered to comment on your post.  | | | 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 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting paulb_99: Quote:
But there is absolutely no evidence the current AR (2.35) is correct, so in this case you have to assume the cover is correct. I think you should always use the info from the cover unless you can prove otherwise and since this is not the case right now i my opinion the change is correct. Yes, the change is correct, but that wasn't the point. The contribution page says that you must indicate the source of the data, the contributor didn't. Because of that, I voted 'no'. What else would I do? I don't have time to research every change that comes across my screen, and I shouldn't have to. I am not asking for massive amounts of documentation. I just want to know where you got the data so that I can, if I so desire, go and check it for myself. Why is that so difficult? | | | 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 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
(***)
That's an incorrect inference from the rule. You are turning the verification requirement into a documentation requirement, but they're not the same. Verification method is required if you submit something different than what's on the box. No one had provided that previously. Anyone can use the box data without measuring screen caps as long as no one has previously verified a discrepancy. And if they do that without explaining it to your satisfcation, you still can't vote against it based on their explanation. The data is correct. As Forget pointed out, and everyone has ignored, the contribution page tells us to indicate the source of the data, for ALL contributions. This contributor did not do that. I am really at a loss here. If all we are required to do is point out the changes that we made, why have contribution notes at all? I mean, the comparison screen already show us what was changed. Simply pointing out those changes, in the notes, just seems redundant and silly. | | | 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 |
| | Registered: March 19, 2007 |  Posts: 700 |
| | Posted: | | | | I am at the moment making an list of Ken's clarifications, may this come in use?
Posted: September 9, 2007 11:44 PM
Threads targeting a specific user, regardless of the verity of the statements, will be closed. | | | | We are all at the same age, only at different time... |
| | Registered: September 29, 2008 | | Posts: 384 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree that he didn't do a good job in his contribution notes, and for that, I don't disagree with the "No" votes in the least bit. *But* since the data has been proven to be true at this point, why not change your "no" votes to a yes? Is it the principal of the thing?
Remember that when this good piece of data gets into the system that anyone trying to change it back to 2:35 will be under the same scrutiny. So at this point and time, the refusal to let the data in, seems silly to me. It's good data, bottom line. | | | | "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
(***)
That's an incorrect inference from the rule. You are turning the verification requirement into a documentation requirement, but they're not the same. Verification method is required if you submit something different than what's on the box. No one had provided that previously. Anyone can use the box data without measuring screen caps as long as no one has previously verified a discrepancy. And if they do that without explaining it to your satisfcation, you still can't vote against it based on their explanation. The data is correct.
As Forget pointed out, and everyone has ignored, the contribution page tells us to indicate the source of the data, for ALL contributions. This contributor did not do that.
I am really at a loss here. If all we are required to do is point out the changes that we made, why have contribution notes at all? I mean, the comparison screen already show us what was changed. Simply pointing out those changes, in the notes, just seems redundant and silly. I made the mistake of looking at the forum before work when I didn't have much time. I'm not intending to ignore Forget's post. Yes, we're told to indicate the source for data. But are we told we can vote 'no' on correct data that isn't sourced to our satisfaction? No. We vote on the data. The notes help us decide whether the data is correct. But we don't vote on the notes. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: December 13, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 334 |
| | Posted: | | | | And yet another useless argument blown out of proportion.
While the rules state that changes must be documented they don't say you have to vote no if they're not. Various people interpret things in different ways and there isn't any particular user of this forum who knows it all or whose opinion supersedes all others, although some users seem to think so.
The OP was completely useless, and if meant for a select group should have been directed at them. You can't make a post and then, if someone asks what you're talking about, say it doesn't concern you. Listing voters who made a particular vote is imho very bad form. People don't have to justify their votes to the general public. They have the right to vote the way they want without being dragged into some person's personal crusade.
I'm pretty sure that most of us just want a program that is user-friendly to track our collection. Probably most of us are also willing to contribute, as long as we don't get our heads bitten off if we make a mistake of forget to state the obvious (like "taken from cover").
I apologise if anyone feels offended but this constant bickering between the "usual suspects" is starting to get tiring and is certainly counter-productive. For example:
Cows will fly before I'll make a contribution regarding cast and/or crew (other than copying another locality). Not because I'm not willing to make an effort, but because I don't own enough bodyarmour to ward off potential attacks.
I am therefore particularly grateful to those who dó regularly contribute the "hard" things like contributor "." (former Giga-wizard). The fact that he still does is certainly no thanks to the warlords here.
That running sound you hear is me heading for the bomb-shelter now. |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've actually just re-read over the rules and the Contribution Notes section reads as follows, bolding by me - Quote:
When you contribute a changed profile, you are required to include Contribution Notes. Use the space to enter full explanations for all changes and/or additions that you make. Make special reference to any changes where:
* You have verified there is a discrepancy between the box and the actual content of the DVD - include your verification method.
* You are making a subtle change that may be hard to spot - for example spelling correction to the overview.
* You are removing incorrect information.
Contribution Notes provide an explanation of your changes to other DVD Profiler users and Invelos for voting and deciding whether to accept your contribution, so make your notes useful and descriptive. The issue raised by skip seems to be covered by the highlighted parts. They specifically say to give reference when removing incorrect info. Although the "good data" part may be right, the contribution hasn't satisfied how they determined it was bad data. In addition, the last part of that area of the rules says "so make your notes useful and descriptive". I wouldn't say that this contribution fulfils that. | | | | Last edited: by Ardos |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
I made the mistake of looking at the forum before work when I didn't have much time. I'm not intending to ignore Forget's post. Yes, we're told to indicate the source for data. But are we told we can vote 'no' on correct data that isn't sourced to our satisfaction? No. We vote on the data. The notes help us decide whether the data is correct. But we don't vote on the notes. Then why have notes at all? If all we care about is the data, and the contributor doesn't have to tell us where it came from, why have them? As I said, I already know what has been changed so I don't need the notes for that. | | | 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 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Vittra: Quote:
I agree that he didn't do a good job in his contribution notes, and for that, I don't disagree with the "No" votes in the least bit. *But* since the data has been proven to be true at this point, why not change your "no" votes to a yes? Is it the principal of the thing? Yes, it is the principle of the thing. At the moment, I have 53 contributions in my voting queue. I rely on the contributor to tell me where the data came from so that I know where to look. If I have to research this one on my own, then why not research all the other ones as well? Sorry, but I don't have that kind of time. If a contributor doesn't care enough to tell me where that data came from, then he gets a 'no' vote from me. | | | 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 |
| | Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think this topic has been sufficiently covered. Isn't it time to break out the fruit cake?!?  |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| |
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 ...7 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |