Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I guess I'll have to repeat this 1000 times before it sinks in.

It was not bad data.  It was correct per the Rules, whether you like it or not!

No, it wasn't! I have explained this before.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I guess I'll have to repeat this 1000 times before it sinks in.

It was not bad data.  It was correct per the Rules, whether you like it or not!

No, it wasn't! I have explained this before.

Hal's assertion is that it was not bad data BECAUSE it was okay under the rules.  He was trying to point out a flaw in the rules.  On the other hand, data is either good or bad REGARDLESS of the rules.  A rule might allow BAD data to be entered or accepted -- but that doesn't magically make the data GOOD.  And it doesn't make any difference if you repeat the assertion that the data was GOOD 1000 times or even 1 million times.  BAD data doesn't suddenly become GOOD data merely because someone says it is so.

Here's the rub.  As defined by Invelos the data that belongs in the "Title" field of DVDP is that which we see on the front cover of the DVD case.  Therefore the data I submitted was correct.  "Bad" and "Good" are relative terms.  The data can be "bad" and still be "correct" just as it can be "good" and be wrong.

I never said the data was "good"; I said it was "correct".

Whether or not the data is useful is an entirely different question and was the entire point that I was making by starting that thread!

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
The data was undocumented, and under Ken and geri's statement, i5t wsa bad period. No ammount of spinning or trying to ratinalize it will work. Itwas bad until it was documented. If I am an exception,, Hal, I am NOT alone, maybe you are the exception.  Wow now there;s a concept. This is completely unbelievable.

Skip <shakes head>

Yet you yourself are guilty of voting YES for these "undocumented changes" There is currently a contribution this for Dinosaur [717951-008381] to which you voted yes. The notes simply say:

Quote:
Trailer is included in the bonus features

That is simply a statement that is supposed to be taken as fact. Nothing more. It is exactly the same type of statement you said needed documentation last night.

(the offending notes from last night):

Quote:
Release date is 5/13/08 ..... NOT 6/2/08 as listed

If you insist on this hardline stance on one then you must on the other.

How do we know the trailer is included. Perhaps the submitter just read it on the box or saw it online somewhere. Using your logic he cannot simply say there is a trailer any more than the other person can say there is a new release date. He must document where he found the information that there truly is a trailer in order for you to properly record the change for posterity



Believe me I'm not advocating this stance. I'm just trying to figure how it is OK to vote YES to one of these 'statement of fact' type notes without any backup but not to the other. Smells of the typical hypocrisy that keeps people away and makes it very confusing for new people to figure out what's going on.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Here's the rub.  As defined by Invelos the data that belongs in the "Title" field of DVDP is that which we see on the front cover of the DVD case.  Therefore the data I submitted was correct.  "Bad" and "Good" are relative terms.

The title that you have contributed is not shown like this on the cover. Therefore the data submitted was not correct.

A question as a bystander: Does anyone here seriously read the entire contribution history of a certain profile when he or she votes on a specific change?

I read the contrib notes, check the other votes and when I have a good feeling about this I vote yes, if I see that there's something obviously wrong, I vote no. In all other cases (like cast & crew) I vote neutral.

But never ever would I read the entire history of that specific profile!

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Here's the rub.  As defined by Invelos the data that belongs in the "Title" field of DVDP is that which we see on the front cover of the DVD case.  Therefore the data I submitted was correct.  "Bad" and "Good" are relative terms.  The data can be "bad" and still be "correct" just as it can be "good" and be wrong.

I never said the data was "good"; I said it was "correct".

I am sorry, but your "I never said the data was "good"; I said it was "correct"" argument just shot your "What the heck is the goal here?  Getting good data into the main database, or accumulating supporting documentation?" argument right out of the water. 

If we are after 'good data', then we should never submit data simply because it is 'correct'.  It must always be 'good'.  If we are after 'correct data', then we should not care whether or not the data is 'good', only that it is 'correct'.

The contribution notes field says to enter the source for all data submitted.  If the contributor does not do that, then their contribution is not 'correct'...even if the data is 'good'.

Back to the topic at hand.

Had I come across this contribution prior to lyonsden5, I would have voted 'no'.  I do not have the time to document someone else's changes.  If they can't be bothered to do it, then why should I?

If, however, I had come across this contribution after lyonsden5, I would have voted 'yes' with a note asking the contributor to please include his source on the next contribution.

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
A question as a bystander: Does anyone here seriously read the entire contribution history of a certain profile when he or she votes on a specific change?

I read the contrib notes, check the other votes and when I have a good feeling about this I vote yes, if I see that there's something obviously wrong, I vote no. In all other cases (like cast & crew) I vote neutral.

But never ever would I read the entire history of that specific profile!

I never read it all when I'm voting - but I do read it all before I accept something into my database if its changing data (rather than just adding missing data). I look at what the comments say - and who has contributed to the profile as well.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
In point of fact, Unicus. My vote was the first vote cast and I PM'd the user requesting that he edit his notes to include the documentation. Lyonsden5 and m.cellophane came along later and voted Yes while providing documentation, which as it later turned out was different from the documentation that the Contributor supplied. This is not the first time, but this was teh starw that broke the camel's back as it were.

What I see is some users who don't care what Ken and gerri have to say, they will vote contrary anyway and then spin and rationalize that 'good' is good enough or that some data, even IMDb data is better than the blank data that may be present awaiting release.<shrugs>

Me...I am after CORRECT good data and my knowledge relative to that data is not relevant. I recognize that my knowledge is not part of the record unless I am Contributing and I feel voting yes to such data is both irresponsible and doing a massive disservice to the larger Community, while slapping Ken and Gerri in the face.

Skip

        100% LIE! Point of FACT. I voted 1st. You came along and voted after I did, quoting my yes vote in your NO note and then proceeded to come here to start this thread, which made me aware of your vote.                  


Congratulations. Your lies have chased someone else away, Me. I'll be back though, just not for a while. Unlike some (yes... you) who claim they are done and are never returning, only to post 15 minutes later. You personally make this forum a place that is not fun to visit. Your lack of any stars would seem to say that most people feel you don't add anything to the community. Hopefully someday you will realize it and change your ways, but I doubt it. Perhaps you should look up narcissistic personality disorder sometime. You really need help

Please don't anyone PM me here as I will not be responding. Anyone who wants to reach me knows where they can find me.