Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
For me, trust is earned, not demanded.

So, either you're saying you don't trust my work or your saying I've never earned it?

I would like to think that after all these years that my contributions are trusted.

And if so...how did that happen? I'm not doing anything different now than I've done all along - with the exception of not filling my contribution notes with more detail than is required.

And, as stated...for anyone new to the program they will learn to trust my contributions just like everyone else has....by checking some of my work for themselves; to see that it is accurate.
I don't trust people in this community because of what they WRITE I trust them because I have checked some of their work and have SEEN PROOF of how trustworthy they are.

It's what people DO and not what they say that's important.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
So, if 'You have to supply details of the sites you visit to support your changes' isn't making up rules to police the Credited As then I don't know what is.

Quote:
Then you don't know what is.  How you can admit that a rule is subjective, then turn around and accuse people of making up their own rule, simply because you didn't agree with their interpretation, is beyond me.

Bottom line...we interpreted a subjective rule one way, you interpreted it another.  Ken came down on your side and we have agreed to abide by it.  Continuing to demonize us, by claiming we made up a rule to police the 'credited as', serves no purpose.

I stated that 'useful and descriptive' was subjective.

As for demonizing the people who made the decision to implement a forum 'rule' on the subject. Well...they implemented a rule.
What gave them the right to say that everyone HAD TO do something the way they wanted it done? That's my point here.
Too many decisions are made in this forum that are then expected to be treated as rules. That is totally wrong.

I was made to feel untrusted and it was implied that I was lying - all because I didn't agree with the forum decision on this issue. I was made to feel that my work was valueless - whether intentional or not.

No one has the right to make me feel like that when all I've ever done is to let others benefit from my work. Especially when they have no say in how the rules should be followed.

I've been around long enough to know that I shouldn't let the people in this forum get to me. I've also stated before that I find that hard to do. I can only imagine how newbies feel when subjected to the same level of criticism and unfair treatment.

I realise I operate differently than some users. For example - if our roles had been reversed and Ken had stated that adding full details to determine Credited As entries WAS required, I would have instantly issued a formal apology to the people I had argued with.
Did I get an apology? No. Because, even now, the people who said I was wrong to keep my notes simple still think I'm in the wrong. What's worse is that I'm not even surprised that an apology didn't appear. It's what I expected from this community.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I think Ken has made this decision because it seems too many users have got their priorities wrong.
You have to remember that your "yes" or "no" vote should refer to the data submitted, not the notes that accompany it.
It seems to be that Ken no longer wants us to vote "no" on a badly documented submission, if the data itself is good. All he's asking for is a bit more flexibility in the contribution system.

Bottom line, Ken has made a decision, do we really need to continue to argue about for pages on end?

I see what you're saying but I think the problem that I & others have is how do we know that the data is good if there's nothing to back it up? It may have taken him a few hours to find his evidence, which we may not find. For the cases that Ken has stated as an exception, I don't see why it's so hard for the contributor to provide that link.


Slightly OT & should have stated it earlier - Although I have a contradictory opinion on this subject, I honestly have no ill-feelings towards Pantheon & actually quite like him & his contributions here on the forums & to the database.

Edit: As a result of the above paragraph & not wanting to fall out with people, I'm bowing out of this thread on a "agree to disagree" basis.

I'm confused. In another thread I commented as follows:

Quote:
Regarding Ken's comment that CLT results are generally sufficient;

There are two criteria in establishing a common name
1) That the two names refer to the same person
2) Which of the two names are most commonly credited

I can only imagine that Ken's comment is meant to address the second point only.

Saying that all credits for John Q. Public can be linked to the common name John Public based only on the CLT resulta is as inane as saying that all credits for Joan Collins can be linked to Elizabeth Taylor based on the fact that Liz has more CLT hits. Using CLT to prove that A=B is totally meaningless.

To whick Ken replied:

Quote:
Absolutely correct.  The CLT has no knowledge of individuals, only names.  Especially with crew, if a difference of identity can be shown, the clt results should be filtered by this knowledge.

Would it help if the CLT was filterable by credit category?

What Ken has said in this thread seems to contradict this. Or am I just not understanding correctly?

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
I'm confused. In another thread I commented as follows:

Quote:
Regarding Ken's comment that CLT results are generally sufficient;

There are two criteria in establishing a common name
1) That the two names refer to the same person
2) Which of the two names are most commonly credited

I don't think they're contradictory. I think what Ken is saying in this thread is that as long as you've verified that 1) is correct, you don't need to add documentation to the notes, and the voters should only vote "no" if they suspect that they are not in fact the same person, not just because the documentation is missing.

I see Ken's comment as irrational. Sorry, Ken As I have said before this is a collaborative effort the notes are our BIBLIOGRAPHY and data which based on assumptions or otherwise unsupported has no chance to get from the Online to my own database because I consider such data to be totally INVALID and INACCURATE. If you can't take the time to communicate with other users the resaon that NameA=NameB then you are wasting my time. We have a user making such a claim this morning based simply on the CLT and it is a crew person, even worse, pictures are not going to be avialable (more than likely) How he can ASSUME that David=Dave is completely beyond me. They probably are, but that is not good enough, they could just as easily father and son. One day, one you people who are more interested in saving keystrokes than in  verifying your data and communicating with the Community is going to make a bad assumption and then what have we got. I cannot and will NOT vote yes to data which is not backed up, but is merely based on assumption, I will not present such assumptions to any of you and I don't appreciate it being presented to me, frankly I find it lazy in t6he extreme, as I can't come up with a rational explanation for the behavior that makes any sense otherwise. Garbage In Garbage Out, that is all that is being submitted when you make such assumptions.

I don't disagree with either Donnie or North's comment, but too many are IGNORING the first of north's comment and simply assuming that they are the same without documentation and simply moving on to step 2.


Skip

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
I consider such data to be totally INVALID and INACCURATE.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Rather than provide that documentation, the contributor responded with snide remarks

That is totally untrue.

I was not snide.

And it wasn't until was being told 'I'm right, you're wrong' (words to that effect) that I even got remotely annoyed.

More importantly my contribution was 100% within the rules. Which Ken has subsequently confirmed.

So please refrain from making it sound like A) I didn't verify my data, and B) That I'm in the wrong here.

You people making up rules because you think you've got the right are the ones in the wrong.