Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Merrik:

Quote:
Did you withdraw the contributions? I don't see them anymore.

I was actually going to mention in both of my yes votes for the contributions you made, that according to Ken, people should no longer give a no vote if the CLT results are quoted... unfortunately the field isn't long enough, so I just had to put I double checked the names and they were all good.

Sorry to see you've withdrawn them. There was some valuable information in the contributions!

And as to my understanding of what Ken has stepped in and said himself, the no votes that were given were baseless, and I think the people voting no are very aware of that, but just aren't quite willing to inch past their old ways.

Actually, no, I didn't withdraw them. Gerri PM'd me to ask which contributions had the 'no' votes. I gave her a list. After she looked at the comments, she approved all but one of them. One of them looks like it has a weird birth year problem. She left that one active so that I can check it out later when I get home.

Oh, sweet! I just assumed they had been withdrawn becuase of how quickly they disappeared. It's good to know that good info won't be lost because of a few baseless votes!! 

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

Quote:
If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary.

If I vote no, then I dispute that they are the same person. Ergo, documentation may be needed...?

From the way I understand it, the people aren't voting "no" because they doubt they are the same person, but simply because no documentation has been given that they are.
From what I can tell, if you vote "no" and say "where is the proof they are the same person?", that is not a valid "no" vote and the submitter need do nothing.
But if you vote "no" and say "I've got reason to believe they are actually two different people", then that is a valid "no" vote and the submitter would have to provide documentation.
That's the way I read it anyway.

While I agree with your interpretation of Ken's statement I feel this may be abused.
There will definitely be people who will put 'I've got reason to believe they are actually two different people' simply for force the documentation issue.

Personally, if someone thinks a contribution is wrong they should PM the contributor to with their doubts. They can discuss it further. If the contributor refuses to communicate then a NO should be given stating a doubt has arisen and the contributor refuses to discuss.

At least...that's how I intend to handle this situation. I personally think it's a much fairer way to handle it.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
If I should blindly accept this, then why should I not accept, say, an SRP contribution without documentation.

For SRP's, I say where I got the information from, but I don't provide links so that you can double-check that I got the SRP that matches the UPC in question. I provide the source but not the actual data. Same for release date.

How do you know I looked up the proper SRP and release date? You don't. It's not proven. But it is sourced.

CLT results provide the source of which name is most credited at Invelos. If I've picked the wrong names to link, you may challenge that in the same way that you would challenge an SRP or release date discrepancy.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
For SRP's, I say where I got the information from, but I don't provide links so that you can double-check that I got the SRP that matches the UPC in question. I provide the source but not the actual data. Same for release date.

How do you know I looked up the proper SRP and release date? You don't. It's not proven. But it is sourced.

Yes, but by providing the source, you have given us a place to go and verify the data.  If your notes say, "SRP from Amazon.com", we can go to Amazon.com and look it up.  We don't have to search the internet hoping to stumble across documentation that supports your claim.

Quote:
CLT results provide the source of which name is most credited at Invelos. If I've picked the wrong names to link, you may challenge that in the same way that you would challenge an SRP or release date discrepancy.

All the CLT does is show us that one name is credited more often than another name.  It does not tell us that both names refer to the same person.  As an example, Michael Fox is credited in 195 titles (339 profiles).  Michael J. Fox is credited in 237 titles (772 profiles).  Based on that information, and the new clarification from Ken, I can change all the 'Michael Fox' entries to 'Michael J. Fox [Michael Fox]' and simply cite the CLT results.  Somehow, that just doesn't seem right to me. 

But, it is a moot point.  I will simply vote 'yes' and change them when I download them.

I absolutely agree, gunnar. it is for the Contributor to prove and support his claims, not for the voters. We have one user who is not even providing the most basic of CLT results simply that he checked it. I am sorry but i will never EVER support something that is not documented and has a basis for taking the user in good faith, but "it is because I say it is", is just unacceptable. I am sorry guys, but there are few that i have that kind of blind faith in. I won't ever ask it of you, so why is OK of you to ask it of me.

Skip

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
"it is because I say it is", is just unacceptable.

Which is exactly how I feel about 'forum rules', Skip. There are people in this forum who quite often revert to a 'I'm right, you're wrong, put up with it' kind of attitude. And, unfortunately, many users and newbies just don't have the courage to fight against it.

Ken's made a ruling. So I really don't see the point of discussing it further; unless it's in the rules committee forum with a view to submitting suggested changes to the rules.

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
If I as a contributor claim that Terence Hill and Mario Girotti are the same person (they actually are), I have done research on them. But if I don't document that research but simply claim"It is as I say it is" who has even the slighest of doubts (and who wouldn't given those two names?) has to do all the research again.

But once again, as you noted yourself, it is a correct change. Of course there are exceptions to everything, but generally, it's pretty safe to assume that someone who contributes such a link, has researched it. Those that really don't care about linking name variants together simply don't bother to enter it like that.

Skip said earlier in this thread: "One day, one of you people [...] is going to make a bad assumption and then what have we got." Well, yes, that may indeed happen some day. The flipside, however, is that literally thousands and thousands of those established links are absolutely correct. We're still faced with shifting common names sometimes - that's just a direct consequence of the "use the most-credited form" principle - but as for users linking two different people together on purpose: I haven't seen it. Again: I'm sure it'll probably happen once or twice down the line, but I expect someone else will come along, explain why it was wrong, and then fix it. That's how the system works. But the VAST amount of these updates are absolutely correct - and that level of accuracy is apparently good enough for Ken. And quite rightly so, of course.

It's also good to realise that Invelos' policy on this hasn't changed. It's always been this way: over the past year, I've gotten hundreds of updates approved with the exact same kind of changes + notes that people like Skip are still voting against today - neither the voters or the screeners ever had any problems with it. We've just been stuck with a very small minority of very "vocal" users declaring the opposite here in the forums over and over and over again. I hope that's come to an end now.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Ken's made a ruling. So I really don't see the point of discussing it further

If we are not sure how to interpret the ruling, discussing it seems far from pointless.