More and more contributions are including "credited as" with no documentation other than the CLT. Shouldn't every profile submission using "credited as" document the connection between names, prior to using the CLT to find a common name? This would provide a permanent record of the need to use this feature in the profile for these names.

My no vote to these submissions is not an attack, or belittling the effort put into the profile. Without documentation in the contribution notes I cannot justify voting for these updates.

I know Ken stated that "small" errors would not keep a submission from being accepted, but I can't consider potentially linking two different people as the same person (based solely on similarity of names) as small.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!! If adequate documentation all the way around is not provided I will vote No, ALWAYS.

Skip

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Cool. Thank you.

So how do we use this? I looked up Barbra Streisand (260 hits) and Barbara Streisand (15 hits). So I just state in my contribution notes that I looked it up in this lookup, state the results, and we're done with documentation?

In general, yes.  There will be cases that require a bit more perusing to make sure there aren't false matches.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Cool. Thank you.

So how do we use this? I looked up Barbra Streisand (260 hits) and Barbara Streisand (15 hits). So I just state in my contribution notes that I looked it up in this lookup, state the results, and we're done with documentation?

In general, yes.  There will be cases that require a bit more perusing to make sure there aren't false matches.

I think this is what greyghost is after, and I agree.  Far too many people are assuming instead of perusing.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Cool. Thank you.

So how do we use this? I looked up Barbra Streisand (260 hits) and Barbara Streisand (15 hits). So I just state in my contribution notes that I looked it up in this lookup, state the results, and we're done with documentation?

In general, yes.  There will be cases that require a bit more perusing to make sure there aren't false matches.

I think this is what greyghost is after, and I agree.  Far too many people are assuming instead of perusing.

Then again: the "In general, yes." comment is equally interesting - it's just what part you you bold, isn't it? You're trying to turn the exception in Ken's comment into the norm, and that's decidedly not what he said.

If I don't see documentation I vote no... no matter who it is. When I contribute... just because I know someone doesn't mean that person is known by everyone... so I document it. When I vote... pretty much anything beyond superstar is unknown to me... so if there is no documentation I can't say it is right or wrong so I  vote no since they are not supporting their contribution.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Well, according to Ken, that isn't always the case.  All I did, with my post, is point that out.

Not always, no. But, quoting Ken, "In general, yes." That's all I wanted to point out.

Quoting snarbo:

Quote:
it shows sqewd results from mined data.

That certainly is true: one should never take the CLT numbers on face value - you really have to work with what you're shown to determine what REALLY is the most-credited form.