Author |
Message |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,635 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote: It is highlighted for the Invelos evaluators, but not for the voters. The documentation check is done by the evaluators - the voters are really there to check accuracy against their data. But possibly this is something we should add for them too. I think it would be helpful. | | | Hal | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 4,245 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote: If the checkbox does not appear for the birth year, documentation of the year is not required. I actually like this announcement. Now I won't have to search for already approved BY's anymore that are already in the profile. All I have to do is make sure that the BY is the correct one in cases where two people with the same name have different BY's in the database. This will make contributions much easier. |
|
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 1,536 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting CubbyUps: Quote: All I have to do is make sure that the BY is the correct one in cases where two people with the same name have different BY's in the database.
This will make contributions much easier. Good point, but here too the program could be more helpful. If you enter such a person, the system just picks the actor with the oldest BY, without indicating that it does so. If you contribute TV seasons (which I do a lot) then spotting such a BY has been inserted is not easy. What the program should do, is point out that there is an ambiguity and give you the choice of which actor to pick. | | | Hans |
|
| T!M | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 8,736 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting CubbyUps: Quote: This will make contributions much easier. Was there seriously anyone who didn't already know about this? It's been that way from day one. Please don't buy into the occasional user banging on endlessly about how DVD Profiler is really about constantly re-documenting everything rather than just the data itself - it's not. That isn't, and never has been, Invelos' own policy. Of course new birth years need documentation, but there's obviously no point on documenting the same old stuff over and over again, day after day, month after month and year after year. DVD Profiler is not about creating a bothersome workload for its users - it's about building an accurate database. So that's what I like to spend my time on, not on re-documenting the same John Williams birth year for the hundredth time. And as Ken confirmed, we indeed don't have to do that. On occasion, some lost soul has seen it fit to vote against a contribution of mine citing lack of documentation for a previously accepted birth year, but in line with Ken's statement, such concerns have always been summarily ignored by the screeners. And rightly so, of course. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 13,202 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote: Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote: This will make contributions much easier. Was there seriously anyone who didn't already know about this? It's been that way from day one. Clearly there were people that didn't already know this...and with every new contributor, there will be more. I have been here since day one and, based on conversations I have had with Gerri, was under the impression that documentation had to be added in each contribution. It's nice to know that it isn't the case. | | | 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: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote: Quoting T!M:
Quote: Quoting CubbyUps:
Quote: This will make contributions much easier. Was there seriously anyone who didn't already know about this? It's been that way from day one. Clearly there were people that didn't already know this...and with every new contributor, there will be more. I have been here since day one and, based on conversations I have had with Gerri, was under the impression that documentation had to be added in each contribution. It's nice to know that it isn't the case. Agree... same here. Though I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. | | | Pete |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,744 |
| Posted: | | | | I'd prefer it to be documented every time a new BY gets added to a profile (if the contributor sets the checkbox). Because otherwise how should I as the voter know that this BY is actually needed? | | | Karsten DVD Collectors Online
| | | Last edited: by DJ Doena |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | That would be documented... Ken only mentioned when they are already in the system that they no longer have to be documented. I am not sure this is a good thing because if they don't mention the birth year at all how do I know it is already in the system? And if a birth year is not needed per Rules... but is already in the system does this mean we must now allow those in all the profiles? After all... it is already in the system they can just add to the profiles without even looking into it to see if it is needed. And we have Ken supporting that... so can we vote no? | | | Pete |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 13,202 |
| Posted: | | | | I share you concerns Pete. When a voter sees a contribution with a BY, they don't know whether or not it is a new BY or one that is already in the system. If the contributor is no longer required to include documentation, how can anyone vote 'yes'? | | | 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 14, 2007 | Posts: 1,777 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote: That would be documented... Ken only mentioned when they are already in the system that they no longer have to be documented. I am not sure this is a good thing because if they don't mention the birth year at all how do I know it is already in the system? And if a birth year is not needed per Rules... but is already in the system does this mean we must now allow those in all the profiles? After all... it is already in the system they can just add to the profiles without even looking into it to see if it is needed. And we have Ken supporting that... so can we vote no? Presumably, a profile with no BY documentation is already in the system. Otherwise you won't be able to submit without checking off the box. Maybe not the cleanest system but I'm guessing it's all you have to go on. My understanding was always that if you check the box, then you have to provide some sort of documentation or the screeners reject it. | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | But the thing is... the voters are not going to know whether the contributor had to check the box or not. So if there is no mention in the notes (sense ones already there don't have to be documented) how do we know to vote yes or no? | | | Pete |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Posts: 1,777 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote: But the thing is... the voters are not going to know whether the contributor had to check the box or not. So if there is no mention in the notes (sense ones already there don't have to be documented) how do we know to vote yes or no? Perhaps the BY stuff is up to the screeners and us users should simply concentrate on the other stuff? Perhaps voting yes or no solely based on a BY has little or no impact on the screeners. Just thinking out loud here. |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 4,245 |
| Posted: | | | | Perhaps an automatic notes can be added by the website itself whenever already approved/accepted BY's are added to a profile.
Let's say that someone contributes an updated profile and their is an approved BY being added to the profile. Of course there is no check box since it's already approved. The contribution is made and on the contribution page that voters see something like the following is added automatically.
"The following added Birth Years are already approved and in the main database" No further documentation is needed for these." John Smith (1950)
That way voters would know that the added BY is already approved. |
|
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 1,536 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting DJ Doena: Quote: I'd prefer it to be documented every time a new BY gets added to a profile (if the contributor sets the checkbox). Because otherwise how should I as the voter know that this BY is actually needed? The question arose because of a BY that was added without a checkbox, but which BY was disputed by some voters. The profile in question has since been accepted, with the BY. This means that once a BY is in (whether actually "needed" or not, which is somehow a silly question since without BY you don't have an actor ), it is allowed to stay in. Maintaining a list of "unneeded" or "unwanted" BYs appears to be a futile exercise therefore. | | | Hans |
|
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 1,536 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting CubbyUps: Quote: Perhaps an automatic notes can be added by the website itself whenever already approved/accepted BY's are added to a profile. That way voters would know that the added BY is already approved. I'd like to go one step further and actually assist the contributor rather than the voter, by being informed whenever the system adds a BY to an actor. In particular when the contributor actually needs to decide between two actors with different BYs. In the present circumstances, the contributor is not made aware and the program just adds the oldest BY, which is wrong more often than not. This would also tip off the contributor that a note for the voters may be appropriate. | | | Hans | | | Last edited: by Staid S Barr |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | I agree... if there is no need to look at it and document it... how many people are going to bother to notice there is a birth year added or care if they got the right birth year for the said name? | | | Pete |
|