Quoting Berak:

Quote:

I, for one, am in total agreement with Addicted here...

And I, for two.

You could try and ducument or mention the lack of documentation for the old credit. I do this if it applies, as there's no way I can see if these credits have been taken from the film, or imdb. This usually works. And if it don't, you can always add more documentation.

Like with Dave Fox/David Fox, I just supplied a link to a bio on each of them.

All changes should be documented, no matter how trivial.  I'm betting that's the real reason the contribution was declined, not because of Addicted's no vote.

Skip, your comment about "hiding behind Gerri" was out of line.  That's like saying the Chief of Staff is hiding behind the President of the United States because they did what the President said to do.

So I agree with Addicted.  I'm sorry to see Pantheon go for what I personally see as extremely trivial.  Rules state to document your changes - that's the bottom line.  I've had 100% valid changes declined because I forgot to put the documentation in.  I resubmitted with documentation and guess what?  Accepted.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
But I guess all this is moot since he said he is giving up contributing.

Yes, once again the community has succeeded in driving away yet another valuable contributor. 

I don't believe the community had any part in driving him away other than state he should follow the rules.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
But I guess all this is moot since he said he is giving up contributing.

Yes, once again the community has succeeded in driving away yet another valuable contributor. 

The community didn't drive him away.  Pete's request was a reasonable one.  I am sorry that Pantheon has decided, once again, to stop contributing...especially when it is over something as trivial as providing proper documentation.

Pantheon decided that he didn't have to follow the part of the rules that say, "make your notes useful and descriptive."  He was called on it and, rather than correct the error, decided he didn't have to.  I am sorry, but to blame the community for his decision to leave...over a valid no vote...is utter rubbish.

Ok.

Here's the thing.

I found the names mentioned in the profile. They didn't match the credits.

I looked on CLT to establish that the names in the profile were more common than the names in the credits. They were.

I looked on IMDB to see if these names seemed more common. They did. I then did a google search for the different versions of the actors names and found the names in the profile to be the ones that came up.

Now, I admit to NOT taking the time to note which google pages I viewed or what the results were. This comes down to an error on my part.

I also freely admit to being very stubborn about the issue of documentation for common names - partly because I very rarely contribute this information. Usually cases of, what I believe, to be obvious (such as LaPlaca vs. La Placa).

I am at fault here for not documenting the changes fully.

HOWEVER, the existing profile is still wrong. No one bothered to prevent THAT getting into the online database. So even if my data hadn't been researched (thanks for that accusation Pete!  ) I was still correcting INCORRECT information in the profile.
More importantly I was adding:
AUDIO TRACKS
3.5 CREW
OVERVIEW FORMATTING
STUDIOS
MEDIA COMPANY

So, it is NOT this particular issue alone that has made me decide to stop contributing to existing profiles. It is simply the fact that with inclusions to the program such as the Credited As it has just become more of a battle than a hobby.

I have every intention of continuing to contribute profiles that are not in the database (which I have been doing with child profiles recently).

It is entirely a failing on my part that I don't think to keep a detailed record of internet searches and sites when I am auditing my collection.
Should I do this? Well, obviously I should.
Will I do it? No. Sorry, but I spend enough time auditing my profiles without having to lead people by the hand.
I've done the work and submitted it - which is a damn site more than a lot of people bother to do.
I don't think it's asking much for someone else to google my work if they think it's unreliable.

However, given that I think my acceptance rate on conbributions is very high I don't think the community or the screeners have much call to doubt my work.

In this particular instance Pete was the ONLY person to vote NO. The only one. Everyone else agreed with the changes I had made and voted yes.
Now, maybe they were wrong according to the rules. But at least they employed their common sense.

Besides....point me to the part of the contribution rules that states you MUST document WHERE you got the information for Credited As from? I can only find a statement that we should use the CLT - which is exactly what I did.

Lastly, there are a lot bigger things in this forum that have 'driven me away' that this issue - which is why I edited my initial post to say I'd got bent out of shape. I over reacted. It's really not all that important. Maybe if I was intending to resubmit I would continue to argue. I'm not; so there's no point.

I hope that clarifies some of the conjecture and some of the unfounded and, quite frankly, hurtful accusations.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:

Besides....point me to the part of the contribution rules that states you MUST document WHERE you got the information for Credited As from? I can only find a statement that we should use the CLT - which is exactly what I did.

Although it's not specifically in the rules, it is on the contribution screen for every contribution to document all sources -