You are also wrong about demanding a level of proof that doesn't exist as was demonstrated by Enry's discovery. The real question is what level is good enough. When I look at "proof" and can tell where it came from just by looking at it, that's not good enough. Unfortunately this was the case with the .de site.

Yes I am demading when it comes to the data, I have high standards for myself, I don't apply those standards to anyone else because they are so high. But reaching a conclusion based on an assumption that is not verified I will not accept from anyone. My standards are such that when I make a Contribution to a Common Name, which is rare, I KNOW beyond any doubt that it is correct. The BEST way I have found to do that so far, is via comparative screen caps against a file image, but just like everything I do that is subject to evolution and change as I go through things. The question becomes one of confidence level pertaining to the accuracy, and while it doesn't make me happy, my confidence level in Mikkel's initial Contribution was not very high. He came here to discuss it and Enry was able to produce information which increased my confidence level...that simple. Is it high enough for me personally, probably not, I would probably be looking for even more information were it my Contribution or planned Contribution.

Skip

I will not at the BFI link to the notes. That you think it is more authoritive than another one is up to you. In five minutes another user find a link that he find more authorative and wants that added in change for a vote. The thing is that none of them are more authorative than the other as we don't know on what sources they are based, not BFI, not imdb. It could be interns copying data from imdb (or DVD profiler for that matter) for all we know.

By your standards I think the most accurate database is an empty one.

If you must intrude merely to makje such statements, winter, then be prepared to be judged harshly for such intrusion. It is nothing more than flame-baiting, behavior such as yours is what so often results in threads sprialing out of control.

BTW unlike some users I won't go run and hide and cast an anonymous negative vote. I will deal with your offense or any other users man to man. The Reputation System I still think is bad, I have a right in this country to confront my accusers, and i will do so. All that you people demonstrate, all of you, demonstrate to me is a ridiculous desire to shut up one user, who ever the offending user of the moment, if its not me it might be YOU. It is patently obvious that there is a vendetta going on, and I know who you are or can develop a very GOOD guess.


Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
If you must intrude merely to makje such statements, winter, then be prepared to be judged harshly for such intrusion. It is nothing more than flame-baiting, behavior such as yours is what so often results in threads sprialing out of control.

Someone pointing out (quite politely, I might add) that you have not, in fact, been insulted is "flame-bait", now? The thread is in danger of "spiralling out of control" because I asked if you consider your own post to be insulting?

Please feel free to point out anything specific I've said in this thread that was insulting, offensive, or factually incorrect to aid others in their harsh judgement of me.

Quoting mikl:

Quote:
I will not at the BFI link to the notes. That you think it is more authoritive than another one is up to you. In five minutes another user find a link that he find more authorative and wants that added in change for a vote. The thing is that none of them are more authorative than the other as we don't know on what sources they are based, not BFI, not imdb. It could be interns copying data from imdb (or DVD profiler for that matter) for all we know.

By your standards I think the most accurate database is an empty one.

Sorry you feel that way, mikkel, I cannot vote yes based on the data you have provided. The .de site was clearly taken from IMDb and you already included them in your notes, and as a sole source for your change i can't support it. Excuse me for trying to be helpful, but since you aren't interested. My No vote stands.

Skip

Without judging anyone, may I kindly suggest reading Caroline's post here?

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
See what I said before, Tim. His notes are the only thing that becomes the record for that title. Vote comments disappear once it is accepted or declined and are thus invalid. If he won't add the BFI link to his notes then I can't support the change.

I've heard that argument before. But is it really that important? It's not that the notes won't show ANY documentation on the matter, just not YOUR preferred bit of documentation. I'm just amazed how anyone would vote "no" just based on principle while actually agreeing with the contribution itself. Anyway - I'm done here. I hope the screeners will make the right decision.

Regarding the off topic section of this thread:

Stating "There are a few users that are a bit TOO hung up on details." in a post not addressed at anyone in particular is nothing more than stating a well known fact in a general fashion. Even if it were not true (which it is), it is NOT derogatory, inflammatory, demeaning or insulting as no one is addressed personally. I'm not going to start looking up and quoting definitions for those adjectives, but I don't think it's necessary.

Calling someone's input in a public forum on an open discussion subject insignificant, unrequired, unhelpful and intrusive however IS demeaning, inflammatory, derogatory and insulting.

To the subject at hand:

I don't think voting "No" against better positive knowledge because of contribution notes that are insufficient by personal standards (!) is a correct way of exercising voting rights. If someone's voting "no" on such occasions, the vote might very well be the cause for knowingly keeping correct data out of the online db, just because the notes are incomplete.

Well, IMO we're not trying to gather the largest collection of correct contribution notes for DVDs, we're trying to create the most accurate database for DVD data. We already have so many pieces of data in this db that are insufficiently documented or even not at all (uncredited cast before the "magic date" anyone?) and are fine with it. IMO, a situation like this is the reason we have the ability to vote "neutral". If you can't bring yourself to vote "yes" to a change you know to be correct for whatever reason, at least don't try to keep good data out of the online db by voting "no".

Just my understanding of what we're trying to do here and what certain terms actually mean.