You are voting to keep re-release imgaes in the DB, so you are voting against the rules.


Good job. Thumbs Up.    

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I ended up changing my vote to neutral. I was reading that it was the original release but it wasn't registering for some reason.

but I still feel I can't vote yes on it as it does still violate the other rule... and I personally don't feel I can say one rule trumps the other in this case.

Just using your comment as a jumpin off pont -- this is aimed at everybody:  It should be a given that correct information, whether it be cover scans or data, is the primary objective, and that other considerations such as picture quality (or whatever other critieria is in question) take a secondary position.

If it is wrong, it is wrong, and should not be allowed into the database, even if its the BEST DAMNED WRONG that ever was!

Quoting TheMovieman:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I ended up changing my vote to neutral. I was reading that it was the original release but it wasn't registering for some reason.

but I still feel I can't vote yes on it as it does still violate the other rule... and I personally don't feel I can say one rule trumps the other in this case.

Just using your comment as a jumpin off pont -- this is aimed at everybody:  It should be a given that correct information, whether it be cover scans or data, is the primary objective, and that other considerations such as picture quality (or whatever other critieria is in question) take a secondary position.

If it is wrong, it is wrong, and should not be allowed into the database, even if its the BEST DAMNED WRONG that ever was!

For crying out loud, calm down.

I am calm.  Just emphasizing something that some people seem not to follow.  I see far too many voting for something that might technically be better, but is still wrong anyway.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting pplchamp:

Quote:
You are voting to keep re-release imgaes in the DB, so you are voting against the rules.


Good job. Thumbs Up.    

That is your opinion...and you are welcome to it...I just don't agree.

The images are virtualy identical.  There are very minor changes to the rating and the audio section.  99% of the cover is exactly the same.

The new scans are not good at all.  Quality is more important that minor differences...at least in my opinion.

I'll remember this next time you give ANYONE a hard time about ANYTHING.

Quoting pplchamp:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting pplchamp:

Quote:
You are voting to keep re-release imgaes in the DB, so you are voting against the rules.


Good job. Thumbs Up.    

That is your opinion...and you are welcome to it...I just don't agree.

The images are virtualy identical.  There are very minor changes to the rating and the audio section.  99% of the cover is exactly the same.

The new scans are not good at all.  Quality is more important that minor differences...at least in my opinion.

I'll remember this next time you give ANYONE a hard time about ANYTHING.

You do that. 

I already explained how I interpret these rules.  If you don't agree, fine, but do you really have to act like a...well, never mind...it really isn't worth it.

*shrug*  I guess this will be decided when Ken/Geri evaluates it.

Reading the Rules...

Quote:
Before submitting new scans of cover art, make sure your new covers are of significantly higher quality than the existing online images, and meet the following criteria:

    * The covers must match the profile exactly, including the UPC and locality.
    * Image size must be at least as large as the existing online covers. If you don't have a premium registration, you will be unable to verify this. Therefore, submit only images you have personally scanned at 100 DPI or higher.
    * If you scan images for your personal database at a quality that are higher than 100 DPI, you may still submit them. If accepted, they will automatically be downsized for inclusion in the main database.
    * Image quality must be at least on par with the existing online covers. Covers that are larger than existing images but are of inferior clarity will not be accepted.
    * Images must not contain extra watermarks, autographs, or site links.
    * Images must be of the front and back only. Do not include the spine in either the front or back image.
    * Make sure neither front nor back is of lesser quality than the existing scans.
    * If a DVD is packaged in a keep case, within a slipcase of some kind, scan the Cover Images from the outer slipcase. If, however, the Slipcase is reflective, and the inner cover art is identical, use the Keep Case art to scan, as it will give a better quality image.
    * If a title is re-released with the same UPC, but different cover images do not contribute the new images. This includes cases where a DVD was initially released in a slipcase, which was later removed. As explained in the introduction you may use your personal images in your local database, but they will not show online.
    * Do not contribute generic "Coming Soon" images. If the back image is not yet available (as in a pre-release), use the front images in both places.

don't cover scans have to follow ALL the rules? And if we do want to give priority to anything above the other... it would make sense to me going by the rules you would go down the list as it is mentioned... so if that is the case Quality is up there much higher.

Now I agree that it is important to get the original version back into the database... but not at a loss of quality... so by the way I read the rules... the quality must be at least as good as what is up there now.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
don't cover scans have to follow ALL the rules? And if we do want to give priority to anything above the other... it would make sense to me going by the rules you would go down the list as it is mentioned... so if that is the case Quality is up there much higher.

Now I agree that it is important to get the original version back into the database... but not at a loss of quality... so by the way I read the rules... the quality must be at least as good as what is up there now.

That is exactly how I see it.  Thanks for, at the very least, proving that I am not completely out there.