Quote:
At first, I had voted that if you tackle a specific field in your contribution, you should make sure it is both correct and complete.

But then, I started thinking a little more. And the precedent it would create actually defeats the purpose of the program as a collaborative effort. There are fields where you have no choice but to make them complete and correct, as they contain only simple data. But Cast? Crew? especially those multi-episode divided ones, should I really be expected to verify every single entry just because I noticed a typo in the directors name? 

So I changed my vote. I think a contribution should add correct data, but if the error was present before, you can't demand that it be corrected.

Quote:
The rules also state for overview that you are to make sure that all words that appear in bold or italics are idenetified with the "" characters. Not just the oens that you think should be idnetified.

Quote:
If this flies it has to apply to ALL datasets equally, NO eexceptions, Cast and crew INCLUDED.

Skip

Quote:
Well, this poll has only gone six hours and it's almost an overwhelming 3 to 1 saying that you shouldn't be required to complete a field for your contribution to be accepted.

So, Skip, it seems you were right the other day after-all.


On to the next poll:


I'm going to reword this thing so that cast and crew are excluded and see if the results are the same.

Quote:
I think the poll above is misleading - the most popular option at the moment does on the surface sound the most sensible one.
But the reason this poll got started in the first place was because there was a submission which corrected some but not all errors in an overview.
Are we saying that just because someone didn't actually create the initial error that we must vote yes, even though we know incorrect data is being submitted?
In my opinion, if a contributor submits a field, then they are responsible for making sure that all data is correct, whether it's theirs or not.
As another user summed it up very well - are we seriously saying that if someone corrected "Alfrod Hotchcick" to "Alfrod Hitchcock" then we are to vote yes? That seems ridiculous to me!

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I think the poll above is misleading - the most popular option at the moment does on the surface sound the most sensible one.
But the reason this poll got started in the first place was because there was a submission which corrected some but not all errors in an overview.
Are we saying that just because someone didn't actually create the initial error that we must vote yes, even though we know incorrect data is being submitted?
In my opinion, if a contributor submits a field, then they are responsible for making sure that all data is correct, whether it's theirs or not.
As another user summed it up very well - are we seriously saying that if someone corrected "Alfrod Hotchcick" to "Alfrod Hitchcock" then we are to vote yes? That seems ridiculous to me!

This is the best example I have seen so far.  As I told Skip, this is the path we are headed down and I don't think it is a place we want to go.  I am glad somebody else sees what I see.  While it doesn't prove I am not crazy, at least it proves I am not alone.

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
As another user summed it up very well - are we seriously saying that if someone corrected "Alfrod Hotchcick" to "Alfrod Hitchcock" then we are to vote yes? That seems ridiculous to me!

Why should we vote no? The result after the update is definitely better than before.