Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
What i know is that bad data got into ther database

Once again: no!! Good data got in the database - as you well know.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Tracer was wrong and if you voted to suppprt it then you too were wrong.

I did vote "yes", indeed. If memory serves me right, so did you. And rightly so.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Tim:

You didn't cite the CLT in your notes, you didn't cite ANYTHING. You just pulled it out of you %^&

Skip

Actually if you look at the notes I contributed them.  Also if you look at the date it was done in 2007 when Ken hadn't defined on how exactly we are to determine common names nor was there a Credit Lookup Tool.  I can't remember exactly how I determined these common names since it has been over a year.  But, I can tell you it wasn't by using IMDB because I don't trust their data to begin with.

As far as the minimal notes as you (Skip) probably remember there was a time that Ken limited the number of contribution notes that got displayed.  So I also had to scale down my notes because of this change.  I haven't made a contribution in a long time and it appears Ken has allowed more of the contribution notes to be displayed now.

Just one last thought.

All personal preference items belong in your personal database. If you want/don't want something, make that change in your personal database, lock the profile and leave the rest of us alone.

Quoting jmbox:

Quote:
Skip

Instead of removing correct data with no documentation, why don't you just document it?

Or do you not wish to have a link between Jacky Bisset and Jacqueline Bisset in your local database? Seems crazy when you know they are the same person.

Plenty of undocumented data gets added by "New contribution" or the initial data load. New documentation is better than removal.

James

I totally agree with you James.

Dirk

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Skip talks a good game about garbage getting into the database, but the examples mentioned here (Jacqueline Bissett and Jean-Paul Belmondo) are hardly garbage.  Skip is more interested in having his definition of "accuracy" enforced than he is in actually having accurate data.  It makes absolutely no sense to try to remove valid, accurate, true data merely because at some time in the past someone entered it without documentation.

There is plenty of "real" garbage in the database to go after without destroying valid information just to prove some point. 

Posting three or four pages of unrelated contribution notes doesn't prove your point, BTW.

I know garbage when I see it, and the examples of Bisset and Belmondo just ain't it.  To try to remove these data because they weren't "properly" documented is pure and simple a waste of everyone's time.  And, just for the record, Skip, you are not the only one whose time is valuable.  So stop wasting mine.

If you want to go after garbage date, go right ahead.  Just make sure it's garbage you're after and not trying to make someone else look bad.

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Both of you should read through the rules again. Even new contributions are to be properly documented.

But at the start it was physically impossible to document new additions to the database. Are you seriously saying all that data should be removed simply because it wasn't documented?

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
Quoting jmbox:

Quote:
Skip

Instead of removing correct data with no documentation, why don't you just document it?

Or do you not wish to have a link between Jacky Bisset and Jacqueline Bisset in your local database? Seems crazy when you know they are the same person.

Plenty of undocumented data gets added by "New contribution" or the initial data load. New documentation is better than removal.

James

I totally agree with you James.

Dirk

Both of you should read through the rules again. Even new contributions are to be properly documented.

Dan, what does this have to do with reading the rules? It's about that the data is in the database and it's correct. We all know that. Yes, documentation is missing (and that's against the rules) but the data is still correct and already in the database. Why not just document it? Why removing good data?

Dirk

Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
Quoting jmbox:

Quote:
Skip

Instead of removing correct data with no documentation, why don't you just document it?

Or do you not wish to have a link between Jacky Bisset and Jacqueline Bisset in your local database? Seems crazy when you know they are the same person.

Plenty of undocumented data gets added by "New contribution" or the initial data load. New documentation is better than removal.

James

I totally agree with you James.

Dirk

Both of you should read through the rules again. Even new contributions are to be properly documented.

Dan, what does this have to do with reading the rules? It's about that the data is in the database and it's correct. We all know that. Yes, documentation is missing (and that's against the rules) but the data is still correct and already in the database. Why not just document it? Why removing good data?

Dirk

I highlighted the portion of his statement I take issue with. Re-read it.