Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
I'd much rather have 30 profiles with filled out cast lists, two of which contain one or two errors, than 30 profiles with sparse cast lists that have no errors.

Luckily, so does Ken...  Personally, I'm afraid I'm a perfectionist, but hey, what can I do about it? 

Unfortunately though, it's that reason that the CLT results are often useless & need to be double checked.

Exactly right, Forget.

Must I say it again just because says we can does not mean we should. The people who are willing to settle for less than the best, can only benefit by the work of those of us who want the BEST and will take no exceptions to it. However, those who are willing to settle for less are of benefit only to themselves.

Gotta run, see about midnight. Have fun boys n girls.

Skip

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Unfortunately though, it's that reason that the CLT results are often useless & need to be double checked.

Not from my contributions, in any case: they're all 100% "as credited".

Except, let's take your example -

Quote:
- The 'Con Air' DVD's have a credit for "David Chappelle", while the Blu-ray versions have "Dave Chappelle". Screenshots of both versions here.

While you knew this one, it's also just as possible that there are others that you don't. If you'd submitted David to a Blu-ray release then it most certainly isn't as credited.

How can you say they're "as credited" without being able to check the credits of a SPECIFIC release?

Show me where I've made such an error. I will only propagate cast and crew data when I'm absolutely convinced that no credit variations exists. I do extensive research to check up on this, and I am in a position where I can usually physically check several different copies: both from different formats and different regions. You'd be surprised at the vast amounts of work I actually put in - believe it or not. All in all, I am absolutely convinced that I have never propagated an error due to these alledged credit variations. Again: if you think I did, show me the occasion. It's easy accusing someone of something that might have happened - but it hasn't.

More importantly, as you well know, I have decidedly not done anything that wasn't specifically allowed by the rules and/or Ken's public clarifications. In short: if anything, I've merely been following the rules, and none of you have been able to catch me making an error. Instead of focusing on the thousands and thousands of errors that I have corrected, you choose to focus on the highly unlikely (and unsubstantiated!) possibility that or or two errors might have been introduced into the database.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Show me where I've made such an error.

Ghostbusters (043396249462) Your notes on May 20, 2009 (bolding is yours):

Quote:
Added 3.5 art crew, taken exactly as credited from the credits of the DVD under EAN 5-050582-267570, in which they have already been accepted. Also corrected Ernie Hudson's role name from "Winston Zeddmore" to "Winston Zeddemore".

I corrected it back to the credited name on June 16th and started this thread hoping to get people to check their credits (still a lot of bad Ghostbusters credits though)

The Lake House (012569810327), your notes on Mar 4, 2009 (bolding is yours):

Quote:
The contribution system automatically deleted the period of the end of the rating details. It also automatically converted 2.4:1 into 2.40:1, as it should have been entered in the first place. Corrected cast and crew, all re-verified exactly as credited from the actual film credits.

I remember downloading profile updates on a Saturday morning (yours was approved on Friday, March 6, 2009) and was puzzled by how no one had caught the tilde over the 'o' in Tomas.  I watched the film later that day and saw it was not a tilde but a unicode symbol we can't reproduce.

I got the Blu-ray in May. It had the same error.  I corrected that (submitted May 20, 2009) and look around and saw that every copy of The Lake House had the exact same error (random sampling shows you making updates to all i found around Mar 3-4).  I started this thread detailing the propagated error.

Are these due to regional credit variations.  I can't say, i can only tell you about what i own.  But they are propagated errors.

Well, all I can say is please don't do any of the 60's/70's Italian westerns, or the Hong Kong cinema.  Those credits can be different in every single region, depending on which print they sourced. 

I don't know why you guys even bother.... Tim will not EVER budge on his holier than thou attitude (cause it has been approved by Ken)... The fact that he himself is supplying evidence that he is wrong will never matter, as he refuse to be called upon such a notion.

I've given up a long time ago, but please keep it up - maybe sometime he will understand....

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Show me where I've made such an error. I will only propagate cast and crew data when I'm absolutely convinced that no credit variations exists. I do extensive research to check up on this, [emphasis mine]

I doubt I'm alone in this but I think your claim of doing extensive research would be much more believable if you documented that research instead of refusing to provide the documentation because the rules don't require you to.

Quote:
and I am in a position where I can usually physically check several different copies: both from different formats and different regions. You'd be surprised at the vast amounts of work I actually put in - believe it or not. [emphasis mine]

Again, no documentation - no reason to believe you.

Quote:
All in all, I am absolutely convinced that I have never propagated an error due to these alledged credit variations. Again: if you think I did, show me the occasion. It's easy accusing someone of something that might have happened - but it hasn't.

In about 30 minutes, tweeter came up with two examples where you did.

Quote:
More importantly, as you well know, I have decidedly not done anything that wasn't specifically allowed by the rules and/or Ken's public clarifications. In short: if anything, I've merely been following the rules, and none of you have been able to catch me making an error.

Again, it only took tweeter about a half hour after your challenge to come up with two errors.

Quote:
Instead of focusing on the thousands and thousands of errors that I have corrected, you choose to focus on the highly unlikely (and unsubstantiated!) possibility that or or two errors might have been introduced into the database.

If those thousands and thousands of errors are in a number of different regions, it would be difficult for anyone to know what the errors were, if they in fact were errors, or if your "corrections" were actually correct.  How can we know for sure that you actually did correct thousands and thousands of errors?  Show us some proof other than "because I said so and I'm a trustworth, hardworking fellow" and maybe we'll come around.