and we see how good the unpaid editor (screener) force worked out.   

It's easy for us to say Ken has to hire more people but that's not up to us. Although now that I think of it maybe he can get some stimulus money and create some jobs     

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
But I agree with everything you've said. The personal approach doesn't always mean nice PM's etc, but it does make it feel like the editors/screeners actually care taking that extra minute to let folks know why something has been declined or to even be involved in the forum. Just makes it feel more welcoming and that your efforts are not being declined with a standard note that can be really hard to figure out.

This has been brought up before and, from what I remember, Ken has stated that this just isn't possible.  The screeners don't have the time to address each and every decline.

I'm not entirely sure I believe the reasoning presented there. I would of course take Ken's word for it, but something about that reason just doesn't sit right with me.

Obviously I've never seen the behind the scenes stuff here, and can't claim to know how it works, I can only go off what I know. What I know is that my personal best for editing tickets on DVDSpot in a single day was somewhere between 600-800 tickets. Checking every single field in 800 contributions, sometimes having to take upwards of half an hour to verify the accuracy of a single ticket (sometimes being able to complete one in less than a minute) was a time consuming process, yes. However,  I never had a problem leaving a simple, but specific note to the user who submitted the ticket if I had to decline either part of the contribution, or the entire thing. “Declined Cast: Not entered in the last name, first name format” takes only a few seconds to type.

Of course, I didn’t have to leave a note on all 800 contributions in a single day, but neither would the screeners here. There are tons of contributions that go through completely accepted that obviously don’t require a note, as was the case at DVDSpot. And if partial acceptance was made available, it would reduce the time of having to address the declined parts anyway. If the only part of the contribution that was declined was the media company, a note wouldn’t necessarily be required, the user would know that’s the field they messed up on and re-check it.

The screeners aren’t the only ones doing the work. We are too. A lot of us bust our butts around here to try and get this database to be the best it can be, and we paid for it to boot. I don’t think a small step forward in personalizing this place to cut down on anger, frustration and confusion would be asking too much.

(By the way, if any of that came off as directed at you, it wasn’t mean to be, so please don’t take offense to anything I said… just stating my thoughts in a generalized manner).

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
I've suggested 1 before & agree with what you've said, for the reasons said. However, as much as I'd like to see them implemented I'm not sure they will be for the simple reason of the extra workload that would give to the Screeners. As it currently stands, it looks like they've got 3 options - Accept, Decline, Elevate. Well, 6 if you separate data & cover scans.

For 2, I don't really see this as a problem. In most cases when a "No" seems harsh, it's only because of the space in the field. Numerous times I've had to take out a lot of what I wanted to say because I simply couldn't fit it all in. That said, I don't object to the renaming.

As per many others I agree with Forget.

I'd just like to add that if I do have to miss too much out of the reasons for a No because of the field size I will usually send a PM to the user expanding upon my reasons and making sure they understand why I voted like I did which I have found often helps 'soften the impact' of a terse No reason and, many times, have had very nice PMs back from users who got to understand the Rules a little better because of it.

Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
I think that the extra workload for the screeners would very much depend on how a partial contribution acceptance system would be implemented. If e.g. (as mentioned earlier in this thread) all a screener would have to do to reject part of a contribution is to uncheck a checkbox belonging to a particular data field, the extra workload would be minimal.

Provided it could be implemented in a way along these lines, I agree with the OP.

I also agree with proposal #2. Whereas this might not make any difference to the usual suspects on these forums (including myself  ), it might very well affect beginners, especially if English is not their native tongue.

Thanks for bringing up that up about proposal 2. This is how I feel as well. While I don't think it will impact veterans, I do believe it would have a positive effect on new contributers. And since English is my native tongue, I can't comment on the other but I can see that as well.

While I understand many of you don't feel a "No" vote is offensive at all and should not be changed, what real purpose does it have at this point? Is it not only to notify the screener? It's not like you (generic) are really declining the information. You are merely giving a heads up to help the screener make a more educated decision. This is part of the reason why I see no reason for the "No" specifically because it leaves way to much room for opinion.

Furthermore, I probably didn't describe my reasoning well enough for including it in the first place. If proposal #1 were to be implemented, voting No would make even less sense unless the contribution only consisted of one field. Again pointing back to the meaning of a "No" vote, if there are multiple fields present and you only can vote once (I am not for the idea of multiple votes per contribution, one vote in my opinion is plenty as long as you are specific to what part of the contribution is incorrect), the "No" vote has lost it's meaning.

So for those who believe #1 should be implemented, but #2 should not, if you think things through to the end result of actually having partial contribution declines, #2 seems like a logical change (to me at least). A "No" vote in it's meaning makes no sense unless you were to have a separate vote per field.

So while I agree with you those who have said that a "No" vote here as it stands today doesn't seem to be a bit deal for us forum visitors (the minority), but we have seen on a number of occasions (at least I have since I joined last year) people getting offended by some no votes or at least taking them too personally. Usually these are newer contributers not one of the regulars around here. And that brings the question to mind of how often do people not choose to come to the forums to gripe about a No vote and just give up on the system? And really, what "harm" does the change really bring?

Got a little more wordy then I intended there... 

BTW, if I come off as attacking on anyone's opinions, I don't mean to. Just sharing my opinion on the matter and of course everyone has the right to their own. 

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
What I think needs to happen, is a mandatory tutorial, introduction, or something for new subscribers to explain the principle behind the program and the contribution system.  If, when I was a new user, somebody would have explained or coached that I did not have to make whole contributions, and I could contribute the sections that I wanted (with accuracy of course), i would have probably become more comfortable in a shorter period of time.

Longtime contributors to DVD Profiler should remember when we had to complete a tutorial before we were allowed to contribute.  It wasn't perfect (nothing ever is) but it covered most of the major areas of concern for contributors, especially new ones.