Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I mean, if we all have to do the work anyway, why bother downloading cast and crew? 

That's being facetious.

No one is asking you to do the cast and crew entries yourself.

What you are being asked to do is either check the Credited As entries of someone's contributions or trust that they have correctly established the link.

I'm quite happy to check a couple of entries in a profile if it means more people will contribute. That's much better than people NOT contributing because they can't be bothered to face the firing squad for not writing War & Peace in their contribution notes.

The way I see it you have a choice - spend up to an hour adding cast and crew yourself... OR spend 10-15 minutes checking out a few Credited As entries in a profile. That's a no-brainer IMO.

That is an easy stand to take when, by your own admission, you are not seeing a lot of profile updates.  I, on the other hand, am seeing a lot.  I only own 1,078 DVDs yet I have cast 3,945 votes...and that doesn't include the titles I decided not to vote on.  Again, it is far easier for me to simply audit my own titles than it is for me to double check all those profiles.

And, while it may only be 10 - 15 minutes, that is time I have to spend, and Pete has to spend, and forget has to spend, etc., etc..  All because a few people don't want to spend the extra 10 or 15 seconds it takes to copy and paste the link into your notes.

Quote:
I know my data is correct. I also know it adds to the online db.
I also feel that if someone doubts the integrity of my work then the onus is on them to prove that it's untrustworthy - not on me to prove otherwise.

I am sorry, but that is a cop out.  Why would anyone, who doesn't know you, blindly trust you?  Trust is earned by showing that you have done what you say you have done.  It is not, however, earned by saying, "if you don't trust me, do it yourself."  Please understand, I mean no disrespect, but I don't trust anybody simply because they ask me to.  If anything, it makes me trust them even less. 

Quote:
I don't need to be spoonfed and I don't think anyone else should need to be either.

Who asked you to spoonfeed them?  All anyone asked is that you show your work.  I really don't know why that is such a difficult thing to do.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Use of the CLT will get you to the goal most of the time. Will it be 100% accurate? No. But it does balance competing goals.

If 'most of the time' is good enough for you, I won't argue.  It seems Ken has decided that it is o.k. with him as well.  For me, it just doesn't make sense.  Either we want proper linking or we don't.  There is no 'proper linking most of the time'...but, it seems, that's just me.

When it comes down to it for me it's a dig-my-heels-in stubborn issue. It's also a "jesus-haven't-I-done-enough-without-you-wanting-me-to-write-an-essay' thing.

There are a few people in this forum who do full audits. A very small few. Most people seem to do the easy stuff (which is also very helpful!).
But, when you do full audits on every single title that you own it starts to get you down when that work is questioned or criticised for no good reason.
I don't want my name in lights and I don't want a medal.

What I want is to be able to contribute my work for others to benefit from and to be left alone. I don't want people voting NO to contributions that add significant value to a profile because they THINK they know the rules better than everyone else.

What I want is for people to weigh up the benefit of gaining 5 correct pieces of information to a profile and POSSIBLY gaining ONE not-so-correct or dubious piece of information that may have to be checked. To me it's a no-brainer to accept the majority of good over the minority of bad.

It may seem unfair or even arrogant to expect others to double check my work. Well sorry but I don't care. Anyone who knows my contributions knows they can be trusted. Those people that don't know will learn soon enough when they check some of the information and find it to be correct.

I do exactly the same. There are people in this forum whose work I accept without question. I have learned that their work is always accurate. While there are others who claim to be abiding by the rules whose actual work turns out to be full of inaccuracies and personal preference.

Anyway that's all moot. Ken has made his decision. I, for obvious reasons, am very pleased. I just hope it results in more people contributing.

@Unicus...could the volume of updates/contributions you're seeing be something to do with the state of the online profiles for your collection? Maybe I see less out of my 5000 because I have done full audits prior to Profiler3.5 and there is less to be done on these profiles?

Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
I don't believe the community had any part in driving him away other than state he should follow the rules.

As far as I'm concerned, he did.

And as far as I'm concerned too. And you know what, I'm thinking about leaving these forums too as it only works on my nerves to constantly see the same people saying the same things over and over again, lecturing, belittleling and nitpicking.

I have to agree with T!M and Daddy DVD

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
I explained that earlier. Or rather I gave a reason.

When I'm updating I simply don't think about making a note of where I've surfed to for clarification. It simply isn't important to me so I don't register it.
I have the same problem with the ironing - it's not important to me so I don't use any brain power thinking about it.

Yes, you have given your reason, I simply don't understand it.  When I do an audit, and I will admit that I haven't done a lot here at invelos, I open notepad so that I can copy and paste my reference material into it for my contribution notes.  I don't do it because it is important to me, I do it because it might be important to the voters.  That's just the way I work.

Quote:
In my time I've done a lot of updates. A hell of a lot. And since I got onboard with the whole rules thing (it may have taken me a month or two when I first entered this forum) I've never once deviated from those rules deliberately.
I've always stated in my notes that I've taken all information from the credits/disc or box.

As do I but, for things that deviate from what is contained in the credits, disc, or box...like a common name...I include notes that are "useful and descriptive," with an emphasis on descriptive.

Quote:
But now a bunch of people in this forum took it upon themselves to police the Credited As function and impose their own set of rules on how it should be done. The same people who like to throw their weight around on every issue in this forum.

I take exception to that statement as it simply isn't true.  We did not impose our own set of rules on how it should be done.  As I said before, the rules tell us to make our notes "useful and descriptive."  All we have ever asked is that people follow that part of the rule.  Telling me that you added a common name, which I can easily see in the comparison window, is neither useful nor descriptive.

Quote:
And once again it has been established that no-one but Ken has the right to make decisions on how this database is maintained or contributed to.

I don't believe I have seen anyone claim otherwise. 

Quote:
You may not like Ken's decision but at least it IS KEN's decision.

Yes and, as always, I will do what Ken has asked.  Whether or not I like it is a non-issue.

Quote:
As for the volume of updates I'm seeing. I'm voting on lots - they're just not making it down the line. I've voted on 2342.

I meant it wasn't a lot when compared to titles owned.  Yes, you have voted on 2,343 contributions.  But that is out of 5,003 titles owned.  That works out to 47% of your collection.  I, on the other hand, have cast 3,945 votes for 1,078 titles owned.  That works out to 365% of my collection.

My point being, if I have to choose between auditing my own titles or double checking a contribution, based on the numbers, it is a no-brainer...I will audit my own titles.  Granted, all those changes weren't for cast and crew, but I hope you see my point.

Quote:
I can only assume that other contributions are being voted down for silly reasons or by people who seem to think they have a right to police the contribution rules without any justifiable reason. Oh...and because the contributions are rubbish and should be declined, too.

Again, we gave you the reason.  It is fairly clear that you don't agree with it, but none of us...at least the few that have posted...had malicious motives.

I have been going slowly through my collection and adding new crew for makeup, visual effects and other things.

But what I am doing is just entering the credited as name for all added people. It's taking me enough time just to do the updates without taking more time to find out their common names and then to verify that they are the same person or not.

For instance I think I have 3 people listed in my database for the same makeup artist: Cindy Williams, Cindy J. Williams and Cindy Jane Williams. But I'll let someone else determine the persons common name and to verify if they are all the same person or not.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

Quote:
But now a bunch of people in this forum took it upon themselves to police the Credited As function and impose their own set of rules on how it should be done. The same people who like to throw their weight around on every issue in this forum.

I take exception to that statement as it simply isn't true.  We did not impose our own set of rules on how it should be done.  As I said before, the rules tell us to make our notes "useful and descriptive."  All we have ever asked is that people follow that part of the rule.  Telling me that you added a common name, which I can easily see in the comparison window, is neither useful nor descriptive

I'm sorry but some users DID impose their own set of rules on this function.

Yes the rules state "useful and descriptive" - well that is a subjective statement as what's useful and descriptive to one person may not be the same to another.
However, if I saw "Added Credited As" in a CNote then I would have my doubts. However, "Added Credited As entries - researched on the internet and fully supported by the CLT" then I will accept that...especially as a simple CLT check will determine if it's a lie.

More importantly the rules state NOWHERE that you have to list sites you've visited. That is purely a preference of the forum members. No one else. Ken has stated that clearly enough.

So, if 'You have to supply details of the sites you visit to support your changes' isn't making up rules to police the Credited As then I don't know what is.

I've said it many times before - the forum is a very, very, very small percentage of the Profiler community and, when it boils down they have no power to dictate to ALL users how to use this program.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
(***)
It may seem unfair or even arrogant to expect others to double check my work. Well sorry but I don't care. Anyone who knows my contributions knows they can be trusted. Those people that don't know will learn soon enough when they check some of the information and find it to be correct.

As I said, this is an attitude I just don't understand.  For me, trust is earned, not demanded.  I always show my work so that there is never any doubt.  Different strokes I guess. 

Quote:
(***)
@Unicus...could the volume of updates/contributions you're seeing be something to do with the state of the online profiles for your collection? Maybe I see less out of my 5000 because I have done full audits prior to Profiler3.5 and there is less to be done on these profiles?

I honestly don't know what the issue is but it has made it difficult to contribute as I have to process updates...which currently number 543...before I can audit the title.  I am slowly getting back into my old groove and hope to have all my titles re-audited by the end of the year.