Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
What some people need to know is that some data can be incorrect even though they match the credited as roles of the rules and they can be correct while they don't. Sadly, it's not exact science and you need to have seen hundreds of credit listings to fully understand them.

Incorrect, Martin. It is an exact science, the data is presented ON SCREEN in the film credits, your job is NOT to interpret the data (which is why your comment was made) but to simply copy the data as prescribed in the Rules. The data is what is what it, users wanting to create their own interpretations(fiction) of the data is why we have all the discussions and arguments that we have, don't try to interpret, simply transcribe the data. This is hard I know since we are all volunteers, but i have to tell you that if I were paying you for data entry, most of you would have been terminated long ago, there is no room for interpretation, there are places that you can go to that will permit all the personal interpretation you desire, just not Profiler.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
What some people need to know is that some data can be incorrect even though they match the credited as roles of the rules and they can be correct while they don't. Sadly, it's not exact science and you need to have seen hundreds of credit listings to fully understand them.

Incorrect, Martin. It is an exact science, the data is presented ON SCREEN in the film credits, your job is NOT to interpret the data (which is why your comment was made) but to simply copy the data as prescribed in the Rules. The data is what is what it, users wanting to create their own interpretations(fiction) of the data is why we have all the discussions and arguments that we have, don't try to interpret, simply transcribe the data. This is hard I know since we are all volunteers, but i have to tell you that if I were paying you for data entry, most of you would have been terminated long ago, there is no room for interpretation, there are places that you can go to that will permit all the personal interpretation you desire, just not Profiler.

Skip

This is just not true. If we just copied the data as it is on the screen, most entries would look like 'DANNY DeVITO' or 'DANNY DEVITO'. But we don't enter it that way. Our rules state:

Quote:
Take Crew Credits from the film credits only; list names exactly as they are in the credits. Exception: If the credit information is entirely capitalized, use standard capitalization rules instead. 

As 'standard capitalization rules' for names are not well understood and not the same in all languages, the 'exact science' part does not apply.

pdf

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
What some people need to know is that some data can be incorrect even though they match the credited as roles of the rules and they can be correct while they don't. Sadly, it's not exact science and you need to have seen hundreds of credit listings to fully understand them.

Ah, but it is an exact science.  If the credit matches one of the roles allowed by the rules, then it is considered correct and can be entered.  If it doesn't, then it considered incorrect and can't.  The only time there is a problem is when people decide to ignore the rules in favor of personal preference.  Sadly, it seems that a lot of people are trying to do just that.

Entering roles which matches one of the roles allowed by the rules maybe considered correct but they do not have to be and don't need to be entered. If they don't match they may be entered but they, stricktly speaking, may not be contributed. The time they will be contributed don't have to be a problem if everyone agrees. I have seen numerous times data been approved although it didn't follow the rules while a voter indicated this in his disapproval. This for me means the database is to serve the public interest of the majority and not just that of somebody in particular.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Maretinb:

Sadly you are too well known for NOT following the Rules and then later your work if approved must be corrected. There are numerous times when the makority loses. But then you aren't alone in that area.

Skip

Actually, though I may well have had the occasional disagreement with him in the past, I find that Martin is currently one of the most reliable contributors we have, doing absolutely sterling work especially with regards to common names/credited and the adding of new 3.5 art credits. Thanks for all your great work, Martin!

Tim:

Granted he has gotten better, but...


Skip

Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:

Entering roles which matches one of the roles allowed by the rules maybe considered correct but they do not have to be and don't need to be entered.

Did I say they 'have' to be entered?  Did I say they 'need' to be entered?  No, I said they 'can' be entered.

Quote:
If they don't match they may be entered but they, stricktly speaking, may not be contributed.

Again, did I ever say otherwise?  What you do with your local db is your business and you business alone.  Nobody can tell you what to put there.

Quote:
The time they will be contributed don't have to be a problem if everyone agrees. I have seen numerous times data been approved although it didn't follow the rules while a voter indicated this in his disapproval. This for me means the database is to serve the public interest of the majority and not just that of somebody in particular.

So if somebody enters IMDb data, that does not match the credits in any way, it is considered to be correct once it gets approved?  I am sorry, but your logic is flawed on so many levels.  If what you say were true, then we wouldn't have rules.  We would have guidelines, like we did before, and majority would rule.

Using the fact that the screeners make mistakes, as justification for breaking the rules, is just idiotic.  I am sorry, but it is.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:

Entering roles which matches one of the roles allowed by the rules maybe considered correct but they do not have to be and don't need to be entered.

Did I say they 'have' to be entered?  Did I say they 'need' to be entered?  No, I said they 'can' be entered.

Quote:
If they don't match they may be entered but they, stricktly speaking, may not be contributed.

Again, did I ever say otherwise?  What you do with your local db is your business and you business alone.  Nobody can tell you what to put there.

Quote:
The time they will be contributed don't have to be a problem if everyone agrees. I have seen numerous times data been approved although it didn't follow the rules while a voter indicated this in his disapproval. This for me means the database is to serve the public interest of the majority and not just that of somebody in particular.

So if somebody enters IMDb data, that does not match the credits in any way, it is considered to be correct once it gets approved?  I am sorry, but your logic is flawed on so many levels.  If what you say were true, then we wouldn't have rules.  We would have guidelines, like we did before, and majority would rule.

Using the fact that the screeners make mistakes, as justification for breaking the rules, is just idiotic.  I am sorry, but it is.

I agree with you. We have rules for a reason. Majority opinions change over time and it would result in ping pong contributiions to say the least.

To refer to Martin's statement as "idiotic" seems a bit out of place to me. There are numerous other ways to strengthen your counterargument in a milder manner.

You mean like the Contribution that you have up right now,in which your provide absolutely NO DOCUMENTATION for Common Name usage, or SRP change air anything else, you simply summarize your changes. Your notes are brief and didn't take more than a few seconds to type, BUT they don't communicate anything.

Is that the kind of thing you are talking about, Martin.

Skip