Quoting I-Fling-Poo:

Quote:


Isn't this whole discussion kind of moot now that Ken has weighed in?

No we still have to settle who would have been right if he hadn't weighed in and what are the acceptable ways of being right and wrong. That's one perfectly good argument Ken can't wreck by weighing in.

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Quoting I-Fling-Poo:

Quote:


Isn't this whole discussion kind of moot now that Ken has weighed in?

No we still have to settle who would have been right if he hadn't weighed in and what are the acceptable ways of being right and wrong. That's one perfectly good argument Ken can't wreck by weighing in.

Maybe valid...IF anyone understands the issue and so far they haven't. So yeah this is now moot.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Absolutely correct! But at the end of the day when the screener declines the contribution, you still have your old errors AND are missing the new improvements. That's why I would not vote NO, if there are no new errors introduced. Instead I would correct the old existing errors with my own contribution afterwards, if I really want to have the errors fixed.

I can't vote that way.  Either the contribution is correct or it isn't.  If it isn't, then I vote no with a detailed comment, and let the screeners decide whether or not it should be accepted.

Of course you are entitled to do that.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
A non mandatory but polite private message to the originator of the improving but not completely fixing contribution may of course render my contribution unnecessary, if the original contributor is willing to correct the other existing errors as well.

A 'no' vote with comment does the exact same thing.  I honestly don't see what the big deal is.

The difference is that in my approach the chances are better that the contribution is accepted, if the contributor is not willing to correct the old existing errors. But you are correct, either way it's no big deal.

You have to accept that some users (me included) are not willing to correct some kind of errors according to the rules (maybe because they like the error better). BTW This does not mean that I would introduce new errors to my liking on purpose. If you deal with such a case, you can only lose when the contribution is declined, because you will miss valid data but still have the old errors. In those case I would prefer that the contribution is accepted even though there are still some errors left. That's why I would not vote 'No'.

Of course and conforming to Ken's statetement, your mileage may be different.

Ken, again, please lock this thread it has nowhere to go but down.

Skip

Bingo, give the man a ceegar. Thank you, Pete. That at least is part of it. The rest of it involves the whole thing that a couple of users, which I can only refer to as guerilla voting. The ONLY thing they can do is cast a No vote, when something is fixed and they do not vote Yes, I have to question their motives and frankly I think their motives are less than above board, shall we say. I have no idea what their motives are, but i don't think they are honest at all. That is rest of it.

I leave specific notes, MUCH more specific than most users do, explaining exactly what I am dealing with. IF I say I have edited the title for italics, THAT IS WHAT I DID, if I happen to spot a typo, I will fix that and note it.

Now let me expand upon this now that someone has gotten it because this important to me. My basic policy has not changed, I want to fix mistakes and for a very long time now I have had users asking me to get back to it. I finally decided to do so and in the last three weeks or so I have made somewhere around 400 Contributions about 150 or so of which are pending at any given moment. I would hope that richie and others would understand the importance of sending me a PM, I don't want to overlook something that needs correcting, but when dealing with this quantity of data it is easy to do. So I ask everyone politely, if you have an issue drop me a note, so I can fix it, if I think it is viable I will and always have.

And I will continue to not speculate along the insulting lines of one user.

Skip

I'm also trying to understand all the issues being brought up in this thread.

Skip, could you perhaps give some concrete examples of those errors you have found? I think it would be much easier to understand (at least for me). For example, something along the lines of:
UPC: XXX
what is in the database now: XXX
what is should be (corrected version) : XXX

That'll give a better idea of what's going on exactly. Are we talking about local variations where for example a different word is bolded in the overview, or are we talking about more serious issues (credit discrepancies, errors in the audio & subtitles, etc)?

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I am also going through my collection alphabetically trying to make the database match the rules. I would say approximately 1 in 4 has mistakes.

Even while doing my best to submit things correctly, I have not done so (the damn BY gets me  ). I check the no votes and my pms and carefully reread the relevant rules. If I have made a mistake I am happy to change it. If I feel that I am correct I usually pm the person and explain my rationale, if it isn't written in the contribution note, and let the screeners decide.

I believe that people who take the time to contribute to the database are doing so in a conscientious way. They are following the rules and submitting data based on those rules. If there is difference in opinion it should be done in a polite and respectful manner.

It is only in this way that more contributions will be submitted and the database can become better than it is. If care is taken and the rules followed, the database will eventually become better. Please note I said better and not perfect...there will never be perfection.

Well said.  You hit the nail square on the head. THANK YOU.

Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
The rest of it involves the whole thing that a couple of users, which I can only refer to as guerilla voting. The ONLY thing they can do is cast a No vote, when something is fixed and they do not vote Yes, I have to question their motives and frankly I think their motives are less than above board, shall we say. I have no idea what their motives are, but i don't think they are honest at all. That is rest of it.

Do you remember when you were accused of the same thing?

Quoting richierich:

Quote:
Maurice/Skip/Dr Pavlov - I note for many months you only ever vote on one of my many contributions if it is to cast a no vote with some sarcastic or insulting comment. You never vote yes, even when I know you have many of the titles.

I can't speak for richierich, but perhaps he's treating you as you have treated him. In my case, as I've stated before, since you have a habit of harrassing me in your contribution notes, I will not vote yes on your contributions. A yes vote, in my opinion, would condone and encourage your behavior. If you stop the harrassment, I'll reconsider.