| Author |
Message |
| Registered: September 30, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,805 |
| | Posted: | | | | How closely are the yes / no votes looked at, and how much do they actually weigh in towards a contribution being accepted or declined?
I'm asking simply because recently there was a submission for the Canadian edition of Lars and the Real Girl to put in a front and back cover scan for it. The UPC of the DVD is 043396255951. The back cover scan had a UPC of 043396255975.
I voted no on the contribution, and clearly stated why it should be declined or withdrawn. That the UPC on the back didn't match the actual UPC of the DVD it was being submitted for.
Today I go to refresh updated profiles, and there it is, accepted and waiting to download.
It's not a HUGE deal, I'll just have to scan out the proper cover and submit that, but with my no vote clearly stated, why wasn't the cover declined in the first place? | | | | The night is calling. And it whispers to me soflty come and play. | | | | Last edited: by Merrik |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Based on your information, this should not have been approved, the screeners are human and they do make mistakes.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: September 30, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,805 |
| | Posted: | | | | No no, I totally get that, I'm not trying to place blame or point anyone out or start an arguement or anything. Promise!
I'm just wondering when a screener goes to approve it, are the yes / no votes right there for them to read or whatever?
It's entirely possible someone just meant to click no and hit yes, I'm completely aware of that.
I'm just wondering how much of a part the yes / no votes play in a contribution getting accepted or declined. Can a screener completely ignore 10 no votes and think a contribution should be approved anyway, or vice versa?
That kind of stuff.
Sorry if I came off sounding bitchy.
Like I said, I'll just replace the cover, but was wondering about some other stuff. | | | | The night is calling. And it whispers to me soflty come and play. | | | | Last edited: by Merrik |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yes, the screeners do get to see the votes placed on submissions, and the reasons given. However the final decision is with the screener - even a submission with all no votes can be accepted if the screener disagrees with them.
However in this case, it sounds more like an oversight. Unfortunate, but they do happen.
Edit: I think we will see a lot of mistakes with submissions at the minute, just because of the sheer volume that are going through the system with the new data fields available in 3.5. I think we're just going to have to be extra vigilant and make sure we're voting correctly as best we can to help the screeners as much as we can. | | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
|
| Registered: September 30, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,805 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Yes, the screeners do get to see the votes placed on submissions, and the reasons given. However the final decision is with the screener - even a submission with all no votes can be accepted if the screener disagrees with them.
However in this case, it sounds more like an oversight. Unfortunate, but they do happen. Fair enough! Thanks for the info! Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Edit: I think we will see a lot of mistakes with submissions at the minute, just because of the sheer volume that are going through the system with the new data fields available in 3.5. I think we're just going to have to be extra vigilant and make sure we're voting correctly as best we can to help the screeners as much as we can. You ain't kidding! I almost dread checking the Unvoted Pending Updates each day! They're coming in fast and crazy!!  | | | | The night is calling. And it whispers to me soflty come and play. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can tell you that when I was building the headshot database and reviewing thousands of headshots, sometimes the mouse finger twitches and I'm left sitting there thinking "WTF did I just accept?" |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | You know what they say, Doc. _ _it happens.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: May 9, 2007 | | Posts: 254 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
I can tell you that when I was building the headshot database and reviewing thousands of headshots, sometimes the mouse finger twitches and I'm left sitting there thinking "WTF did I just accept?" You get a great big  for making me laugh.  Thank you. | | | | "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world because they'd never expect it." - Jack Handey |
|
| Registered: May 9, 2007 |  Posts: 1,536 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Edit: I think we will see a lot of mistakes with submissions at the minute, just because of the sheer volume that are going through the system with the new data fields available in 3.5. I think we're just going to have to be extra vigilant and make sure we're voting correctly as best we can to help the screeners as much as we can. If only people would limit their contributions to the new data fields, and not try to sneak in some of their local preferences at the same time. Or they just never bothered to check that they're up to date before amending... | | | | Hans |
|
| Registered: July 7, 2007 | | Posts: 284 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Staid S Barr: Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
Edit: I think we will see a lot of mistakes with submissions at the minute, just because of the sheer volume that are going through the system with the new data fields available in 3.5. I think we're just going to have to be extra vigilant and make sure we're voting correctly as best we can to help the screeners as much as we can.
If only people would limit their contributions to the new data fields, and not try to sneak in some of their local preferences at the same time. Or they just never bothered to check that they're up to date before amending... That's silly. If you have changes waiting and changed some of the new fields, why would you not submit those aswell. It's not like everything else has stopped with the introduction of the new fields.. | | | My DVD's
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard drive? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's not as silly as you might think, Raymond. Though i understand what you are thinking, as long as ANY data submitted conforms to the Rules and is properly documented then it should be fine. The problem is that there are users who use this period of time to subvert the Rules for their own purposes, couple that with users who don't pay attentin to what they are voting on and demand that we all do things correctly, by the time it gets to the screeners we have a recipe for disaster.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: May 9, 2007 | | Posts: 1,536 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RaymondG: Quote:
Quoting Staid S Barr:
Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
Edit: I think we will see a lot of mistakes with submissions at the minute, just because of the sheer volume that are going through the system with the new data fields available in 3.5. I think we're just going to have to be extra vigilant and make sure we're voting correctly as best we can to help the screeners as much as we can.
If only people would limit their contributions to the new data fields, and not try to sneak in some of their local preferences at the same time. Or they just never bothered to check that they're up to date before amending...
That's silly. If you have changes waiting and changed some of the new fields, why would you not submit those aswell. It's not like everything else has stopped with the introduction of the new fields.. Of course I have no problem with well documented new contributions, but I do have a problem with contributions where the comments are all (and only) about the new type of data, but the contributor actually checked a lot of other boxes as well. As an example, just look at all the "(voi" and "(uncredi" in the cast, where the cast never needed an update in the first place. Just sloppy work. | | | | Hans |
|