First I want to apologize about my English, that is not my natural language. I can read it quite well, but it's far more difficult for me to write correctly. I hope I'll be understandable.

I made a remark in another topic concerning the contributions, and I wanted to express here more precisely some of my ideas about the contribution system, which is becoming more and more demanding, I even would say off-putting.

I read, years before,  many complains on Intervocative forums about endless changes on profiles when people were fighting to change "Warner Bros." in "Warner Bros" or similar. I must say that it was a situation that didn't exist everywhere, for example, in the French zone 2, generally profiles were submitted only once or twice, and there were mostly only significant changes, and if somebody wanted to have his name in the contribution list, he was not immediately replaced by somebody else who wanted to come back to the previous profile. I have in fact never experienced on any profile the problems that seemed to be a  pest in the US zone 1 database. Anyway, I totally agreed with the necessity to set general rules so that the databases may be at least correct. But in fact, I preferred to find a 90% accurate profile than no profile at all.

To avoid ping pong contributions, mostly English speaking people worked hard together to elaborate rules that must be followed, but I would say without any judgement. At this point, I really disagree with the results. I'll give some examples:
-Overview must be what is written on the cover. OK for 80% of the overviews, but when you get an advertisement text which is obviously uninteresting, I prefer to replace it (or to find in the database), with something intelligent.
-Cast must be as listed in the credits of the movie. Yes, but sometimes you find orthographic faults in the roles and I don't really see the good reason to keep them, and when French actor Christophe Lambert is named Christopher Lambert, for example, I don't see the interest to have two people in the database. So there are endless discussions to use "credited as" formulas that complicate the situation without solving totally the problem (and I don't speak of John Smithee…)
-Technical specifications must be those on the cover, but sometimes they are wrong…

Now, most of the contributions are refused if you do not prove everything, some people speaking of screen caps to justify your contribution of cast list (!!!). At this point, I say STOP!!!
I understand purists that want everything perfect, and who have time to spend in the impossible quest of the profile that will (not) please everybody. But many contributors as myself, who love their collection, and who find dvdprofiler a wonderful tool  to catalogue it, have no time to spend to elaborate a profile which can be possibly accepted, than to change it so that it can be used in their local collection. I contributed nearly 400 profiles for Invelos, and probably as many with Intervocative, and I think they were "correct", even if other users wanted to change some details. Now, I will not fight to have my contributions accepted. But, once again, I would have preferred to find a "correct" profile, and change 10% if necessary, than no profile at all, which was the case for most of my recent purchases, showing clearly that the system is going in the wrong way (at least for some countries)…

To finish, I want to precise that  I'm not at all frustrated by the refusal of my contributions. My database is as nearly exactly what I want, I just thought it was good to contribute for the others. But I work 12 hours per day, and I've really no time to spend more on the profiles than I do, if I want sometimes to watch my movies.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
First I want to apologize about my English, that is not my natural language. I can read it quite well, but it's far more difficult for me to write correctly. I hope I'll be understandable.

Don't apologize, your written English is fine.

Quote:
-Overview must be what is written on the cover. OK for 80% of the overviews, but when you get an advertisement text which is obviously uninteresting, I prefer to replace it (or to find in the database), with something intelligent.

The problem is when you replace what is on the cover (interesting or not) with your own text, I may not agree with your text and change it to my text.  Then someone else comes along and disagrees with me and changes it again.  If the overview matches the cover exactly, there can be no argument that it's wrong or should be changed.

Quote:
-Cast must be as listed in the credits of the movie. Yes, but sometimes you find orthographic faults in the roles and I don't really see the good reason to keep them, and when French actor Christophe Lambert is named Christopher Lambert, for example, I don't see the interest to have two people in the database. So there are endless discussions to use "credited as" formulas that complicate the situation without solving totally the problem (and I don't speak of John Smithee…)

There is no "Credited as" formula.  If the credit is "Christopher Lambert" that is what you should show in the cast list - even if you KNOW it should be "Christophe Lambert."  The issue of "credited as" versus "common name" is still a work in progress (as it's been for a number of years.  Eventually Ken will come up with a solution that works, but until that time arrives, we can only show what is in the film credit to be sure we're not overwritten by a later contribution.

Quote:
-Technical specifications must be those on the cover, but sometimes they are wrong…

Technical specifications are supposed to come from the disc not the cover.  Data on the cover should be used to validate what data comes from the disc.  For example, if the cover says the aspect ratio is 1.85:1 but you can demonstrate through observation (maybe using a Ruler program) that the correct aspect ratio is 1.78:1, you can make that change as long as you explain in your notes how you can prove that it's 1.78:1 not 1.85:1.

Also, the suggestion about providing screen caps for cast members is only needed for uncredited actors.  If you want to add someone who doesn't have a film credit, a screen cap will show the reviewers and voters that you have found that person in the film so he/she can be added as uncredited.

Quote:
To finish, I want to precise that  I'm not at all frustrated by the refusal of my contributions. My database is as nearly exactly what I want, I just thought it was good to contribute for the others. But I work 12 hours per day, and I've really no time to spend more on the profiles than I do, if I want sometimes to watch my movies.

I can appreciate your time problems as I am fully employed, too.  However, I still try to be accurate if I am going to contribute a title or changes to the database.  If I can't find the time to do it, I won't.

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:
...... If I can't find the time to do it, I won't.

Thanks for your very precise answer. In fact, I perfectly know all what you wrote.

What I mean, is that those demanding rules will drive a lot of people not to contribute anymore (I know at least  one person). And for countries where very few people contribute, where the problems of frequent changes for details don't exist, the result will be a poor database, and then less people interested to buy the product...

Quoting kahless:

Quote:
surfeur51
I agree:
some closed-minded and nitpicking rules will definitely have the effect that possible precious contributors will be scared and stop contributing. We should be aware that we don't have to decide how to reduce the global warming of our planet - we 're talking about dvd's!...

But on the other hand, tight rules may also attact contributors because they know that their work will not be replaced within minutes by someone who see things differently.

What I would recommend with the Overview is to enter it exactly how it is on the back cover.  Then after you submit the profile, edit it to remove the uninteresting bits and lock the Overview.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
-Cast must be as listed in the credits of the movie. Yes, but sometimes you find orthographic faults in the roles and I don't really see the good reason to keep them, and when French actor Christophe Lambert is named Christopher Lambert, for example, I don't see the interest to have two people in the database. So there are endless discussions to use "credited as" formulas that complicate the situation without solving totally the problem (and I don't speak of John Smithee…)

Cast linking was broken before we had the "common name linking feature" if you followed the rules and credited as credited in the film credits.  Orthographic faults as you might call them, fixing them the way you like them may have solved the linking issue in your local data base but, didn't mean it came close to solve any issue with the online DB.  I really do feel that Ken is trying to work out a solution that will allow actors with different names or orthorgraphic faults to be linked.  This solution may not come as quickly as some of us want.  But, we had no linking for actors with different names in v2.5 unless we decied not to follow the screen credits and enter them how they may already be in our local data base.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
-Technical specifications must be those on the cover, but sometimes they are wrong…

That is correct and there is nothing wrong in the rule to contribute it as DVD actually is.  All you have to do is in your contribution notes explain how you determined it to be wrong. Contributors do it all the time for Sound, Aspect Ratios, Region Coding, and ect.

I think some are making more out of what Ken has asked,  he said don't take information from third party sources and contribute them to the online DB.  And asked contributors to follow the rules, the rules really haven't changed that drastically from v2.5 to what they are now.  Only difference I can see is he is now enforcing the rules which contributors should have been following all along.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

So now they have become RULES and they MUST be followed.

Is it possible for you, just one second, to consider that YOUR problem in the zone 1 database DOESN'T exist everywhere, and that YOU made a system that will prevent people to contribute, especially where they do not see any avantage to all those rules that let think to religion wars.. You don't want to discourage people, but you DO.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
What I mean, is that those demanding rules will drive a lot of people not to contribute anymore (I know at least  one person). And for countries where very few people contribute, where the problems of frequent changes for details don't exist, the result will be a poor database, and then less people interested to buy the product...

My feelings exactly