I didn't say they didn't... but I was asked what I meant by blindly voting yes... and the idea that brought it up was instant approval as soon as it gets 10 yes votes... and as I said... with as much blindly voting yes that goes on I am completely against that idea. No more or less... no mention on how much weight the votes holds.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting DoubleDownAgain:

Quote:
If someone posts that they have updated the cast & crew from another approved profile I don't download or look at that profile.

Why should you, it's per the rules, even though it's as likely as not just a replication of old IMDB data.

---------------

By only quoting a section of this post one gets the impression that DoubleDownAgain never downloads or looks at copied data. This is not the case if one reads his entire post.

Quoting DoubleDownAgain:

Quote:


I'm confused what people mean by 'voting blind'?  I think people may have different interpretation of it.

When I vote, I look what is being updated.  Depending on the what is being updated I look at the notes.  If it makes sense and I believe it is following the rules than I vote 'Yes'.  If someone posts that they have updated the cast & crew from another approved profile I don't download or look at that profile.  The only time I might do that is if it is someone I'm not familiar with or something just looks wrong then I will do additional investigation.  But if the contribution is from someone I recognize as making quality submissions, supplied sufficient contribution notes and the updates look to follow the rules then I vote 'Yes'

My definition of 'voting blind' is just clicking 'Yes' without looking at the contributions and notes.?  I may be wrong, but it seems that many are of the opinion that every voter should investigate each link, etc.  While I think it is great that some do that, I don't think that should be the level of expectation.  If we were getting paid to do so that would be a different story.  At the end of the day its the screener's job to make sure the contribution is accurate, IMO.  Also IMO, the voters are in place to make the screener's job easier.

Copying data from the invelos' data is allowed per the rules and it has been my experience that the vast majority of profiles are taken directly from the DVD credits of the copied UPC/EAN and are not "just a replication of old IMDB data".

As far as the contribution voting period is concerned, I've changed my mind on the length of time contributions should be voted on.

After reading some of these posts, it seems to me that 2 or 3 days is not enough and 4 or 5 days would be a better answer.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I didn't say they didn't... but I was asked what I meant by blindly voting yes... and the idea that brought it up was instant approval as soon as it gets 10 yes votes... and as I said... with as much blindly voting yes that goes on I am completely against that idea. No more or less... no mention on how much weight the votes holds.

Your definition matches mine.  I always check the votes before I vote.  If I am the first I am much more likely to look into the details, especially if it is from someone I don't trust from first glance.

I like the current voting period length for this reason: If I'm gone for a weekend and don't have access to my desktop, I won't be able to vote on a contribution until Monday. If the voting period is shortened to 3 days (assuming the contribution is midday Friday), it will already be approved when I get back to my computer on Monday. Also I won't be able to check the accuracy of the contribution (changing of a common name or role name, etc.).

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
By only quoting a section of this post one gets the impression that DoubleDownAgain never downloads or looks at copied data. This is not the case if one reads his entire post.

I didn't intend to give that impression, especially since I'm well aware that his entire post is upthread for everyone to read.

Quote:
Copying data from the invelos' data is allowed per the rules and it has been my experience that the vast majority of profiles are taken directly from the DVD credits of the copied UPC/EAN and are not "just a replication of old IMDB data".

I know that it's per the rules (as I said in my post) and it's been my experience that that allowance replicates many "errors" in the database.  I'm glad to hear that your experiences are different.



Quoting DoubleDownAgain:

Quote:
The rules are simple.  Vote yes if the information is accurate.  Should everyone go back and rewatch the credits for every single Cast & Crew update to ensure it is accurate?  Is that the point of your insightful post?

I agree.  Not everyone.  No, my point was to express my disappointment that copying errors is OK just because they've made it into another profile.

---------------

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
I've set it at 4 days for now, let's see how this works in practice.

Does this minimum 4 day timeline also affect initial contributions?  If so, I'd argue that it should not since no one can vote on initial contributions which only require an approval.

the time for the vote doesn't matter, as long as the vote be disregarded. 

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Just to follow up on my previous post, there's a contribution up for vote right now that copies its cast and crew data from another approved profile (as allowed by the rules), and it contains six errors when compared to the actual film credits.  So much for the wisdom of allowing copying from approved profiles.

---------------

What profile is this?

If there is already an approved profile I may copy from it but I always try and re-verify the cast and crew, prior to submission, to makes sure the information is correct or hasn't changed from release to release.  It sure beats having to retype every single character.

I do wish there was an easier way to copy data from profiles which aren't in your collection however.  Currently, if I want to copy cast and crew data from an existing profile which isn't in my collection I have to download that profile copy the data and then delete that profile which is far from efficient.