Quoting Agrare:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I cast 50-100 Contribution votes every day.

Reality check: your user profile indicates that you've cast 7757 contribution votes since March 13, 2007. That means about 20 a day.

This got me a negative reputation vote?! I was simply stating facts; I didn't pass judgement, nor did I make a smart-alec remark about it... 

Simply stating facts would not require starting off the post with 'Reality check' that could be interpreted as an attack, or at least antagonistic behavior. Also, was that post really necessary? I find it interesting that 29 hours after the original post you find it necessary to go and prove Skip's comment inaccurate. Could be interpreted as holding a grudge and/or following Skip around to prove him wrong.

BTW, it wasn't me that gave the negative...though I did find your post inappropriate. (and Martin's laughing at it even more so)

-Agrare

Don't you think you are a little bit away from being neutral? - I can't find any offense in correcting mistakes. Either it was a unintended mistake or typo, then I'd welcome the correction, or it was intended, then the red flag belongs to Skip for trying to foul us...

Regards, AA

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:

Don't you think you are a little bit away from being neutral? - I can't find any offense in correcting mistakes. Either it was a unintended mistake or typo, then I'd welcome the correction, or it was intended, then the red flag belongs to Skip for trying to foul us...

Regards, AA

in all honesty, no I don't think I'm a bit away from being neutral. the reason being that my response was answering T!M's question as to why he got a negative vote for his post. I offered some reasons as to what may cause someone to give a red flag for his post. If he didn't actually want answers/comments/opinions on why, then he shouldn't have posted the fact that it received a negative mark in the thread. Unless he did so simply so someone gives him a countering green, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, so I don't believe that was the reason.

secondly, I think the reasons I gave are valid. Was it really necessary to start off with 'Reality check:'? its a pretty confrontational way to simply point out an error, that coupled with the time delay for the correction gives it a more, 'Haha, caught you in a lie' feel to it.

Thirdly, as stated in another thread, it appears (imho) that there is a different standard for what warrants a red (or a green) depending on who the poster is. Ask yourself honestly, if Skip has posted that 'error correction' with the same wording, do you think he would be more likely to receive and\or receive more red marks for it than say a user that has 2 stars? If you would honestly apply the same measuring stick to the post, then I applaud you. But unfortunately I don't believe everyone would. Maybe I'm too cynical, maybe I'm just having a bad day and nit picking things and taking them in a more negative manner than they should be.

I have nothing to gain by coming to Skip's defense, and as I don't think he needs me to as he is plenty willing to defend himself when he deems necessary. The kicker here is, I sometimes think Skip defends himself when there is nothing needing to be defended from. And I also sometimes don't agree with his opinion on things, and even sometimes think he's flat out wrong. But I have my opinion, he has his, you have your's and everyone else has theirs. All I can do is express my opinion the best I can if I open someones eyes to an alternate view or allow them to understand what that opinion is based on great. If not, oh well, the world continues to spin and I have no trouble sleeping at night so its no skin off my back.

In this case, I see the post as being inappropriate (not enough so that I gave it a red, as I have given out no reds at all) you do no, difference of opiniont. I stated why, I thought I gave sufficient reason as to how it can be perceived negatively, apparently I didn't, that doesn't change my view on it. Maybe it's simply a difference in language why I read it how I did, maybe i just read it at a point where I was in a negative mood so interpreted with a more negative tone.

But in the end, does it really matter? Neither has anything to do with editing existing covers and contributing them which is (and should remain) the topic of this thread, which means I probably just wasted a bunch of my time writing this post when I could have been going home to get dinner instead of further derailing the thread....maybe I should give myself a negative  *

-Agrare

* please do note take that as me stating I would like red marks

neutral voting for profiles: it's only purpose to have those not on your list for voting.

So jasja replied me and indeed admitted he was editing existing covers. The response he's giving is disappointing. He said:

English:
The only thing I'm doing is adjusting the black&white levels. To me it's not about the quality because you can't see it on my site, the pictures are too small for it. I only wanted to edit the worst ones, but now I'm doing them all. And now as I see how many postives I'm getting I think I'm doing a good job.
And to scan all those covers again....a lot of work and not necessarily better.
At the end I will only scan the covers that are really bad. That's only a few.

Nederlands:
Het enige wat ik doe is de black levels en de white levels aanpassen. Ik zorg dat zwart ook echt zwart is en dat wit ook echt wit is. Het gaat mij er niet om dat de kwaliteit beter wordt want dat zie je toch niet op mijn site. daar zijn de plaatjes te klein voor. Ik wilde eest alleen de echt slechte plaatjes doen maar als je eenmaal bezig bent....
En als ik zie hoeveel positieve reacties er zijn, (soms ook negatief, smaken verschillen) vind ik zelf dat ik over het algemeen goed bezig ben.
En om nou al die covers opnieuw in te scannen.... beetje erg veel werk en niet per definitie beter.
Aan het einde van de rit ga ik de allerslechtste covers opnieuw inscannen.  Dat zijn er maar een paar.

What I can't believe are all the "yes" votes and the comments about how much clearer and sharper the scans were. Nearly all the submissions I've seen there was very little improvement and sometimes the images were worse than what was in the online. I think I've only seen one where he managed to improve a washed out black cover, and that was only a slight improvement - not the "significantly higher quality" the rules ask for.

I have seen a number of covers coming through that are questionable relative to significant improvement, many times see people claim to see a difference and i see virtually identical images.<shrugs> Iknow significant improvement is in the eye of the beholder, but just to throw up scans, NO. Gerri says to describe where you think your improvements are which is very important withsoem of what i have seen of late.

Skip

Personally I see no problem at all in people actually doing this and submitting their 'improved' covers.

However, if the cover is improved in one area and made worse in another by the re-editing, or people feel that there isn't a significant enough improvement to warrant a Yes vote then they have a perfect right to vote that way and say why.

I don't see what's so controversial... a cover is submitted, it gets voted on and the screeners provide final arbitration as with any other update.

FWIW though I personally would prefer a few less people trying to get the last iota of improvement over what are already perfectly acceptable scans and contribute a few more scans that either aren't in the database or the present image is woeful! Each to their own, though, I guess!

Quoting Voltaire53:

Quote:
Personally I see no problem at all in people actually doing this and submitting their 'improved' covers.

However, if the cover is improved in one area and made worse in another by the re-editing, or people feel that there isn't a significant enough improvement to warrant a Yes vote then they have a perfect right to vote that way and say why.

I don't see what's so controversial... a cover is submitted, it gets voted on and the screeners provide final arbitration as with any other update.

FWIW though I personally would prefer a few less people trying to get the last iota of improvement over what are already perfectly acceptable scans and contribute a few more scans that either aren't in the database or the present image is woeful! Each to their own, though, I guess!

I agree with what you're saying. But this case is not about acceptable scans, most of them are horrible that become more horrible sometimes. And coming from a person that doesn't care about quality, only about it looking good when the picture is 150 pixels wide...well...
And like I said before, for one dvd the back cover was pasted on top of the front cover and it was approved