According to Ken, the screeners have been instructed to accept these kinds of contributions, regardless of the 'no' votes.  He also stated that a 'no' vote, in these types of situations, is perfectly valid as it lets the contributor know that there is a problem.

Assuming the screeners listen to Ken, and it has been my experience that they do, there is no risk in voting 'no'.

Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
What is the motivation behind such a no vote when so much good data has been added?

My suspicion is that it's to encourage the contributor to make the correction and resubmit.

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

I always use no votes for situations like this myself. I do this for two reasons. First because not everyone one looks at their votes if they get only yes votes. I know this for a fact as I am usually like this and others in the forum has said the same thing. Another reason is it is sure to grab the attention of not only the  contributor but also the screeners. This way I am sure it is at least looked at and the screener can go from there if they feel it is trivial enough to let through anyway fine. If it is something they feel is reason enough to decline that is OK by me too.

Why not use a PM instead? Simple. I have seen too many times that a pm I send about a contribution don't get opened and looked at. Too many people just ignore pms when they are sent. Since seeing that in the past I now go strictly with the no vote and let the contributor and screeners decide from that point.

Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
Is a PM not sufficient?

Sometimes even the "no" vote is insufficient.

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

Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
There is currently a submission up where the contributor has fixed a couple of issue's with the overview, added some additional crew and done a full cast audit uodating CLT results and adding a BY as per By thread.

Unfortunately, there is a discussion about whether there is a space in a particular part of the overview or not. Now, some have voted no to this otherwise good update which adds plenty to the profile, and they have voted no because they don't think there is a space.

Now personally, I agree with the no voters about the space issue, but why vote no on an entire contribution over a space when so much solid info has been added? If it was a wrong name or something like that, I would agree to a no vote, but to vote no because of a space and risk not getting all the valid data? Christ.

Why not a yes, and a PM?

As the first voter (and the first No) my No vote was because i saw a error in the submitted Overview ("Academy-Award® winners" to "Academy-Award®winners" [space removed between words]).

Frankly i stopped scrolling down right then and voted No because the submission had an error.  I don't have to accept errors and i won't.  That's what the No vote is for.  I only bother with PMs if more than 150 characters worth of explanation is required, and it wasn't.

What the rest of the submission contains is not relevant.  I would hope the No's would encourage the submitter to re-submit with corrections.  That's how i sue them when i receive no votes on my submission.

For those playing along at home the profile in question is No Way Out (027616-843623)

Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I always use no votes for situations like this myself. I do this for two reasons. First because not everyone one looks at their votes if they get only yes votes. I know this for a fact as I am usually like this and others in the forum has said the same thing. Another reason is it is sure to grab the attention of not only the  contributor but also the screeners. This way I am sure it is at least looked at and the screener can go from there if they feel it is trivial enough to let through anyway fine. If it is something they feel is reason enough to decline that is OK by me too.

Why not use a PM instead? Simple. I have seen too many times that a pm I send about a contribution don't get opened and looked at. Too many people just ignore pms when they are sent. Since seeing that in the past I now go strictly with the no vote and let the contributor and screeners decide from that point.

Fair points, but if people don't go to the huge yellow PM banner, why would they look to see if there are any no votes?

Sure, it is good to let the screener know, but that message could just as easily be conveyed as a message in a yes vote.

If that is your way that is fine for you... I wouldn't tell you to do any differently. But I don't feel confident enough that such note in a yes vote won't be missed. So I do it in a no vote. Which as been said Ken says is just as correct vote as a yes vote with comment... as you said you know yourself... so I just ask for the same respect that I give and not try to tell me to do it any differently either. Not that you tried to tell me any differently. I am just saying in general.

Quoting samuelrichardscott:

Quote:
General question:

A complete shell profile with the bare minimum info. Someone adds EVERYTHING but spells one word incorrectly in the overview (yet the profile is otherwise perfect). Would you guys vote yes or no?

Would you prefer to have NO info, or a complete profile with one very minor mistake.

The overview is something I could care less about. I know certain people may not like it but I would vote yes. I'll take 99% correct. Would rather have to fix 1 or 2 things in a profile than 10-20.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Like I said before... I would vote no with reason to be sure it is seen that there is a problem. From there it is completely up to the contributor and screener to do as they see fit.

Fair enough Pete. Personally I don't see the logic behind it, but a no vote is not against the rules and I wouldn't argue about it. I'd be shocked and would laugh at the insanity of such a vote (j/k), but that's it.