Author |
Message |
Registered: November 24, 2008 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 1,225 |
| Posted: | | | | I've just had 10 full Cast and Crew audits declined. The only thing I can assume that has happened is that the 'second level' process has decided I've taken my information from IMDB. I included uncredited Roles in all 10 of these declined contributions and didn't provide enough 'proof'.
Please, everyone be aware that when including uncredited Roles make sure you say that you have watched the film and seen the relevant actors in it, if indeed you have.
The really daft thing with these declined contributions - Where I had added an extra uncredited Role on top of some that were already there, it got accepted! |
|
Registered: January 21, 2015 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 2,133 |
| Posted: | | | | I have at least 30 rejected ... And I assure you that my contributions are not taken by IMDb ... | | | "Two days ago, I saw a vehicle that would haul that tanker. You want to get out of here? ...You talk to me." |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 17,310 |
| Posted: | | | | I have used sources for charcter names before... including IMDB. Never a problem. Though in my case I check and list multiple sources for the info... making sure all the sources agree on part played. Have you all been using multiple sources or just one? I can see how one source can get you a decline. | | | Pete |
|
Registered: May 8, 2007 | Posts: 823 |
| Posted: | | | | That's pretty pathetic. | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|
Registered: May 29, 2007 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 3,475 |
| Posted: | | | | Contributions can be mistakenly rejected. I would re-submit those profiles adding a note to the screeners of that fact. |
|
Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation: ![Superior Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/3.png) | Posts: 1,601 |
| Posted: | | | | Did you have any no votes? I know this site has really gone down hill when it comes to no voting for very petty reasons. |
|
Registered: November 24, 2008 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 1,225 |
| Posted: | | | | Nope. No no votes on any of them. In fact quite a few positive votes. Have re-submitted with further notes. But there really isn't much more to say. I watched the film and identified the people. How am I supposed to prove that?! | | | Last edited: by GreyHulk |
|
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 5,704 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting GreyHulk: Quote: How am I supposed to prove that?! - give a timestamp - refer to (multiple) internet sources for proof | | | Complete list of Common Names • A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1) |
|
![DVD Profiler Unlimited Registrant DVD Profiler Unlimited Registrant](/images/PUD.PNG) ![Star Contributor Star Contributor](/images/PSC.PNG) | T!M | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 8,667 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting GreyHulk: Quote: Nope. No no votes on any of them. In fact quite a few positive votes. Have re-submitted with further notes. But there really isn't much more to say. I watched the film and identified the people. How am I supposed to prove that?! I've seen your work, and it's consistently of a high standard. If you tell me you've "watched the film and identified the people", then that's more than enough for me. From what you're describing, I can only assume the screeners have simply made a mistake. | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
Registered: November 24, 2008 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 1,225 |
| Posted: | | | | Thanks. Knowing my work is considered of a consistently high standard is very important to me. Quoting T!M: Quote: I've seen your work, and it's consistently of a high standard. If you tell me you've "watched the film and identified the people", then that's more than enough for me. From what you're describing, I can only assume the screeners have simply made a mistake. | | | Last edited: by GreyHulk |
|
Registered: November 24, 2008 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 1,225 |
| Posted: | | | | Well, we'll see what happens know. All Profiles have been skipped again. Looks like they must have gone to a second review for a second time. | | | Last edited: by GreyHulk |
|
Registered: January 21, 2015 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 2,133 |
| Posted: | | | | Continue with your great job... ![](/images/emoticons/wiseguy.gif) | | | "Two days ago, I saw a vehicle that would haul that tanker. You want to get out of here? ...You talk to me." |
|
Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 6,014 |
| Posted: | | | | ![](/images/emoticons/cool.gif) Yes, please. Your contributions are always great. ![](/images/emoticons/thumbup.gif) |
|
Registered: November 24, 2008 | Reputation: ![Highest Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/4.png) | Posts: 1,225 |
| Posted: | | | | Finally. All now approved. |
|