Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
If the checkbox does not appear for the birth year, documentation of the year is not required.

I actually like this announcement.

Now I won't have to search for already approved BY's anymore that are already in the profile. All I have to do is make sure that the BY is the correct one in cases where two people with the same name have different BY's in the database.

This will make contributions much easier.

Quoting CubbyUps:

Quote:
This will make contributions much easier.

Was there seriously anyone who didn't already know about this? It's been that way from day one. Please don't buy into the occasional user banging on endlessly about how DVD Profiler is really about constantly re-documenting everything rather than just the data itself - it's not. That isn't, and never has been, Invelos' own policy. Of course new birth years need documentation, but there's obviously no point on documenting the same old stuff over and over again, day after day, month after month and year after year. DVD Profiler is not about creating a bothersome workload for its users - it's about building an accurate database. So that's what I like to spend my time on, not on re-documenting the same John Williams birth year for the hundredth time. And as Ken confirmed, we indeed don't have to do that. On occasion, some lost soul has seen it fit to vote against a contribution of mine citing lack of documentation for a previously accepted birth year, but in line with Ken's statement, such concerns have always been summarily ignored by the screeners. And rightly so, of course.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting CubbyUps:

Quote:
This will make contributions much easier.

Was there seriously anyone who didn't already know about this? It's been that way from day one.

Clearly there were people that didn't already know this...and with every new contributor, there will be more.  I have been here since day one and, based on conversations I have had with Gerri, was under the impression that documentation had to be added in each contribution.  It's nice to know that it isn't the case.

Agree... same here. Though I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

That would be documented... Ken only mentioned when they are already in the system that they no longer have to be documented. I am not sure this is a good thing because if they don't mention the birth year at all how do I know it is already in the system? And if a birth year is not needed per Rules... but is already in the system does this mean we must now allow those in all the profiles? After all... it is already in the system they can just add to the profiles without even looking into it to see if it is needed. And we have Ken supporting that... so can we vote no?

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
That would be documented... Ken only mentioned when they are already in the system that they no longer have to be documented. I am not sure this is a good thing because if they don't mention the birth year at all how do I know it is already in the system? And if a birth year is not needed per Rules... but is already in the system does this mean we must now allow those in all the profiles? After all... it is already in the system they can just add to the profiles without even looking into it to see if it is needed. And we have Ken supporting that... so can we vote no?

Presumably, a profile with no BY documentation is already in the system.  Otherwise you won't be able to submit without checking off the box.  Maybe not the cleanest system but I'm guessing it's all you have to go on.  My understanding was always that if you check the box, then you have to provide some sort of documentation or the screeners reject it.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
But the thing is... the voters are not going to know whether the contributor had to check the box or not. So if there is no mention in the notes (sense ones already there don't have to be documented) how do we know to vote yes or no?

Perhaps the BY stuff is up to the screeners and us users should simply concentrate on the other stuff?  Perhaps voting yes or no solely based on a BY has little or no impact on the screeners.  Just thinking out loud here.

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
I'd prefer it to be documented every time a new BY gets added to a profile (if the contributor sets the checkbox). Because otherwise how should I as the voter know that this BY is actually needed?

The question arose because of a BY that was added without a checkbox, but which BY was disputed by some voters.
The profile in question has since been accepted, with the BY. This means that once a BY is in (whether actually "needed" or not, which is somehow a silly question since without BY you don't have an actor  ), it is allowed to stay in.
Maintaining a list of "unneeded" or "unwanted" BYs appears to be a futile exercise therefore.

I agree... if there is no need to look at it and document it... how many people are going to bother to notice there is a birth year added or care if they got the right birth year for the said name?