| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can't help but notice that the Notes are typically very sloppy and do not communicate very well. Remember people that the Notes you provide serve as our bibliography, to support oiur data. Think...what does my Note say to a user viewing it six months from now. There is no such thing as enough detail, but the current bent towards brevity(aka laziness) is not serving any of us very well.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,738 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | You can say that again Skip.
Recent notes for a couple of R2 UK contributions.
1 title nearly a full audit.->
the6thday
similar contribution ->
Added Better Quality Front and Real Rear Scans
Added Run Time
Added RRP
Added Genre
Added Rating
Added Overview
Added Audio Info
Added Bonus Feature Info
Cast & Crew Copied from Dutch R2 DVD
All info taken from back cover and web.
and yes I have voted NO to both stating that documentation is required, but no responses so far, 1 user has been with us nearly a year the other just over a month. But I am starting to see it from members who have been with us for quite some time as well.
Steve | | | | Last edited: by snarbo |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 1,380 |
| | Posted: | | | | Guilty as charged  One of my recent contributions (pretty much all of my notes look like that): Quote:
New profile, added all information and high res cover scans.
All information from the DVD and covers, with the following exceptions:
-Cast/crew from the US profile.
-Release Date from DiscShop.fi
-SRP from DiscShop.fi and NetAnttila.com
-Rating Description from VET.fi | | | | Last edited: by whispering |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | While I agree that better notes from some users would be a good thing....I think it's worth bearing in mind that if Notes get too detailed there will be a tendency to not bother contributing at all. Here's an example of what I would vote NO to: Publisher addedHowever, the same change with the following note would get a yes: Publisher added from back of boxLikewise: Added cast, crew and Disc IDwould get a NO vote. But: Added cast, crew and Disc ID from credits as per ruleswould get a YES vote. There is a tendency recently for notes such as this: (this is a fictional example to make a point!) Added Cast from end credits (time index: 1.25.26)Added Crew from end credits (time index: 1.27.00)Added BY for 'Jim Smith' (established by visiting the following sites (insert 60 sites here!) also to show he is different from the other Jim Smith (supported by these 61 sites!).Used credited as for actor James Smith (these 1001 sites show he is the same person as Jim Smith, while these further 200 sites show he is normally credited as Jim Smith)Now...while my above example is obviously exaggerated and fictional I am making a point. There should be some level of trust involved. (Which comes back to my 'Trusted Users' tick box idea!) There are some users who's credited as work I trust - they don't need to list a hundred different sites to prove their point. I trust that they have done the research and that it is accurate. Likewise with birth years. If I had to make notes to the extent above I simply wouldn't bother contributing. As far as I am concerned I have done the hard work of updating the profile - it's up to others to check the information for errors etc. I realise that my point of view is controversial on this matter - I'm just stating how I feel.  | | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
There are some users who's credited as work I trust - they don't need to list a hundred different sites to prove their point. I trust that they have done the research and that it is accurate. Likewise with birth years.
You might trust them, but other might not. So the user needs to document for those that don't trust the contributor you trust. And just wondering, how many links do you think are enough? I usually list three sites for each common name/birth year I enter. Is that too many, too few or just about right? | | | 
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,380 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Here's an example of what I would vote NO to:
Publisher added
However, the same change with the following note would get a yes:
Publisher added from back of box
This is intresting, i dont give source for publisher separatedly, so if i only add publisher, my notes would look like your first example. I thought its obvious the source is the covers in that case? If i would use other source then the DVD/covers, then offcourse i would write it down. | | | | Last edited: by whispering |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting whispering: Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:
Quote:
Here's an example of what I would vote NO to:
Publisher added
However, the same change with the following note would get a yes:
Publisher added from back of box
This is intresting, i dont give source for publisher separatedly, so if i only add publisher, my notes would look like your first example. I thought its obvious the source is the covers in that case? If i would use other source then the DVD/covers, then offcourse i would write it down. FWIW I would vote Yes if the publisher were just moved from the old Studios list, but possibly No if it was in addition to the old Studios list... then again I may check and see if it was right and then vote Yes with a comment that it should be documented but I am voting Yes because I checked it was right (this is more likely if there is other info in the update which is documented and good). | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | . | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. | | | | Last edited: by ? |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | . | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. | | | | Last edited: by ? |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | I generally agree with Skip's point.
To write good contribution notes may however pose a problem for (some) users in localities whose native tongue is not English. I've come across quite a few contributions where the contributions themselves were OK, but the contribution notes were not, due to either lack of proficiency in English or lack of awareness of the requirements for good contribution notes. For these types of users, some "sample contribution notes" might be helpful. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Giga Wizard: Quote:
what should not be allowed are these contributions:
Cross link(ed) [Cast name] to [Cast name], I don't know if it even should be accepted with this comment:
Quote:
common name [Cast name] for [Cast name] according to CLT
no idea what's the no-voters point; of course the CLT wasn't the only thing used to verify the common names (even though that would follow the rules to the letter), but after further research there were no indications, that the CLT provided wrong results (at least not to an extend to turn the result around)
2nd update to provide further "evidence" for the next user: _every_ search (google, tvrage.com, rottentomatoes.com, imdb, ... take your pick) confirms that [Cast name] and [Cast name] are in fact one and the same person. CLT result: [Cast name] ### titles (### profiles); [Cast name] ## titles (### profiles)
all depends how those searches are done, (it is like statistics, you could nearly prove anything) Those comment's where directed at my No vote, and I still stand by No vote for the reasons pointed out there and in this thread. If Required Documentation is good enough for 1 user it's good enough for all. Steve p.s. about this No vote on this, all I asked for was documented sites (2 or 3) via a PM, and the response was the first edited contribution notes. | | | | Last edited: by snarbo |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Gerri Cole:
Quote:
keep your notes concise and to the point. Concise and to the point< tim, has nothing to do with brevity and non-communicatuoon, you with your skills at interpretation of the Rulkes should know that. Here's a set i picked at random Reordered Audio Tracks to match DVD (Power DVD) Cast and Crew per DVD End credits What does this tell us NOW let alone SIX months from now? As mostt users do he uses PowerDVD to read Audio, BUT he doesn't show any understanding of what PowerDVD shows. Yes, PowerDVD show one track as DD 2.0 which both he and the existing data assume neans STEREO, when DD 2,0 CAN be Mono, Stereo or even DD2.0 SURROUND. This is a 2008 released movie, anyone want to bet that the track is DD 2.0 Surround and NOT DD 2.0 Stereo. His Cast and Crew data show a Common name use which is perfectly useable but there is NO explanation why and all it is system handling of initials versus ACTUAL Credit. He uses system Roles which do not obviously match the actual credits, many times as we all know they won't, so why not list the Roles which depart from ACTUAL role and what the Actual Role is, doesn't thqat provide both the voter and the screener more complete information, let alone 6 months from now any of us would have a much better picture of exactly what was done and WHY. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Using your example Skip I would agree that his notes are not detailed enough.
However....If his cast and crew did NOT use the Credited As feature I would say his notes were fine.
For credited as there needs to be a little more details - but if someone states they have researched the information and used the CLT to get the results then that's fine with me.
After all - how many people really bother to check the websites that people list in their notes? (If you do then power to you!) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Neill:
This is not about voting, this is about clarity of Communication and how well things work as a bibliography. Voting is an entirely other issue.
Here are notes (mine) from the same movie, you tell me which one COMMUNICATES now and 6 months from NOW.
Cast and Crew data edited and ORDERED per ACTUAL film credits and per Rules-Strictly AS CREDITED, except as noted
Mark Millar: Original Characters By
J. G. Jones [J.G. Jones]: Original Characters By
ACTUAL Credit reads "Based on the <b>Series</b> of Comic Biooks By", Story was NOT adapted from a single Comic Story which would have been OMB
Common Name used for J. G. Jones [J.G. Jones] simply because our name format for G. in middxle name is slightly different fro ACTUAL
Stefen Fangmeier: Visual Effects
Jon Farhat: Visual Effect
Actual Credit Visual Effects Supervisor
Juliette Yager: Visual Effects
Actual Credit Visual Effects Producer
Tomas Voth: Art Director
Actual credit Supervising Art Director
Julie Dartnell: Make-up Artist
Carmel Jackson: Make-up Artist
Gemma Richards: Make-up Artist
Adela Robova: Make-up Artist
Actual Credit Hair and Makeup Aritst
Nancy Worthen-Hancock: Make-up Artist
Makeup Artist forXXXXXXX
Linda De Vetta: Make-up Artist
Makeup Artist for XXXXXX
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: May 26, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,879 |
| | Posted: | | | | Skip, may I guess that's the movie Wanted? If so, the comic book is a 6-issue miniseries with only one story arc - the movie is extremely loosely adapted from that. So it actually would be proper to say "original material by" since it is a single comic story. I have an extra copy of the trade I could send you if you need that for documentation. If you're not talking about Wanted sorry for butting in.  | | | If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
-- Thorin Oakenshield |
|