| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have submitted a cover scan change.
Two people have voted Yes and two people NO.
One of the NO voters admits in their comment that they don't own the actual item; but are basing their NO vote on the other person's No vote.
I have PM'd this person and they have simply stated that my scans are darker compared to the existing and that they trust the judgement of the other NO voters.
Now, I don't have a problem with anyone voting NO on one of my contributions and will correct or leave as required.
But, to me, voting NO just because someone else has is totally wrong.
Also, without having the actual item in front of you how can you judge if the new ones are darker? Many people 'lighten' their scans to show more detail - they're wrong to do so, but it happens a lot.
So, very simply, should people be allowed to vote for Cover Scan changes without having the actual item in front of them for comparison?
Thanks for your thoughts.
P.S. I'm not removing my contribution; as I feel my scans are much closer to the actual box than the existing ones...I just want to know how everyone else thinks. If this is an acceptable practice then I won't bother sending anyone a PM about it if it happens again. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | I wouldn't limit this question to cover-scans.
Even though technically possible, I consider it not OK to vote on contributions to profiles you don't actually own (Wishlist).
If I can't verify the data I vote "Neutral" and hope that those that own the disc do a decent job. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | No it's isn't correct and another sign that Ken must change the way the DVDP contribution and vote casting works or we will see more and more non-sense like this. |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 |  Posts: 824 |
| | Posted: | | | | You mean you don't vote. "Neutral" isn't a vote. | | | | 99.9% of all cat plans consist only of "Step 1." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Is it OK? Goings strictly by Ken's comments on the forum... yes it is OK.,, as he didn't make any exceptions to cover scans that I have ever seen.
Going by how I actually vote... Sometimes.
Something like you speak of... I would never vote on it if I don't own the title and can't pull out the DVD to look at it. But there is times I feel I can safely vote on cover images even if I don't own the release yet. I am speaking of things like scans with the spine included and thumbnails replacing full sized scans. And yes.... I do actually see this still happening every once in a while.
Edit:
Even though I don't believe it is right in this situation for me... I still felt like I had to vote yes on your poll only because of Ken's current stance on the subject. | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,685 |
| | Posted: | | | | Pantheon, I agree with you that one shouldn't vote on covers of items that one doesn't own.
If this is about the title that I think it is, then I would say that neither the old or new scan truly represents the look of the cover. The old one is too light, but has better details. The submitted one has a better black level, but looses detail. Which one you prefer is a matter of taste, and I prefer detail.
You are absolutely right in not withdrawing the submission. It's not a matter of right or wrong, so let Invelos decide which cover scan is better. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: November 24, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,289 |
| | Posted: | | | | It really depends on the quality of the original upload. If it's covered in fingerprints and dust and the new version appears identical but is clear of defects I would vote yes, whether I could compare it with the original cover or not. | | | | Last edited: by GreyHulk |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with GSyren's statement above. If one is lighter then it should be and the other is darker then it should be then each person has to vote per how they feel it looks better (and when I say better... I mean closer to actual cover) which could be different opinions... depending on monitors and such.
I have access to 2 different computers here and you wouldn't believe the difference one is compared to the other. | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with everyone's comments regarding grain, dirt, cover spine, major difference in quality.
That is not the case here though, so I thought I should clarify.
My scans are darker than the current scans and some detail is being lost. However, in my opinion, when looking at the actual case, you can't see the level of details that is in the current scans - because they've been lightened.
Totally agree with GSyren and don't have a problem with his NO vote. It's the other NO vote that was the issue. That person does not own the title and voted No primarily because GSyren did the same and is a trusted user.
For simplicity sake, as far as I am concerned, I never vote on anything in my Wishlist/Ordered list. If I can't verify the information then, in good conscience, I can't vote as I may do the contributor a disservice.
And I definitely wouldn't vote on a cover scan where the differences are colour/light/dark etc as it's impossible to tell without the cover in front of you.
Also, I have submitted the same scans to the child profiles of the set and the person who's voted NO has voted Yes on those. But, when asked about consistency in voting I was ignored. | | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with most everything you said (except I personally have no problem on voting no on something I don't own if it is obvious it is wrong or against the rules). But whether I like it or not... I had to go by Ken's statements on this subject... he said you don't have to own the profiles to vote or to contribute. I don't particularly like it... to me personally it is sometimes ok sometimes not. In the case you are talking about... I would agree with you that the voter should have not voted at all. But going by what Ken said... he is allowed. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Do you know where Ken's statement is? Surely, like you, he only meant for people to vote on the blindingly obvious contributions that are against the rules (IMDB data, scans with spines, locality/language incompatibility issues etc).
I'd hate to think he was happy with people voting on anything in a profile.
If that's the case people could just vote on things because 'they don't like them' (which is the situation I'm in now with my contribution). I simply won't believe that is what Ken intended with any statement he has made. |
|
| Registered: June 15, 2012 |  Posts: 428 |
| | Posted: | | | | How anyone can be allowed to vote on something when they don't have a reference in their possession is beyond me.
I can understand some cases where it can be an advantage eg: the member has a copy of the thing but under a different upc, but cover scans.. hell no. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | It doesn't matter if you own the title or not because most voters don't compare ANY contribution with the actual cover. They only compare it with the existing scan and vote yes if in their subjective opinion it represents an "improvement". Even when it's closer to reality it's often voted down, because the colors are not as saturated, the sharpness is not over the top or whatever they think is an improvement. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Do you know where Ken's statement is? Surely, like you, he only meant for people to vote on the blindingly obvious contributions that are against the rules (IMDB data, scans with spines, locality/language incompatibility issues etc).
I'd hate to think he was happy with people voting on anything in a profile.
If that's the case people could just vote on things because 'they don't like them' (which is the situation I'm in now with my contribution). I simply won't believe that is what Ken intended with any statement he has made. Yeah... i just recently quoted it in another thread... Quoting Ken Cole:Quote:
For better or for worse, we have never blocked users from contributing to profiles they don't own, nor have we blocked users from voting on contributions for profiles they don't own. In point of fact, the practice of voting on contributions for profiles users don't own has been going on for many years.
In these cases, no, it is not likely that the users' wishlist contents is an accurate protrayal of their intent to purchase. However it is also the case that these users are some of the most careful and accurate voters.
Similarly, the users who take it upon themselves to improve profiles that are not in their collection are some of the most accurate contributors.
For these reasons, we have chosen not to block contributions or voting in these cases. I'm happy to reconsider this policy if the community feels it is necessary. However, be advised that if a change is made, it will prevent both contributing and voting, not one or the other. This is something I have considered in the past and have developed a decently secure method of preventing extra-collection contribution/voting. I would prefer not to implement this change as I still feel it would be detrimental to the overall database.
To recap:
- We do not (currently) prevent users from contributing or voting on profiles they don't own.
- If you are contributing to a profile that you don't own, our only requirement is that the notes submitted accurately reflect the source of the data, and state the specific profile used as the source.
Clear as mud? | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | I recognize that quote  But it is clear that Ken didn't wrote that about the covers, even if it isn't spell. That would be complete non sense to say that someone is able to know if a cover is good or not without having it in front of his/her eyes to see. Sometimes logic make sense... | | | | Last edited: by Jimmy S |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
So, very simply, should people be allowed to vote for Cover Scan changes without having the actual item in front of them for comparison? Since there is absolutely no way to enforce this the answer is "yes", as much as I'd like people to abstain from voting on something they cannot verify. --------------- |
|