It would be nice, if we can submit the correct running time of the media. 93 minutes isn't very sufficient for me, 92:44 would be better. There should be an additional field for the seconds.
Would be interesting, what the rest of the DVDProfiler users think about it.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:

... most people feel what we have is good enough.

and I agree with them... sometimes enough is enough, what next when the sencond won't be enough? 1h31m18s143ms...

Some things are more important, usefull and necessary than that to add... by exemple more place in the numerous fields where we have to write.

I think you'll find that opinions on what constitutes "significant value" vary considerably among users here.

Personally I find that changing a dash to an em dash or en dash does not add any value at all. But I must assume that others do, otherwise why would they make such contributions.

On the matter of adding seconds to the runtime, it's not something I would find useful.

We say often DVDP is a DVD profiler not a film profiler... OK what is that have to do with the running time 

I can be completly wrong here as I wasn't there when the decision was taken but... The reason why we stop at the minutes is maybe because the cover talks in minutes. This is maybe ridiculous but that look almost logical if we took the way DVDP works usually 

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
If you all are talking about this excerpt from the rules...

Rules Quote:

Quote:
Make sure your contributions add significant value to the database. For example, contributions that only re-order the information within a certain section should not be submitted. These unnecessary changes are highlighted in the rules. Please do not make a separate contribution for them; however, they may be acceptable if you are making wider corrections to a profile.

If that is what you are talking about... then see the sentence I put in bold. It don't matter what us as users considers significant value. As the rules tells us what they consider to not be of significant value is highlighted in the rules. So if something isn't highlighted as an unnecessary change... then it seems as far as Invelos is concerned it is of significant value (such as 1 minute difference in the running time).

If that isn't what you are talking about... and is a message in the form from Ken or Gerri... I can't judge that unless someone here can point me to the post.

it was a post from Gerri which I recalled - and she didn't detail what was significant.

And your bolded part of the rules only indicates what shouldn't be reordered - I don't read it as indicating what shouldn't be contributed unless part of further corrections. After all the genre re-ordering shouldn't be done at all wheras Please do not make a separate contribution for them; however, they may be acceptable if you are making wider corrections to a profile must therefore apply to other insignificant changes (not genre re-ordering).

I would have expected Ken and Gerri to have assumed we had some intelligence and could decide ourselves what was a insignificant change (and therefore never try and list these).

for instance  - I would also include in this category (of insignificant changes) the changing of a '-' to a '--' in the overview. If this isn't 'highlighted' as an insignificant change then does that mean that you believe they should be contributed as adding significant value?

I'm not trying to cause an argument - I'm merely concerned that we could be raising large numbers of changes which add no value to the database / cost Invelos a lot of money..

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
If you all are talking about this excerpt from the rules...

Rules Quote:

Quote:
Make sure your contributions add significant value to the database. For example, contributions that only re-order the information within a certain section should not be submitted. These unnecessary changes are highlighted in the rules. Please do not make a separate contribution for them; however, they may be acceptable if you are making wider corrections to a profile.

If that is what you are talking about... then see the sentence I put in bold. It don't matter what us as users considers significant value. As the rules tells us what they consider to not be of significant value is highlighted in the rules. So if something isn't highlighted as an unnecessary change... then it seems as far as Invelos is concerned it is of significant value (such as 1 minute difference in the running time).

If that isn't what you are talking about... and is a message in the form from Ken or Gerri... I can't judge that unless someone here can point me to the post.

it was a post from Gerri which I recalled - and she didn't detail what was significant.

And your bolded part of the rules only indicates what shouldn't be reordered - I don't read it as indicating what shouldn't be contributed unless part of further corrections. After all the genre re-ordering shouldn't be done at all wheras Please do not make a separate contribution for them; however, they may be acceptable if you are making wider corrections to a profile must therefore apply to other insignificant changes (not genre re-ordering).

I would have expected Ken and Gerri to have assumed we had some intelligence and could decide ourselves what was a insignificant change (and therefore never try and list these).

for instance  - I would also include in this category (of insignificant changes) the changing of a '-' to a '--' in the overview. If this isn't 'highlighted' as an insignificant change then does that mean that you believe they should be contributed as adding significant value?

I'm not trying to cause an argument - I'm merely concerned that we could be raising large numbers of changes which add no value to the database / cost Invelos a lot of money..

Yes I do believe something that small adds significant value and should be contributed. I don't read what I put in bold to be talking about the example alone... It reads to me as a continuation of the first sentence.

I personally wholeheartedly believe that any change that is correct and per rules to add significant value. And would (and always have... without any no votes or declines on such) submit any change no matter the size unless I saw in the rules it told me not to.

I been doing it as such for the entire over 10 years that I been here without any negativity from voters or declines from screeners for any of the small contributions I have done.

Note that whenever possible I will do more then just a small update... but if there is nothing else I personally feel comfortable doing... and make a small (correct/per rules) change... I don't think twice about submitting it. As any such change does make the database better.

I even asked for one of the things that the rules said not to submit alone be removed from the rules so we could submit them alone (alternate disc ID)... in the rules committee forum... and the very same day as I started that thread Ken removed the restriction.

So going by all the experience I had over the years don't change my mind on how I read the rule... or how I contribute.