I would remove all the duplicate audio data and contribute the profile. I would document my rationale, include a link to this thread, and request the screeners to reassess their decision.

I will also now go through and lock yet another field so my local database does not upload these types of contributions.

As I said before... it depends on how you look at all... some would say it is right per rules and common sense. It depends on what info the contributor/voters/Invelos is after. IF what they are looking for is listing it for each and every commentary track on the disc/in the set to be listed.. then what was approved is the way it should be. Unfortunately Invelos hasn't let us know either way what they are looking for other then the line "List each Commentary track as a separate entry."

More info from Invelos is needed to say for sure either way what Invelos is looking for. Unfortunately until such time we will have contributions going in and being excepted and declined both ways.

But Ken also said such standardization is to be done and decided by Invelos... not by us.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
But Ken also said such standardization is to be done and decided by Invelos... not by us.

Here is Ken's entire statement:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
One-off rulings on individual titles are a waste of time - there is always a new twist available to cast a slightly different shade of gray, and users cannot be expected to scour the forums on a title-by-title basis.  Similarly, refining and complicating the rules to satisfactorily contain each of these new variants is an exercise in futility.

Local databases can support an infinite variety of variants for title and other fields, and the local locks are available to make those changes permanent.  With this in mind, hopefully the supporters on both sides of this and other similar debates can agree that the direction of a decision here is less important that the fact of a decision.  Consistency for submission to the online is possible and what we should shoot for.  Agreement on how it "should be" is neither possible nor (thankfully) necessary.

We'll be implementing a global edit for contribution evaluator use.  This will allow us to make a decision on a particular range of titles and standardize them directly.  In this particular case, the titles will be Men in Black, Men in Black II and Men in Black III.  Details on the forthcoming implementation will be posted before we begin making any profile changes.

Here is what Ken said that I believe supports the communities input into this standardization:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
With this in mind, hopefully the supporters on both sides of this and other similar debates can agree that the direction of a decision here is less important that the fact of a decision.

On the Audio issue, based on years of voting and contributing, Audio Tracks have been contributed the same way - until this contribution. And, this wasn't a new contribution it was that was changing well established protocol.

This contribution was not in keeping with invelos' standards, and based on Ken's statements, should not have been submitted but kept local.

The screeners make mistakes and I believe based on all of the above, they did so in this instance. And, that is why I made the suggestion that this contribution should be re-submitted.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
We'll be implementing a global edit for contribution evaluator use.  This will allow us to make a decision on a particular range of titles and standardize them directly.

I don't know when invelos plans on implementing this global edit but until it does it is up to the community to vote and contribute on these gray area topics based on the standardization in place.

Previously approved contributions, forum threads and other types of research should be done to assess whether or not a change should be submitted because the rules can never cover every situation.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:

Quote:
With this in mind, hopefully the supporters on both sides of this and other similar debates can agree that the direction of a decision here is less important that the fact of a decision.

I honestly don't see how this is in any way, shape or form asking for our help on making decisions on standardizations.

I am sorry Kathy... but I strongly believe you are reading much more into Ken's statement then is actually there.

I don't think I'm reading anything into his statements - if you read Ken's entire statement the issue is crystal clear to me.

Here is Ken's entire statement:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
One-off rulings on individual titles are a waste of time - there is always a new twist available to cast a slightly different shade of gray, and users cannot be expected to scour the forums on a title-by-title basis.  Similarly, refining and complicating the rules to satisfactorily contain each of these new variants is an exercise in futility.

Local databases can support an  infinite variety of variants for title and other fields, and the local locks are available to make those changes permanent.  With this in mind, hopefully the supporters on both sides of this and other similar debates can agree that the direction of a decision here is less important that the fact of a decision.  Consistency for submission to the online is possible and what we should shoot for.  Agreement on how it "should be" is neither possible nor (thankfully) necessary.

We'll be implementing a global edit for contribution evaluator use.  This will allow us to make a decision on a particular range of titles and standardize them directly.  In this particular case, the titles will be Men in Black, Men in Black II and Men in Black III.  Details on the forthcoming implementation will be posted before we begin making any profile changes.

Let me see if I can make it clear to you this way.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
One-off rulings on individual titles are a waste of time - there is always a new twist available to cast a slightly different shade of gray, and users cannot be expected to scour the forums on a title-by-title basis.  Similarly, refining and complicating the rules to satisfactorily contain each of these new variants is an exercise in futility.

There have been many threads lately that deal with gray areas in the rules. Ken has stated that invelos is not going to be waste his time ruling on these nor are they going to refine or complicate the rules to address those issues.

Since invelos will not address these issues, where does that leave us? Ken tells us:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Local databases can support an infinite variety of variants for title and other fields, and the local locks are available to make those changes permanent.  With this in mind, hopefully the supporters on both sides of this and other similar debates can agree that the direction of a decision here is less important that the fact of a decision.  Consistency for submission to the online is possible and what we should shoot for.  Agreement on how it "should be" is neither possible nor (thankfully) necessary.

Who is Ken talking about? Seems pretty clear to me - he is talking about the community and the debates that we have regrading the contribution process.

If Ken were talking about invelos' - there wouldn't be a debate because his decision would be final. But, as he stated in the first paragraph, he is not going to waste his time ruling on those issues.

Locally, as everyone knows, we can do whatever we want. But, when there are gray areas in the rules, Ken states that it is constancy is the key. Once again he is talking about the community.

Why? It is the community who contributes data to the database - not invelos. It is the community who decides what they contribute- invelos' had nothing to do with that - and it is built and refined by us.

Let me highlight the section that clearly shows that Ken is talking about the community and NOT invelos:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Consistency for submission to the online is possible and what we should shoot for.  Agreement on how it "should be" is neither possible nor (thankfully) necessary.

This is a user based program. It is the community that submits profiles for the online database. It is up to us to strive for consistency since, as Ken clearly notes, complete agreement is not going to happen.

As far as this topic is concerned, the contribution of Audio Tracks has been consistent and well established  over the years. 

This new contribution was made disregarding that standardization. This wouldn't be a problem if that contribution was clearly addressed in the rules.

The problem? It does not - it falls into one of those "infinite variety of variants for title and other fields" and therefore "the local locks are available to make those changes permanent".

I didn't ignore it Pete - I did in fact address that paragraph - please re-read all of my posts.

I think I have been clear and will not address this topic further.