Forum - View topicLetter From The Encyclopedist [2008-07-31]
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
weils
Posts: 44 |
|
||
|
I think this is a good idea. I can see what errors I may have made from other people's error reports. I can in turn write my feedback for any errors fixed or found no errors whatsoever.
However, I'm not sure if it's due to screen resolution or due to the new encyclopedia error tools implemented, but when I access episode lists with titles that are too long, it will display something like this example below. Taken from MÄR (TV) episode list. 2005- 20. Gate of training returns! We`ll teach you how 08-14 to fight!! 第20話 「修練の門再び！ケンカのやり方教えま す！！」 Shuuren no mon futatabi! Kenka no yarikata oshie masu!! Any idea if this can be fixed?[/img] |
|||
|
|||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
||
Nope. The submitter sent both the name AND the URL of the site as "http://www.gantz.com.au/" and the system couldn't display it properly (I have no idea why). I've corrected the problem and now the site is visible. Edit: Yet, it is for the anime, so I have to mark it as "false." 
|
|||
|
|||
nihon
 Posts: 4 |
|
||
|
I think this will be very useful to people interested in making sure everything is correct. Thanks!
|
|||
|
|||
Brack
 Posts: 281 Location: UK |
|
||
|
Can the encyclopedia handle multiple people with the same name yet?
Osamu KOBAYASHI is a prime example, where we have 3 different people's credits combined as one entry. |
|||
|
|||
Ai no Kareshi
 Posts: 561 Location: South Africa |
|
||
That's the lovely part about having one's own database. I can do all the effort I like on researching credits and nobody can undo my hard work. So if someone messes up my data here, it's only the effort of submitting it to ANN that's lost. 
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dan42
Chief Encyclopedist
 Posts: 3785 Location: Montreal |
|
||
What is your specific example? ANN is not like wikipedia; "confused" people cannot simply change the info you submitted, they have to submit an error report and that has to go through an Encyclopedia editor, and they don't usually change info on a whim. So my guess is that either 1) you didn't provide a suitable source 2) you think your info is correct but it's actually not 3) you stumbled on one of those annoying cases where the wrong info has spread so much that it displaced the truth 
In the last case I'd suggest you talk to us directly. |
|||
|
|||
|
Dan42
Chief Encyclopedist
Posts: 3785 Location: Montreal |
|
||
Yes, cyan means exactly that: the information is not available to the public. |
|||
|
|||
|
Dan42
Chief Encyclopedist
Posts: 3785 Location: Montreal |
|
||
I don't particularly like the idea of littering the place with "this is one of the main characters" error reports, but at the moment that is the only way. Please remember that there should only be one or two "main characters"; the other important characters are "secondary". |
|||
|
|||
|
Dan42
Chief Encyclopedist
Posts: 3785 Location: Montreal |
|
||
I'm going to have to think about this one. I wouldn't consider Akira to be a horror anime, but 27 out of 42 people (64%) did. So if we do an appeal, who is supposed to be the judge? Looks like we have two choices 1) genres are subjective so whatever the majority decides is pretty much the most objective conclusion we can get (live by the decision of audits even if I think the result is nuts) 2) screw the majority, it's my encyc so it'll say whatever *I* want (disregard audits, back to square one) Neither option appeals terribly to me,
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dan42
Chief Encyclopedist
Posts: 3785 Location: Montreal |
|
||
The Encyclopedia has been able to handle that for quite some time. We just need people to *tell* us when they notice multiple people with the same name. And then there's the matter of figuring out which part of the merged credits belongs to who; that can be trouble sometimes. |
|||
|
|||
|
Ai no Kareshi
Posts: 561 Location: South Africa |
|
||
If perhaps you had a committee of people whose judgment you trust on this sort of thing, you could settle appeals by casting a vote between them. Of course, actually assembling such a committee could be tricky... For instance, on what criteria would you base it? Or would you handpick each member? |
|||
|
|||
rti9
 Posts: 1241 |
|
||
|
The biggest problem of the audit system is to regard the decision of the majority as immutable "truth". Every other piece of data in the encyclopedia can be reported again and again by users for editors to check. Why should audits receive special treatment? 42 persons participated on that audit. 42 out of 6235 who have seen in part or whole. 42 out of 3504 of those who rated it.
If the concern is with majority, why not let audits go on forever? Let each user who claims to have seen it partially or as a whole free to cast a vote. Instead of working with the 12 vote difference, implement a percentage system. As long as genre or theme X holds over Y percentage of votes, it will remain visible. If it's controversial and the difference is low, leave it in limbo (not visible) until one of them reach the Y percentage. I'm suggesting an "excluding" system because I prefer no data as opposed to questionable data. I was countered with a good argument on another thread in regard to majority view and fandom, but in this specific case I do believe that this suggestion preserves the original intent of the audits: to free the editors from a bit of the murderous amount of data they must check on a regular basis. A never concluding election of genres and themes seems like a lesser of several possible evils and we wouldn't have to go back to square one. |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group