Help talk:How to verify data

From ISFDB

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Primary Verification)
Current revision (22:07, 16 June 2009) (edit) (undo)
(Why not verify when submitting information?: reasons old and new)
 
(9 intermediate revisions not shown.)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
I would put the following section into this page before the '''Verification Rules''' section, were it not locked. Pretty much all of this is adapted from [[ISFDB:Help desk#Change and verify?]]. I request a moderator/admin to review this change and insert it if it seems a good idea. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 07:01, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)
+
[http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:How_to_verify_data Link to article under discussion]
-
== Primary Verification ==
+
*I would put the following section into this page before the '''Verification Rules''' section, were it not locked. Pretty much all of this is adapted from [[ISFDB:Help desk#Change and verify?]]. I request a moderator/admin to review this change and insert it if it seems a good idea. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 07:01, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)
-
+
**Now that the help page is unprotected, i have inserted my suggested text into the page. If anyone thinks that it needs further change, the matter can be discussed here, before or after such further change is made to the help page. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 15:58, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)
-
Primary verification should mean that all fields are complete...with a few exceptions:
+
-
# ISBN field for older works (roughly pre-1970) may be absent. Supply a catalog number if one is present on the cover, spine, back cover, copyright or title page. (Enter that with a "#" in front to stop the bibliographic warnings.) Magazines may use an ISSN instead.
+
-
# Price field if there is no printed price on your copy. If your copy has no dustjacket or is price-clipped, note that in the pub's note field. (I rarely verify a pub of this type, hoping that someone else who has a more intact copy will come along.)
+
-
# Cover artist, where the artist is not credited within the pub. You can make an educated guess if there is a visible signature, but make a note to that effect in the pub's note field.
+
-
# If the work is an anthology or collection, you should enter all contents before marking the pub is verified.
+
-
*Please feel free to verify any pub that you have in hand and from which you are entering information, whether that pub record was previously created or one which you created yourself. But '''wait''' until all submissions have been accepted by a mod before verifying the pub. A mod gets a warning message if a submission changes a verified pub and we have to take an extra step to make sure that the person making the changes is the same one who verified it.
+
== Why not verify when submitting information? ==
-
**If a moderator rejects a change, or accepts but adjusts an edit, it's '''YOUR''' name there on the verification and '''YOU''' will get questions. Adding data is usually fine. Correcting data - well, be careful about contents, you're working on every entry for that title we have, NOT just the entry in the work in front of you. We all got caught out with that at least once, and the workaround (Add new title, remove old title, merge new title if necessary) does mean a bit of a wait for approvals at times.
+
 
-
*It is a matter of courtesy to inform the verifier of changes you make to their verified pubs and it is strongly encouraged that you notify them first if the change is particularly significant.
+
I saw the update to this page and wondered, why not verify first as you submit? The warning is actually a big clue to me that the submitter 'has' a copy in hand and isn't working (only) from secondary sources. The provided explanation that the moderator may approve your edit and then change it, well If anyone changes a verified record, then the verifier should be notified. The further explanation that your edit may be rejected is also misleading, because you will again get notification of the rejection on your talk page. Does anyone feel strongly about the instruction 'Wait to Verify'? I know it was annoying when I was entering items in hand, and as a moderator, I feel much more comfortable approving an edit submitted by the already flagged verifier. [[User:Kpulliam|Kevin]] 22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 +
:That advice dates from the days when the moderator did not get a warning about a verified pub, and later when the reviewing mod got a warning but no indication of who the verifier was. It was more important to the mods then. But for me the real issue is "do not verify until you can see a record displayed that matches your book, with no further changes needed that you can see." But it is not a rule, only a guideline. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Current revision

Link to article under discussion

  • I would put the following section into this page before the Verification Rules section, were it not locked. Pretty much all of this is adapted from ISFDB:Help desk#Change and verify?. I request a moderator/admin to review this change and insert it if it seems a good idea. -DES Talk 07:01, 25 Jan 2008 (CST)
    • Now that the help page is unprotected, i have inserted my suggested text into the page. If anyone thinks that it needs further change, the matter can be discussed here, before or after such further change is made to the help page. -DES Talk 15:58, 29 Jan 2008 (CST)

Why not verify when submitting information?

I saw the update to this page and wondered, why not verify first as you submit? The warning is actually a big clue to me that the submitter 'has' a copy in hand and isn't working (only) from secondary sources. The provided explanation that the moderator may approve your edit and then change it, well If anyone changes a verified record, then the verifier should be notified. The further explanation that your edit may be rejected is also misleading, because you will again get notification of the rejection on your talk page. Does anyone feel strongly about the instruction 'Wait to Verify'? I know it was annoying when I was entering items in hand, and as a moderator, I feel much more comfortable approving an edit submitted by the already flagged verifier. Kevin 22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That advice dates from the days when the moderator did not get a warning about a verified pub, and later when the reviewing mod got a warning but no indication of who the verifier was. It was more important to the mods then. But for me the real issue is "do not verify until you can see a record displayed that matches your book, with no further changes needed that you can see." But it is not a rule, only a guideline. -DES Talk 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools