Help talk:How to verify data

From ISFDB

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(edit made to help page)
Current revision (22:07, 16 June 2009) (edit) (undo)
(Why not verify when submitting information?: reasons old and new)
 
(3 intermediate revisions not shown.)
Line 2: Line 2:
*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)
*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)
**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)
 +
 +
== 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. [[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