I'm not sure what it is you are talking about. If it's cast/crew, I sympathize but they are much more rigid here with that then before. I don't agree with the rationale behind it myself ( as do others) but it's part of the system here and they want to stop people from potentially gaming the system ( the recent Debstitch fiasco has only increased the sensitivity....).

Thank you, maritimer, it is the cast-crew I object to. In all matters I could respect the rule. Originally this idea comes from greedy editors who are too lazy to approve the amount of submissions they were meant to get due to the amount of shows. Moderators and staff later bowed to a massive pressure from these greedy and lazy editors who only wants to work hard for themselves and not for other users.

Woah! "Greedy editors"? Editors didn't come up with the rule. And the most notorious practitioner of submitting-one-at-a-time-to-get-maximum-points did so to acquire the maximum number of shows/CPs/levels.

If the idea originated from the staff that just makes things more mysterious. Around last New
Year I wrote to missribs - mentioning Heartbeat as a clear example that I am a proud CP hoarder. I was not warned.

If everybody submits-one-at-time and if you obtain more shows than you have time to handle you will drown in work doing submissions from other users and more users could obtain editorships.

I have slept too long here ignoring a development that I disgust. That's my mistake, and I pay for it by not subitting here.

I don't get what the problem is. Why don't you want to submit the cast all at once, when you have their names?

If I submit 15 to the cast guide at once I get 2 CPs instead of 30. Bad deal! It does not reflect the work.

If there were no CPs at all or a ceiling of how many you can get, I'd have no problems. The rules are too illogical now and I have a kind of phobia against such rules.

I see what you mean. Yes, it is a lot of work and higher points should be given, just as people should also get more CP for recaps.

The best solution would be to give users who submit many at a time more CPs than those who submit one at a time.

Thanks for your support, sesho2022. I agree on the recap issue.

I'm going through the same thing right now. Let's hope they change the rules.

I sincerely hope so too, as I really want to stay here.

Yeah, I completely feel your pain because I would submit a ton of stuff for the show I edit and I don't feel like I get enough CPs.

It's considered gaming, and anyone would understand why when they do the math. I could get 3000+ points alone off submitting crew one-by-one for a show with a hundred eps. Yet someone who submitted a detailed recap for every single episode of that same show would only end up with 800, for what ends up being substantially more work. Adding crew info, including the time to pull it from the credits, takes me *maybe* ten minutes for both screens (I usually have enough names for two). And that time assumes that at least some of the names aren't checkable in the crew listing for the show. Yet, if I were to write a detailed recap of that same episode, it would be the time of the episode multipled by a few hours to allow for writing, editing, and fact-checking. I'm estimating six hours for a good, detailed recap. Should I get 30 points for ten minutes of work versus eight points for the person who spent hours on their submission? No. The same applies for cast information. Two points per name when there are sometimes fifteen, twenty guest stars in a given episode? Same ease of gathering, same ease of submitting.

Personally, I've never even been tempted, the time constraints of actually submitting them that way are a major deterrent for me. If you're going to choose not so submit over an issue like that, that's your decision, but you're only doing the site a disservice by not helping provide accurate information to the guides.

The points system will be completely undermined if they start dinking around with what all the points for various things are worth to any large degree. It will frustrate those of us who already submitted tons of information at a lower point value, and there's no way they could compensate everyone for the work they did at the new point value without running the risk of un-seating editors unfairly in some cases.

This site is about, to me, first and foremost, meat and potatoes information about the shows. That means episode titles, airdates, and summaries/recaps, as well as the quotes, allusions, notes, and trivia. These are why people come here. Cast information is important; crew information less so. The point values are scaled in such a way that this makes sense. If I did anything to the point system it would probably be to up the value that submissions of the allusions, notes, trivia, and quotes are worth because they also require more work than simply copying names off a screen.

No hard feelings. I have got the CPs that I deserve here and I'm proud of it.

I agree that CPs for recaps are much too small compared to other cathegories.

Cast and crew require often more work than copying Cast are sometimes a detective work comparing and researching photos to state which character they act and names are similar to others. Crew descriptions don't always fit with the narrow cathegories here.

You set up your work rhythm as standard and those who don't fit are degraded or criminalized. Luckily, I have a 3rd option: I stop submitting here.

The main reason why I subvmit info about TV showa is to make it available on the net, and which site is a clear second to that.

I admit, the speed at which I work may be faster than others, and my methods honed down to a science. The most I ever usually have to look up is when there are multiple names listed for the same person, to figure out which one it should go to. Most of the cast and crew additions I work with are straightforward. And in the case of crew, if it doesn't fit into a given category, I don't submit it. I'd need to see an example to understand what you mean about the crew thing, because the main examples that come to my mind are "Assistant Editors" being listed as "Editors" because there's no category for that, and such - which is something I'd never do, because an assistant editor is a different position. If it doesn't fit a main category almost identically, I leave it alone until such time as they see fit to add more categories and/or let us enter our own when submitting.

I'm not attempting to criminalize or degrade others who can't do it that fast. But I still don't think your explanation justifies your methods. My criminalization or degredation, if it exists, is at the justification of attempting to get points that way. It's a side-wide policy, and I'm glad that whoever that editor was finally asked you to stop doing it.

I don't think recaps should be worth more than they are. I said that I think the point system is, for the *most* part, fairly scaled. The exception is that allusions/notes/trivia/quotes should be worth slightly more. And in all fairness, I think that things like airdate, episode number, and all those little goodies that get junked into that eight point section ought to be separated out so that you can't get eight points just from changing an airdate. While I've benefited from doing that on a few guides, I never felt truly right about it, because I was getting a lot of points for not a lot of effort. But, short of leaving the changes undone, there wasn't much of an option.

It is your choice not to submit information because of the way the system works. But, I don't see the staff changing it in the near future, and if you are intent on that, should you really be an editor or trusted contributor? You say that the priority of this site isn't about making this information available online (at least that's how I interpreted the last line of your response) - yet, submitting these things en masse versus one-by-one, the results are the same. The information is available online no matter how it's done. So if it truly is about making the information available, and not about points, wouldn't you submit anyway? There seems to be a discontinuity of rationale there.

You misinterpreted my last line as I didn't mention tv.com at all in it. It said that I like to make info available on the net. I don't suppose you'd like me mention where I submit now. Anyway, I won't use space here to advertise for alternatives. I really tried to be vague about it.

YOU are free to ask the staff about my editorships and so on. I hope the rules will be changed back to what they were before Xmas. If I give up editorships by myself, I'm barred from getting them back.

Why not try two at a time? But does it matter?

I'm afraid I find this whole thing with contribution points (and, indeed, levels) childish. Weren't we happier without them at TV Tome?

At TV Tome nobody bothered when I felt more comfortable at times submitting one at a time.

Sadly, the points and the levels are a genie we couldn't get back in the bottle, now - people would honestly think they were being robbed of something valuable. Reminds me of an Irish writer called Oliver St John Gogarty, who said "Money is not wealth, no more than your hat-check is your hat".