I'm not sure about the screeners, but from the contributors and voters' point of view, the neutral vote simply removes the profile from your pending list and has no bearing on the votes.

I do evalutae the changes regardless of the notes, Hovever in this case the words was corrected runtime. I checked the cover and 102. I therefore voted no because it did not state it was from the disc. Did I suspect that it was? Yes. I too have recocniced bentymans contributions as rock solid. However the notes as they where when I saw it warranted only a no vote. I'm very sorry that I did not check it a third time when he actually updated the notes.

I was not out to get him in any way I just simply followed the rules for voting and the advice in the forum.

As to yes votes I do ofcourse check it out. I run trough the changes "evaluate" them if you will. And most of the times the changes are in accord with the cover wich I do check when stated. When it comes to cast end credits I go to imdb and check the listings there to verify that they are not the same. (e.g.check resident evil the info on imdb looks as if its written fiction when compared to the creds on the dvd). And in case of runtime not being as stated on the cover and no word about where one got this I will vote no every single time because its the contributers job to tell vhere he got the changes from. In case of runtime correction I would write : checked runtime with power dvd and it is 97 minutes not 102 as stated on cover. Just so that ken and gerri can understand that I actually checked it and HOW.
Anyway if the cont. notes are not good enough it will get declined no matter what because thats all ken and gerri has to evaluate the change. Heck I have even gotten 50/50 with 2 votes trough because i updated the notes so ken and gerri understood them (its the sunshine story post I made).

As GSyren said:
If I had to check each and every submission in order to vote for it, what would be the use of having a central database in the first place? If I have to check every scrap of data myself, then I might as well enter it myself and be done with it.

And he is correct we have to assume that the data entered is correct assuming it is properly documented(this is what ken and gerri does). and in case of CoO submissions i try to find the webpage of the main prod company its allways an adress there therefore its kindof nice if the contributor actually writes what he has pegged down as main company.
If people lie to get something trough it's just sad and what is the point of that anyway?


How did this get to be a discusson about blindly voting yes anyways ?
This was about getting declined with 1 no vote. And that is all it takes if the no vote is correct.

Yes we are good sidetrackers 

LOL

I have a similar system. If it's a change I'm not particularly fussed by, then I'll check for other votes. If others have already voted then I'm more likely to vote neutral. However if no-one has voted and it's quite a drastic change then I will tend to check it before voting.
And there are a few users whose notes I'm more likely to take at face value (and so not check) than others.

Speaking of contributor that can be trusted on name alone, should we start a new thread/list of who's good and, more important, who's been suspect?
Just today I had one that made no sense to me since I did the full profile 3 weeks ago and looked 3 times for a director of photography.
I checked my disc again today then checked imdb, and every change submitted to cast and crew matched imdb exactly.
This is a low budget dtv flick that I think only me and 2 others have (at least the same UPC, there's another UPC or 2 for the same title), but the other guy voted yes. Oh yeah, the runtime was also submitted and wrong (matched cover and imdb) and the overview was longer than back cover.
I PM'd both for now as I'm not gonna call anyone out unless asked to. Think I should alert Ken or Gerri?

antolod is right.  If the contribution is blatantly wrong i don't hesitate to vote No.  With even a little justification the screeners pay attention to No votes.  We are given this power for just this reason.

Quoting oleops:

Quote:
  good one.    (but you have to be pretty darn drunk to fell of the fjord)

[@northbloke, too]
I thought a fjord was a body of water.  How would you fall OFF a body of water?  I could understand if you fell INTO a fjord, but OFF of one?    

Maybe I'm confused because English isn't my native language (I'm American, you know not like northbloke who's from the right side of the pond)

Or maybe, I thought, fjord is also the name of an automobile sold in Norway by Ford Motor Co.  That you COULD fall OFF of.