Do you really assume that your No-Vote-Comment “Please stop with your nonsense “by Junkies” edit note and provide useful evidence to back up your edits. Until you do so nobody can trust your edits and you’ll receive no votes even on edits that might be correct.” will encourage users to edit or vote?
This is very important indeed to reference the edits.
But No-voting "even on edits that might be correct* is wrong.
I think we need some links here but I already did that on some editors who was obviously not editing in the appropriate manner (absolutely no checks, random data from online sites) so their edits could be correct but had many many more chances to be wrong, like their edit history proved.
Why would you think this is related? Just because I started a topic about the importance of voting doesn’t mean that everything I do is for that purpose.
I checked many votes by this editor and they were all wrong. Combined with the nonsense edit note it looks to me like a editor who doesn’t intend to add anything useful to the database so I voted no on all their open edits. If they can produce evidence backing up any of their edits (which they should have done in the first place) I’ll change my vote of course.
I’m talking about this 37 No-Votes:
You checked his/her EDITS (not votes) and because of his “insufficient” proof in the notes you voted “No” on all of his additions - in your words “who doesn’t intend to add anything useful to the database”.
That’s the way how you frighten away users from edits and subsequently from voting.
What in my reply above made you think I didn’t know what you are talking about. I told you why I voted no on all of these - it’s not because of insufficient evidence, it’s because most edits are wrong (e.g. duplicates & wrong use of annotation field). This editor also already had 19 edits voted down and they never replied to any requests for more info - all they ever say is “by junkies”.
I don’t think my no-votes will scare them away, because I don’t think they are human.
If someone consistently adds junk edits that take a lot of time to fix (eg time within which others could add twice the data) I think it’s fine to frighten them away from editing unless they want to change their behaviour.
It’s so tiring to fix wrong data that I can only agree with frightening away deliberately poor edits like this.
Then if the editor really likes contributing MB they will try to improve or just leave if they don’t want to make better contributions.
It’s so often that the bad edits are already done and we can’t do much about them, then.
This is called “Quality Control Training”.
Though, from my own initial experiences, I would say that it can be very dispiriting the way that some people write comments. The documentation can be a bit cryptic at times, this then gets interpreted in different ways by different people based on different forum discussions.
Anyone who is making mistakes needs some patience applied first. Try and get gentle and try and get some response from them.
I agree with @jesus2099 and @aerozol and their reasoning. If someone adds a lot lot junk edits without useful (in many cases empty) edit notes, it’s fairly reasonable to vote down all of them if they share those characteristics. For example I’ve seen people vote down all of editor’s Add Cover Art edits because most of them were incorrect, very low resolution and some of them were just google image searches. For example one release had “Concert” in its name and the uploaded cover art was a random google image for a concert. There could be some correct cover arts in there but the majority of the edits were junk, the edit notes were nonexistent and the editor didn’t respond to any of the edit notes left by other editors so imho it was sensible to vote down all of the Add Cover Art edits from that editor.
People often tell me that the things I say online (and via text) come across in a negative way (rude, mean, etc).
But I can say those same things said IRL and they are acceptable. Not just acceptable, but appreciated.
Honestly, I don’t give a shit.
Probably because there’s not much chance for non-verbal communication when you’re online. It all has to be in your choice of words and phrasing. The closest we get to non-verbal is punctuation and emojis.
I also suspect gender plays a role, but I’m making assumptions about you based on your communication style.
(I feel like I would appreciate you IRL)
I do think it’s important to put on baby gloves with new editors. Just because you have to take context into account:
It’s a nightmare learning how to edit on MB. Most likely they have struggled through a bunch of menus and a few google searches to even be able to add a release, and then they get slammed with a ‘no’ vote as a thank you. Probably for something they would have no way of knowing about.
MB doesn’t have a massive community presence - that one comment might be the only time they’ve ever noticed someone else even exists on the website. And instead of a ‘hey buddy, how’s it going!’ they get ‘you are doing it wrong’. Throwing in a ‘nice work’ or a ‘thanks’ makes a massive difference - and makes me feel better as well, really!
After all of that if someone is being lazy and just putting in total junk and doesn’t care if it causes more work for everyone else - good riddance!!