Just as I thought I had figured out how things work here...

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 8 months ago
  • Answered

There is a huge discrepancy between inputting submissions and correcting submissions that are incorrect or in the wrong category.

For instance, I moved two obvious Trivia items from where they had been submitted as Goofs. I deleted the Goof entries and entered them as Trivia.

Within minutes, the Trivia items had been posted. Days later, the deletions (Moved to Trivia) were declined, leaving duplicate entries in Goofs and Trivia.

Seems that, basically, anybody can have incorrect submissions immediately accepted, but trying to repair the errors is a long, tedious process.

Just saying.

Fury (2014) 24 December 2019 #191224-055033-383000

Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
  • Patiently resigned

Posted 9 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
You are not alone. When deleting any item it is best to provide 2-3 evidentiary items to prove your point. But keep the explanations short and simple. If there is any confusion as to the substances clarity, it will be rejected.
Those are my experiences with deletions. And yes even with those precautions, you will still visit here on occasion for a second look see. Just the way it is as you described.
Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
Thanks for your quick reply Ed. I thought the comment "Moved to Trivia" would suffice.

For future reference, do you consider a quote from "B. Unacceptable Goofs", showing the entry is not in accord with submission guidelines would be enough to justify a deletion?
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
No. It has to be clear evidence. I would submit the errant goof as a trivia item first. Then submit a deletion after the fact, and make reference in your goof deletion that it as an already identical accepted trivia item. It would be best to look at the actual "Goof" itself so I can help you better.
What is the item and the URL of the goofs page please?
(Edited)
Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Which factual error. There are several.
Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
These two:
The Fury is an upgraded M4 using the same high-velocity 76mm as was on the Hellcat Tank destroyer. This gun could penetrate 120mm (Tiger's max frontal) armor at 1000 Yards with standard AP. at 1500 yards they could penetrate the 80mm max Tiger side armor. The tank charge was done early and mid war as the short 75 didn't have the same punch.

And:
The Panzerfaust warhead was a shaped charge, driven by an explosive. Depending on the type, it contained roughly two to four times as much explosive than a hand grenade. On impact, it made a very loud bang.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
They are very poorly worded goofs with partial trivia contained. The trivia or fact portions are necessary as a frame of reference to show the goof.
I can extrapolate what the intention is, only because I understand the concept of what ordinance can do upon impact.
Both of these items are attempting to say that the ordinances damage does not match actual real world results. IE: Factual Error.
The whole section of factual errors needs a rewrite cleanup badly.

No. These two items are indeed factual errors. Just badly worded and incomplete.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Example:

As is:
The Fury is an upgraded M4 using the same high-velocity 76mm as was on the Hellcat Tank destroyer. This gun could penetrate 120mm (Tiger's max frontal) armor at 1000 Yards with standard AP. at 1500 yards they could penetrate the 80mm max Tiger side armor. The tank charge was done early and mid war as the short 75 didn't have the same punch.

Should be:
The Fury Tanks are an upgraded M4 Tank that use a high-velocity 76mm shell. This shell could penetrate the 120mm thick Tiger's frontal armor at 1000 Yards. At 1500 yards it could penetrate the 80mm thick side armor. These tanks ordinance charge upgrades were done early and mid war, so the explosions and damage done does not correlate to the actual real world damage that would have occurred.
(Edited)
Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
So, Factual Errors because you guessed at the between-the-lines meanings?

I saw them as straight statements of fact with no reference to events in the movie.

I may well be out of my depth here...

Thanks for the explanation.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
By reading all of those you can tell they come from the same contributor.
All the items refer to the incorrectness of the results of the use of ordinance.
If you use Occam's:

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions is usually correct.
Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes

I spend about an hour per submission. First selecting errors that I think are dodgy, researching them online, poring over my recordings of the movie, typing up an explanation of why I think the reported errors are incorrect and submitting my results. Then I wait about 3 days to find out if a person was on the job or if the bot was on duty.

If the bot declined my corrections, there comes more hours of re-wording and re-researching the correction and then the 14 day wait to re-submit.

Life's too short, Ed, so- unless I get granted the right to post without being screened by the bot, I am going to have to pass.

When I see some obvious frivolous error entry submitted by some nit-picking teenager eager to be posted on such a prestigious website, I'll just grit my teeth and let it go.

(Edited)
Photo of tweetynine

tweetynine

  • 18 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Not going to happen.
 unless I get granted the right to post without being screened
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Silvr Hair Devil
There are probably 10s of thousands of faulty Goofs and Trivia Items.
The listings are subjective. They can be argued very effectively for inclusion or removal, and neither side would be right or wrong. To correct these in general is an exercise in futility.
Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
All that's necessary for the triumph of ignorance is for good men to feel futile.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Which is just another way of blaming, and perhaps the best way, because there is solace and a certain stoical peace in blaming everything on IMDb and its contributors, and then blaming something as uncontrollable as the contributors lack of prose on something as indifferent as the Arm of the IMDb......or me!

{I just had to rob a quote from Ken!}

Ollie..........this is another fine notion you've gotten us into!
(Edited)
Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
Ed, you used the word "blaming" 3 times in one sentence. Don't you see I'm agreeing with you? Trying to effect change is futile and I have other, more rewarding things to do with my life than banging my head on a bot.
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Guess you did not recognize that those were a take on a famous passage!!!

See here....

Sometimes a Great Notion Quotes by Ken Kesey - Goodreads
https://www.goodreads.com › work › 1308344-sometimes-a-great-notion

“Which is just another way of blaming, and perhaps the best way, because there is solace and a certain stoical peace in blaming everything on the rain, and then blaming something as uncontrollable as the rain on something as indifferent as the Arm of the Lord.


So you can "Blame" Mr. Kesey, not I.



Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
You putting words in my mouth Ed? I haven't blamed anybody for anything. Yet.

I'm thinking of blaming you for passive/aggressive behaviour though. Trying to make out like I've done something wrong.

Clever use of the paraquote even if it has no relation to anything I've said and is clearly a diversionary tactic.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
I'm always unrelated.
Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
One Like for you
Photo of Jaime

Jaime, Employee

  • 716 Posts
  • 983 Reply Likes
Hi Silvr Hair Devil,

Thanks for your post.

Please try removing the duplicated trivia items using a link to this post.

Thank you in advance.
Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
Hello Jaime
Just to be clear, do you want me to remove the items that I put into Trivia because they are duplicates of items in Factual Errors? Or the other way around?

I am not sure that Ed's interpretations are valid. Ed's interpretation and extrapolation:

“Both of these items are attempting to say that the ordinances damage does not match actual real world results. IE: Factual Error.”

“...so the explosions and damage done does not correlate to the actual real world damage that would have occurred.”

"Crew members of destroyed M4A3 tanks reported direct hits with 76mm tank fire bouncing off turret and front slope plates of enemy tank, which is further proof of inability of present medium tanks to successfully fight the German Mark VI tank.

Unit History, 781st Tank Battalion p 9 of 47, 1945-01-19" 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1

“Ordnance told me this 76mm would take care of anything the Germans had. Now I find you can’t knock out a damn thing with it” General Eisenhower

Further observations on fact accuracy.

From the supposed Goof: “These tanks ordinance charge upgrades were done early and mid war...”

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1: “It was not until July 1944 that a call for M4s armed with 76s was put out”

"In real life, the Easy Eight, equipped with its 76 mm gun, was a relatively late addition to the war effort – only in production since late 1944."

https://jerrygarrett.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/fury-the-problem-with-brad-pitts-tank/

“Director David Ayer has spoken of the lengths gone to for maximum verisimilitude...”

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/oct/24/fury-movie-tank-veteran-sherman-verdict-realistic

So, considering the mistakes of the OP and Ed's misuse of Occam's Razor vs Ayer's efforts and the movie's researchers efforts at accuracy, I think that it should be deleted from Factual Errors and edited to correct the “early and mid war” mistake in Trivia.

As far as the Panzerfaust comment, I still maintain it is a straight statement of fact with no reference to any particular action in the movie and thus, Trivia.

What say you?


Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Correct, do not delete.
Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
Correct the Trivia post, you mean.
Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
Right? And delete the Factual Errors?
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
Correct the goofs in the goofs.
They are not trivia.

Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
No offence Ed, but I'ma going to wait for Jaime to weigh in. I don't really trust your judgement anymore. I think I made fewer assumptions than you did.
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
You'll be waiting forever. He will no longer reply. This post is open for comments, but marked as "ANSWERED". Look up at the top of this page.
Photo of Silvr Hair Devil

Silvr Hair Devil

  • 31 Posts
  • 22 Reply Likes
I'll wait. Changes nothing. I still don't agree with you.

Off topic - I watched Ken Russell's 1975 Tommy on Hollywood Suite 70s today. You want to see some Goof reporting that's truly hilarious?

Then watch the movie and see what they were about.
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27783 Reply Likes
I'm not kidding here. It's answered. Employees DO NOT FOLLOW answered topics and reply, ESPECIALLY Jaime. Some may reply after a topic has been answered, but it's RARE!