Contribution Declined for Not Following Guidelines

I hope this is what you meant by full data submission. 23 October 2023

#231023-190006-496000

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402910/goofs/?ref_=tt_ql_dyk_1 
 
 Declined (4)
GOOFEDIT
Before
When Lorenz and his team go into the bank, they don't put their masks on until after they look around. The police would have been able to identify them from that part of the security video.Plot holes
After
When Lorenz and his team go into the bank, they don't put their masks on until after they look around. The police would have been able to identify them from that part of the security video.

They don't care. The police (or FBI) would have to figure out which extradition-free haven they have retired to with their billions of dollars and any identification would become moot.Miscellaneous
Your Comment
Adding further information
ReasonDoes not meet contribution guidelines.
Your contribution has been declined.Please review our submission guidelines.

GOOFEDIT
Before
SPOILER: Around 78 minutes (1:18), Shane Dekker (Ryan Phillippe) finds out that approximately $1 Billion has been stolen. He says, "I think this is beyond our jurisdiction. Not only is he correct, after the bank robbery, the FBI was not handling the case. The FBI is involved with all bank robberies (or attempted ones). This is clearly a factual error, and a very large one at that.Factual Mistake
After
SPOILER: Around 78 minutes (1:18), Shane Dekker (Ryan Phillippe) finds out that approximately $1 Billion has been stolen. He says, "I think this is beyond our jurisdiction. Not only is he correct, after the bank robbery, the FBI was not handling the case. The FBI is involved with all bank robberies (or attempted ones). This is clearly a factual error, and a very large one at that.

This is clearly Artistic Licence. Movie makers don't dictate FBI involvement.Miscellaneous
Your Comment
Adding further information
ReasonDoes not meet contribution guidelines.
Your contribution has been declined.Please review our submission guidelines.

GOOFEDIT
Before
The LD50 (lethal dosage) of morphine is, on average, 70-75 mg of morphine for an adult male. A 5 cc dosage (5 ml) would only contain at most 50 mg of morphine, well below a fatal level. Furthermore the vial shown is around 30 ml, not 5 ml in size.Factual Mistake
After
The LD50 (lethal dosage) of morphine is, on average, 70-75 mg of morphine for an adult male. A 5 cc dosage (5 ml) would only contain at most 50 mg of morphine, well below a fatal level. Furthermore the vial shown is around 30 ml, not 5 ml in size.

Be that as it may, it really does not matter, since the spiel about the deadliness of the morphine was solely to scare Damon Richards into talking.Incorrectly regarded as goof
Your Comment
Adding further information
ReasonDoes not meet contribution guidelines.
Your contribution has been declined.Please review our submission guidelines.

GOOFEDIT
Before
I wouldn't swear to it, but I am pretty damn sure that it's standard procedure in hospitals that storecases of drugs are NOT kept in hospital patients' rooms, accessible to any passerby.Factual Mistake
After
I wouldn't swear to it, but I am pretty damn sure that it's standard procedure in hospitals that storecases of drugs are NOT kept in hospital patients' rooms, accessible to any passerby.

What drugs? Saline solution isn't a drug.Miscellaneous
Your Comment
Adding further information
ReasonDoes not meet contribution guidelines.
Your contribution has been declined.Please review our submission guidelines.

@gromit82​ Somebody declined two contributions that I took the time to write and refer me to guidelines that provided no real explanation. I asked for some specificity as I have seen other users receive. Instead, you want me to post my contribution in the hope that other users will offer ideas about what they THINK the problem might have been. The two contributions were 231119-022621-696000 and 231117-022621-696000. If you can provide the specificity, fine; if not, we'll just forget it.

That is exactly why I'm here. I'm looking for people to offer ideas that will assist me in getting my contributions accepted.

Hopefully, these people will be those who do the same thing as I do - in the field correcting, in my case, Goofs. There are stratagems that will help acceptance rates, thereby easing the load on the Mods, who get the brunt of frustrated contributors complaining about being Declined.

@glenrf​ Hi!

Regarding your submission, as it has been explained to you before, modifying the goof to give an explanation on why it's not a goof it's not eligible.

@johnaquino Hi!

I have checked on your submissions, 231117-022621-696000 does not show on our system, perhaps you clicked save for later but it's not submitted? And 231119-022621-696000 you submitted that trivia item that is an explanation on why it doesn't have good ratings, as per our guidelines we do not take personal opinions on trivia, even if it's not your opinion it is still a personal opinion as it's not factual information that is the reason for the low ratings.

Hope this helps both.

Cheers!

Wait. Isn't modifying a goof item to include an explanation on why/how the original claim being made isn't accurate allowed when the item is being re-categorized as "incorrectly regarded as goof"?

That's what the Help page says jeorj.

"If submitting a correction or deletion request for an existing goof, please explain why you believe the goof is wrong."

Yeah, but in those cases, the explanation would go in the explanation field, a separate form field from that of the goof item message itself.

Which would not explain why it's not a Goof to anybody else.

"Items that have been recently corrected might sometimes get the label for a short while before they are deleted, to save people the trouble of resubmitting them."

Seeing the Goof in IRAG and not knowing why isn't educational for future contributors. Particularly if it is something subtle like a mis-heard line or a misunderstood situation.

Where should the explanation go?

When deleting a goof item, there is an explanation field right in the submission form, and filling it out is required, in order to submit.

@jeorj_euler​ Thanks yes! This applies as per guidelines in cases where 'Things that have been widely misinterpreted as goofs in the past.' like the example mentioned there, which is not always the case. Also they need to be moved to 'Incorrectly regarded as goof' not Miscellaneous.

Cheers!

Yes jeorj, I've seen those explanation fields in the deletion submission form. We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I am refering to moving the Goof to IRAG. Putting an explanation addition is how readers would know that it's not really a Goof and why.

I was following up from: Isn't modifying a goof item to include an explanation on why/how the original claim being made isn't accurate allowed when the item is being re-categorized as "incorrectly regarded as goof"? Hence my question about where does that modification/explanation go?

Deletions are something else.

Okay.

@Bethanny​  Let's look at the first in my list, about the masks and security videos. It is doubtless a Plot Hole.

Unless you watch the whole movie and find out that there's more in play and the bank robbers are not going to be in the country long enough for it to matter if they are ID'd or not.

It is a Goof. To move it to IRAG without any explanation is confusing to readers, but in Misc, it fits, alteration included. "Goofs that don't quite fit elsewhere."

Are we on the same page?

Hi @glenrf​ -

For this example, regarding the bank robbery and use of masks, I would categorize this as "Incorrectly regarded as goofs" because while it may seem to be an error that the characters delayed putting on their masks for identification purposes, the characters may not have been concerned about identification as they would be leaving the country shortly after.    

For the "Incorrectly regarded as goofs" selection, it is okay to provide an explanation as to why the scene is not a actually a goof.

I hope this helps!

That is very useful Michelle. I can work within those parameters. I only started using Misc because my Goof corrections went through much faster so I didn't have to go back and re-submit. Also, I thought that IRAG was only for erroneous goofs. It didn't occur to me that extenuating circumstances would be taken into account.

Thanks.