Team Members Guide

Editor Status
- The Editor-Status allows to correct and alter proposals 
- Plese check if the information provided in the sources is correct and mentioned. 
- Search for more sources to validate the information if necessary. 
- If any information (for example the release year) can not be verified with any source, please remove the information. 

Verifier Status
- The Verifier-Status allows to mark the proposal as correct (set a verifier mark) in addition to correcting/altering proposals. 
- After you successfully checked the information in the provided sources you can mark it as correct by using the verifier tab, now your name will appear on the right side of the proposal sheet with a the verifier mark. 

Final Verifier Status
- The Final Verifier-Status allows to submit successfully checked proposals into the system or to reject wrong/already listed propsals
- If a proposals has 3 verifier marks minimum it can be sent into the system. 
- Originally rejected proposals can be re-opened if there is the need to discuss it anew. 

What should you take care of? 

Sources
For any information included in the proposal it is necessary to find enough sources that allow to consider this information valid. Information which is supported by one source only might be not truly valid, depending on the source itself. On the right side bar, there are some links we use for research quite often. 

Image Proposals 
Image proposals can be send to pics(at)parfumo.de.

Trustworthy
The ideal source is the information provided by the brand/manufacturer itself or from PR sites that post the news to fragrances. Some brand website might not be updated regularly, but this is not the common thing. 

Not trustworthy
We experienced that Perfumeintelligence and Fragrantica as a sole source is not that trustworthy because these sites have a lot of errors in it that we would like to avoid copying. Also online shops of poorly presented retailers or price comparison sites are rather not trustworthy, especially for fragrance pyramids/notes 

Alternate Sources
If there is no online source for a fragrance, it is ok to submit a picture only (name and brand must be detectable) or provide e-mails/phone call protocols as well as catalogues and books. 

Notes
The notes in the formula are automatically translated by the Replacer-Tool. It knows most of the common notes in a broad range of languages. Rare notes (especially special woods and plants) should be researched correctly, so we are able to find a proper term how to list it and to avoid misinterpretation. Constructed notes (for example red hibiscus might have to be added to the replacer first, don't worry we have enough eyes to check the notes). 

The apostrophe
A technical problem for the formula is the apostrophe in a fragrance name. It is not recognized when checking if the scent is already in the database. Please use the search first to see if this fragrance might be listed already and note accordingly. 

Names/Editions
A common thing is that names of scents and their editions vary, especially with arabic houses. We try our best to name everything according to the official name printed on the box (collector's edition might vary in naming to have a consistent pattern). 

Reformulation / Annual edition
Usually we indicate a reformulation of a scent with the release year in brackets -> Dior Homme Intense (2007), (2011) (because the original scent was altered) 

For annual editions we don't include the brackets CK One Summer 2012, 2013, 2014 (because it is a scent of it's own that is not an altered original scent) (or an annual re-release like bronze goddess for example) 

Collector's bottle (new)
Collector's bottles can now be indicated as well.
You can select the option collector's bottle in the formula (yes) and search for the original scent. 

Pitfalls of the formula
At the moment there are some problems with the connection of the german and english interesting facts text as well as the exchange of linear notes to pyramid form and vice versa (in the correction formula) 
Making the formula field blank is not recognized as a change. You have to type in any change in the text/words (lose a letter, add a comma) to have it recognized. When revising it a second time you can erase it the field by making it blank now. 
If you like to avoid these pitfalls leave them and verify later after anybody else changed it. 

Rejection
We reject entries immediately when we can be sure that it is obviously wrong (already listed). 
If there is something to discuss about the proposal, use the discussion to analyze the problem. Depending on the members involved, we decided that at least 3 votes are needed for rejection (or the majority of members of course, in some cases only 2). If the assumption was wrong at first, the proposals can be re-opened (not able to do with revision proposals) 

Protocol (for corrections)
If there is a revision submitted, in some cases it might be helpful to take a look at the research protocol of this entry first to see what has already been revised to avoid, re-revisions. 

Important

This guide is not to be memorized completely. It shall point out what kind of hints, tricks etc. there are and to help you to analyze proposals critically rather than just checking the information only and that's it. 

The primary intention of Parfumo Research is to provide correct information and to inform the users about the scents with correct details on scents. 

Over time and with consitent work in the Parfumo research team you will internalize certain things and find a niche where you think you can provide good work and help.