But if the purpose is only to watch the film and get the plot you shouldn't have to pay for it. I think a non-literal subtitle could be not only allowed but also desirable. So if some hearing impaired person is using the subtitle not for learning but just watching the film he is paying for something he doesn't want.
You definitely have a point. I was just defending what is considered a criterium for quality. See
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14224 (
"A "Trusted" member uploads verbatim subtitles if they are in the original spoken language"). This was decided after an internal discussion between admins.
But yes, you are right: not only often it is just not possible for technical reasons, but also a hearing impaired person cares about watching and following the movie, not about the exact text.
Realistically I still have my doubts, but that's another problem. Philosophically I am behind you
I will raise attention for this in the admin section.
Would you want another flag for that?
Yes. Definitely.
Maybe you misunderstood me here.
I mean: what about a subtitle that is let's say 60% literal and 40% "close-to-speech" (for whatever technical reason). Should this one get the 'literal' flag, the 'close-to-speech' flag, or should there be a third flag: a 'mix' flag?
There's someone out there apart from newborn77 and me who would like to have this? Let the people speak out.
Yes, please.
Maybe including admins who have/had the opinion that subs should only be literal.