| Message |
Details |
When you submit uncredited cast, you're presented with this verbiage and have to check a box when submitting. This is the only place I'm aware of where it alludes to copying from another approved profile is generally accepted.
Quote:
This contribution contains uncredited cast entries. Please submit uncredited cast only if:
You have personally identified the cast by viewing the film
-OR- The cast is copied from a previously accepted profile with documented uncredited cast
Be sure to specify the source in your contribution notes
So basically you'd have to trace back the contributions however far they go. It does make it a bit more difficult if the cast traces to the Intervocative time frame.
If the profile where the cast originated doesn't have documentation then it seems you have grounds to argue for their removal, whole or in part.
The rules do allow the copying from the film's official site as long as it fits within the defined boundaries:
Quote:
If there are no credits, the film's official site may be used as a source, as long as the inclusion does not violate the site's published policy (if any). | Posted: Topic Replies: 2, Topic Views: 97 |
 |
Quoting Mr.45ACP:
Quote:
Hi rdodolak
Ok, actually after starting the software it always checks for updates.
If I now click on update, the window pops up briefly and closes again immediately.
The incremental update file has been broken since the server crash/update. So, you need to manually download and refresh the online profile list to get all of the updates by following the instructions I previously posted.
EDIT: If you don't hold down the CTRL key before clicking Refresh Online Profile List then it only checks for the incremental update file which doesn't exist. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 607 |
|
Make sure you're updating your online profile list. From the menu bar select Online -> (hold down the Ctrl key and then click) Refresh Online Profile List...
Those titles should be in the database, at least for the US versions. The database is a user contributed database so it's dependent on users contributing new profiles and updates. But yes, there have also been less individuals contributing as time has gone on. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 607 |
|
Amistad --> Ronald Eng
Balto --> Ron Eng
The Nun --> Ron Eng
Rules of Engagement --> Ron Eng
Tinkerbell --> Ron Eng | Posted: Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 15488 |
|
The Hunted --> Ron Eng
Bug --> Ron Eng | Posted: Topic Replies: 27, Topic Views: 15488 |
|
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Actually, what was said was that they would be "working to resolve soon". They didn't promise that they would be successful.
But yeah, a follow up statement would have been nice.
And that statement was 9 months ago. Though it's likely a more complicated issue since development of the app likely stopped back in 2017 so it's not as easy as resubmitting it to the Google Play store for approval. But the fact that development all together seemed to stop in 2017 for some reason is really concerning and it's unfortunate there hasn't been more transparency as to the future of DVDProfiler. | Posted: Topic Replies: 68, Topic Views: 15383 |
|
Quoting hydr0x:
Quote:
I agree principally Gunnar, but with this issue things are somewhat different. After all, this is 100% a server API issue. A you say, someone IS keeping the server alive. If only they were aware of this issue, I'm sure they could fix it easily. I haven't reverse engineered the calls, but my suspicion is that while the latest DB files are still copied to the necessary server location, the DB diff files are not. Could be as simple as a missing cron job after a server move.
I was thinking the same. Ken periodically comes around, but the silence is deafening. When the server went down they made it a priority to post and to rebuilt the server, not to mention a statement that the Android app would come back to the Google Play store. But with no signs of life since then somehow that now seems like another empty promise. So it begs the question, why say it to begin with? | Posted: Topic Replies: 68, Topic Views: 15383 |
|
Quoting RoWi1973:
Quote:
Wow, just found out about this! I missed so many updates! Now it's all refreshed. Very happy with this solution. Thanks, greyghost!
This method is referenced in the Knowledge Base under "Floating Point Error, or missing text on buttons." | Posted: Topic Replies: 68, Topic Views: 15383 |
|
| If more people downvote the posts they should be removed automatically. | Posted: Topic Replies: 6, Topic Views: 1247 |
|
| I'm starting to guess those pages are originally created when a new profile is submitted and that it doesn't get auto generated or regenerated when updates are made. Hence the reason why this seems to exist only for profiles that were newly submitted around the time the server crashed. | Posted: Topic Replies: 3, Topic Views: 1998 |
|
| Your online collection also looks weird. It's only showing 40 titles and the title field is blank for all of them. | Posted: Topic Replies: 10, Topic Views: 2209 |
|
This answers that question.
Windows Apps EOL? | Posted: Topic Replies: 92, Topic Views: 16844 |
|
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Quoting Cineast:
Quote:
Collectorz seem to have canceled the desktop version of Movie Collector. Apparently only the smartphone and the Android app are available. I also had less good experiences with the company in the past when the promise of lifetime licenses was canceled.
Their web site still shows the Windows (and Mac) version, at $39.95 per year.
Where is it listed as the new site seems to have omitted it. | Posted: Topic Replies: 92, Topic Views: 16844 |
|
Quoting ObiKen:
Quote:
If the Rating Details rule is followed literally then it also includes conjunctions such as [although, before, after, because, how, once, since, that, unless, until, when] as being in lower case because they are all joining words.
Was that the rules intention?
The guidelines specifically mention joining words which are conjunctions, but not all conjunctions, and depending on use, are joining words.
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
Ok, but that would be for titles. Why apply it to the rating details when the guidelines state:
Quote:
For English profiles, capitalize all words except joining words such as "of", "the", "a", "in", etc."
I seriously doubt that Ken actually intended that different capitalization rules should apply to Titles and Rating Details.
The rule for Rating Details is vague:
capitalize all words except joining words such as "of", "the", "a", "in", etc.
My guess would be that the Titles rule started out equally vague, and then Ken decided to make it clearer by introducing the capitalization tool, but he neglected to clarify that the Rating Details should follow the same rule.
I'm not sure we can assume that as Ken specifically mentioned "joining words" which "Off" is not. | Posted: Topic Replies: 23, Topic Views: 4690 |
|
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
Why would "Off" be lower case for rating details since the guidelines state "For English profiles, capitalize all words except joining words"?
I don't know, but that's how Ken's capitalization tool does it, so I follow suit.
Ok, but that would be for titles. Why apply it to the rating details when the guidelines state:
Quote:
For English profiles, capitalize all words except joining words such as "of", "the", "a", "in", etc." | Posted: Topic Replies: 23, Topic Views: 4690 |
|
| Why would "Off" be lower case for rating details since the guidelines state "For English profiles, capitalize all words except joining words"? | Posted: Topic Replies: 23, Topic Views: 4690 |
|
| Guess I'm not fully following but which text are you replacing... maybe an example would help. | Posted: Topic Replies: 10, Topic Views: 3031 |
|
Quoting Lithurge:
Quote:
Quoting rdodolak:
Quote:
But shouldn't people already know what the generic advice is then for the rating?
What does that matter? Ultimately the rules say we should enter the details that are on the cover in the absence of other sources, so if this is what's there it is within the rules to include it. Removing it or voting no on it is not.
It matters because we don't, and have never, include(d) the rating definition in the rating details. The rating details are the descriptors for why a specific film received the rating it did and is unique to that film. The definition is just a boiler plate/generic explanation for the rating which is independent to the film.
For the US' PG-13 rating we don't add "Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Children Under 13" to the rating details field.
I don't see why this would be any different for other countries. | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 3634 |
|
| But shouldn't people already know what the generic advice is then for the rating? | Posted: Topic Replies: 12, Topic Views: 3634 |
|
| When refreshing the Online Profile List, hold down the ctrl key. So, from the menu bar, go to Online -> then hold down the ctrl key and click on Refresh Online Profile List... | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 2309 |
|
| I do too, but it's obvious there aren't enough people downvoting to have the posts automatically removed as is evident by the fact that the posts are still here and the option to down vote the first wave has disappeared. | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 2148 |
|
Quoting piscesx:
Quote:
Wayback Machine shows some broken images, too.
Will guess (clamshell) on my next contribution. 
The archive is just documenting a snapshot in time. Since those images disappeared at different points in time you have to go back further in time. Here's one that shows the clamshell pictures.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120512121842/http://invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=373552&PageNum=1 | Posted: Topic Replies: 228, Topic Views: 83336 |
|
| Makes sense as you wouldn't want a title overruling all others simply because it had more releases. | Posted: Topic Replies: 3, Topic Views: 1815 |
|
| I continue to down vote each one, but apparently not enough people do given the prevalence of posts remaining. It's why there are so many attempts because they know they have a better likelihood of success. | Posted: Topic Replies: 3, Topic Views: 1986 |
|
Quoting Kvack:
Quote:
Thanks. That's probably more than what I want to spend just to load UFD Disc IDs into DVD Profiler.
As far as drive enclosures go, I have this which I could recommend more:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01K7HMVQ6?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details&th=1
It plugs into the back of most drives (including the internal Blu-ray writer which I salvaged from another machine) and treats them as if they were external.
I'm curious about the LG BH16NS55, however. I looked it up on Amazon and it doesn't seem to mention UHD support. Are you sure it can read the DISC IDs of UHD discs?
A lot of older LG Blu-ray drives were compatible with UHD though they never mentioned it in the specs. It's possible the newer versions have an updated firmware that disables that capability, but a lot of times you can flash or cross flash firmware to retain or obtain that feature. | Posted: Topic Replies: 7, Topic Views: 4312 |