 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Desktop Feature Requests |
Page:
1 2 3 ...6  Previous Next
|
|
Creditd As Option |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ken
As you know I personally would like the Credited As feature made a local only feature. However, I obviously realise that I am in the minority of one in my opinion.
However, as it stand the CA is not working properly. Neither is the CLT.
Therefore, I would like to suggest that (if possible) you amend the program so Credited As entries can be optional.
In much the same way as partial contributions/partial updates are currently done.
That way I could protect my local database from the Credited As entries while taking advantage of other Cast/Crew updates (the new 3.5 crew additions spring to mind). |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | While I have no problem if Ken makes this optional for your local, the entire "linking" system needs to be re-thought. As stated, the CLT is useless in way too many cases, and having to do "Credited As" in every profile where someone's on screen credit differs from their most common credit is simply an overbearing way of going about linking.
A simple table which ties various versions of a name together would be a much simpler solution. It may not be perfect, as has been pointed out before, but it would have to be better than what we are currently saddled with, IMHO. | | | | Hal |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, after all this, at the very least I'd like to say: DO SOMETHING!! I can see how making it optional will please some people, but at the same time I feel that this data is very important to share. I can't help thinking it would simply result in everyone having to do the same work locally. Dealing with name variants is such an integral part of maintaining cast and crew data... Either way, Ken needs to finally speak out on some of the problems we keep running into. IMHO, he has to do that whether it's made optional or not. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
I can see how making it optional will please some people, but at the same time I feel that this data is very important to share. This is the very reason why I am suggesting making this an optional upload/download feature. I'm trying to come at this from a purely unbiased viewpoint and think what would benefit everyone. Let's take you as an example T!M....You do a lot of work with the Credited As feature. I'm sure there a loads of users who would like to benefit from all your hard work. However, I'm sure there are also people who would NOT want the Credited As entries. My option gives them the choice.As it currently stands we have no choice at all with updates. Recently there was an update for a profile which added the 3.5 crew to a profile - but, I personally didn't want the Credited As entries for that profile so I had to refuse that update. Refusing good data is not an acceptable solution as far as I am concerned. |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
My option gives them the choice. I get that. And I'm not opposing it. I'm merely asking that Ken addresses some of the neverending issues surrounding this as well. Making it optional is well and good, but what I need more than anything is a ruling on some of these hotly debated issues, so that we can finally get all users on the same page and move on. So I'm not against making it optional, but PLEASE Ken, just settle the problems so the rest of us can properly work with it! You could do a world of good by spending no more than five minutes of typing some clarifications into the rules... |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I still believe that the system as it is designed is fatally flawed. The best systemis still based on a non-priority setup. as I have explained before. Yes, we would still have to provided documentation to setup the Associations, in the majority of cases but once Robin Wright=Robin Wright-Penn=Robin Wright Penn is established based upon ACTUAL data then ANY search on a given name will yield the same set of films. Theses coiuld be organized in any number of ways,such as, the searched name being first, with subsequent listings being based on commonality of occurrence.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'd just like to point out the general ambivalence that many users seem to have too.
124 people have read this thread.
15 have actually voted.
Either this indicates that they simply can't be bothered with voting. Or that they have no strong opinion on the credited as function. | | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would really like to see this implemented as well Pantheon, and it would be extremely useful...to me at least!  | | | | Corey |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
However, as it stand the CA is not working properly. Neither is the CLT. The CA system works properly when supplied with correct data. The CLT has some problems, I agree. Sure, it will improve as good data is contributed, but I think that's years away at best. Quoting hal9g: Quote:
While I have no problem if Ken makes this optional for your local, the entire "linking" system needs to be re-thought. As stated, the CLT is useless in way too many cases, and having to do "Credited As" in every profile where someone's on screen credit differs from their most common credit is simply an overbearing way of going about linking. It is a huge undertaking to get the names sorted out, that's for sure. In order to fix this aspect though, wouldn't you have to fix the fact that we update each film's data by UPC rather than by film? Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:
Quote:
My option gives them the choice.
I get that. And I'm not opposing it. I'm merely asking that Ken addresses some of the neverending issues surrounding this as well. Making it optional is well and good, but what I need more than anything is a ruling on some of these hotly debated issues, so that we can finally get all users on the same page and move on. So I'm not against making it optional, but PLEASE Ken, just settle the problems so the rest of us can properly work with it! You could do a world of good by spending no more than five minutes of typing some clarifications into the rules... I agree. There's a lot that could be fixed with some simple additions to the rules. Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I still believe that the system as it is designed is fatally flawed. The best systemis still based on a non-priority setup. as I have explained before. Yes, we would still have to provided documentation to setup the Associations, in the majority of cases but once Robin Wright=Robin Wright-Penn=Robin Wright Penn is established based upon ACTUAL data then ANY search on a given name will yield the same set of films. Theses coiuld be organized in any number of ways,such as, the searched name being first, with subsequent listings being based on commonality of occurrence.
Skip What would be the unique key your system that would differentiate between same names that are shared by different people? I don't know of any conflicts with Robin Wright, but hypothetically if there were another Robin Wright, how would that affect your linking method to exclude the "other" Robin Wright from the above? Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
I'd just like to point out the general ambivalence that many users seem to have too.
124 people have read this thread.
15 have actually voted.
Either this indicates that they simply can't be bothered with voting. Or that they have no strong opinion on the credited as function. At that time, there were 124 views, not necessarily people. With thread subscriptions, you'll have users returning possibly every time someone posts, which increases the view count. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
I still believe that the system as it is designed is fatally flawed. The best systemis still based on a non-priority setup. as I have explained before. Yes, we would still have to provided documentation to setup the Associations, in the majority of cases but once Robin Wright=Robin Wright-Penn=Robin Wright Penn is established based upon ACTUAL data then ANY search on a given name will yield the same set of films. Theses coiuld be organized in any number of ways,such as, the searched name being first, with subsequent listings being based on commonality of occurrence.
Skip
What would be the unique key your system that would differentiate between same names that are shared by different people? I don't know of any conflicts with Robin Wright, but hypothetically if there were another Robin Wright, how would that affect your linking method to exclude the "other" Robin Wright from the above? I think along the same lines as Skip and Hal on this one... I believe we need something completely different then we have now. As for your concern with same name for 2 different people... wouldn't that be handled the way it is now? With the birthyear? Which yes... leaves some to be desired... but it does do it's job... even if you can only find 1 of the birthyears at the moment. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: May 12, 2008 | | Posts: 49 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree that a new system needs to be developed and would negate the need for an optional Credited as system, but for now I think the optional choice would not hurt for those who would like to protect their local db.
Current System; (assuming)
Local Table Cast: First Name, Middle Name, Last Name, Birth Year. Unique Identity of the Cast looks to be some concatenation of all 4 fields which you can try when entering a duplicate record yourself - case does not seem to matter.
Local Table Crew: same as for Cast, but two differentiating tables, hence the need to re-add a Crew Member if not present in Crew but is in the Cast table.
Online Master Tables Cast/Crew: Same data but contains all Cast/Crew from all Users' collections - which of course where problems with differing actor names and DoB occur.
Now each DVD Entry in your database Links the Unique Identity of Cast Member (FirstName + MiddleName + LastName + BirthYear) to your Local Table and then allow you to set the extra field Credited As, but this is linked to the DVD Profile and not the Cast Table hence where we have the confusion with most commonly credited name and credited as feature.
A new system could have the Cast and Crew entries linked online like the Online Profile List (for UPCs and Disc IDs) this way we download only the master Cast and Crew entries, which are uniquely identified by something else i.e. a number to allow for direct linking on Cast Number and not Cast Name Concatenation. This way you could quite easily create a CreditedAs online Table linked by new idenity, that allows to search for the common Credited As options per Cast/Crew member, including adding your own.
This task alone I am sure would be huge since it is a big overhaul of the internal mechanics of the program though it would directly relate the Master Cast/Crew with a list of possibilities of Credited As that are separate and not linked solely to the DVD Profile - the DVD Profile would just use the Master Online Profile Identity and any Credited As Identity (if present). Therefore all Cast/Crew are linked together and hopefully would alleviate the duplicates. The main problem would be setting up the master online Cast/Crew tables and remove all duplicates into one entry. This is where a high margin of error could occur, so the benefit of this could be outweighed by the immensity of the task! |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,744 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
124 people have read this thread.
15 have actually voted. When you read this, you'll have increased the "read" counter once more. Not 124 people have read this thread but it was opened 124 times (most likely by 124 - x people where x > 50). | | | Karsten
DVD Collectors Online
 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | James:
We have a little thing called BY which is used to diferentiate between actors with the same name.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
While I have no problem if Ken makes this optional for your local, the entire "linking" system needs to be re-thought. As stated, the CLT is useless in way too many cases, and having to do "Credited As" in every profile where someone's on screen credit differs from their most common credit is simply an overbearing way of going about linking.
It is a huge undertaking to get the names sorted out, that's for sure. In order to fix this aspect though, wouldn't you have to fix the fact that we update each film's data by UPC rather than by film? The only problem with doing it by film, is that there are unfortunately, instances where there are actually differences in credits from one version of the film to the next. Yes it is rare, but it does happen. Fortunately, cast and crew lists can be easily copied, and then edited for these minor changes. I think we need to simply enter credits exactly "As Credited" in the film, and then use a linking system that just ties together different variations of a persons actual film credits. The "Credited As" field could be eliminated. There are the very rare instances, Alan Smithee comes to mind, where the same "Credited As" name refers to at least two completely different people. We have lots of smart people in these forums (and some who only think they're smart  ), who collectively could figure out how to deal with these rare instances. Such a system would work for the vast majority of credits and the link between the names would only have to be done one time rather than in each and every profile or even each and every "film". I really believe we have traveled down the wrong road on this one. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with everything Hal said.
In the rare occasions where more then one person uses the same name such as Alan Smithee... I think the simplest solution would be once you determine for sure who we are talking about... use the birthyear for that person in that particular case for the name Alan Smithee. This way this name will be seperated as well. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I think along the same lines as Skip and Hal on this one... I believe we need something completely different then we have now. As for your concern with same name for 2 different people... wouldn't that be handled the way it is now? With the birthyear? Which yes... leaves some to be desired... but it does do it's job... even if you can only find 1 of the birthyears at the moment. I was just curious as to the details of his suggestion. I didn't know if he intended to continue using birth year or not. As you say, "we need something completely different than we have now", so I didn't know if that included birth year or not. Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
James:
We have a little thing called BY which is used to diferentiate between actors with the same name.
Skip I know what we have. I didn't know if your proposal included continued use of the birth year or not. Quoting hal9g: Quote:
There are the very rare instances, Alan Smithee comes to mind, where the same "Credited As" name refers to at least two completely different people. We have lots of smart people in these forums (and some who only think they're smart ), who collectively could figure out how to deal with these rare instances. Such a system would work for the vast majority of credits and the link between the names would only have to be done one time rather than in each and every profile or even each and every "film".
This is the point that I'm trying to understand. How, in instances such as Alan Smithee, where the same name is shared by several people, does this suggestion account for this? John Doe=Alan Smithee^Alan Smithee=John Smith Do you assign a birth year to John Doe, even if he might not need it to distinquish from other John Does? And do you assign John Doe's birth year to his Alan Smithee to distinguish it from John Smith's Alan Smithee? | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Desktop Feature Requests |
Page:
1 2 3 ...6 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |