Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Gerri Cole:

Quote:
Quoting Tracer:

Quote:
One of the primary reasons for the decline, could be if you added titles you don't own, such as cast and crew.  The rules state take cast and crew credits from the film credits as credited.  That's rather hard to do if you don't own what your contributing.

If your going to contribute something to the database you should only be contributing what can be verified.

But I have the DVD (film), man you are thick.

Once again Tim, you show no comprehension.. The data must F

Tracer is absolutely right - you should only contribute the data that you can verify. And if you dont have the DVD, that will limit your information.

So speaketh the Goddess of the Rules.

And no, Skip, my statement does Not require us to set up separate profiles for each disc ID. That's already well covered by the rules.

My statement covers the fact that I cannot take 'as credited' data from my Fox Lorber copy of Breathless and submit it on the Criterion version which is only in my Wish List.

Man you are thick, tonight.

Tim:

You still are showing me that truly just don't understand.

Let try again. The Name Table is populated by ACTUAL credited names PERIOD

Which means that like it or not the process is a two-step process. FIRST the data MUST be entered AS CREDITED in order to populate the Name Table properly. If a name is found to be in error it must FIRST be returned to As Credited again to properly poulate the name table. Only then can we proceed to the Credited as part of the Alias system.

You claim that it is trying to create a single named, Tim, and what is that data based upon, what YOU think the name is or what? Do we pull it out of the air or the nether regions? No, we take it from EVERY titles credits As we see it.  We also know that in some circumstances that Common Name will be a moveable target. As data is entered for the Name Table to be populated, count results will change assuming correct data entry in Step 1. It remains to be seen how big a deal this will be, since first we have to have an accurate Name Table to begin with, which we don't.

Let's say we have a brand new entry and that all the data is correctly entered
Let's say Bill Shatner is the On Screen Credit, let's assume that current population count is Bill 2 William 3, and you jump staright to the Alias, the Name table will now FALSELY report Bill 2 and William 4, instead of Bill 3 William 3. Now there comes another new entry for Bill and you do the same thing based on the count so now the count will report Bill 2 William 5, when it should now be Bill 4 and William 3 and we now have a bad database yielding FALSE answers. Is that really what you want, Tim. I hope not. Do I like it no, and I don't mean to take shots at Ken but i didn't design it, but i do understand how it works and what we have to do to get correct results from it. Sam eproblems are reflected and magnified in the program limitaion relative to upper and lower case. We'll take an easy one
Lois De Banzie, I have 7 titles with her in at least one role, she is primarily a TV actress so there maybe multiple Episodes. My database says I have 7 Lois De, how many of those might be Lois de, I know at least ONE but as for the other six I have no idea, the other six may well be listed actually credited as De, or there may be some sort of a split between the two. But because the program does not see the difference between upper and lower case, I cannot produce an accurate result. Since none of us can produce an accurate result neither can the Online.

God, I really do hope this helps.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Gerri Cole:

Quote:
Quoting Tracer:

Quote:
One of the primary reasons for the decline, could be if you added titles you don't own, such as cast and crew.  The rules state take cast and crew credits from the film credits as credited.  That's rather hard to do if you don't own what your contributing.

If your going to contribute something to the database you should only be contributing what can be verified.

But I have the DVD (film), man you are thick.

Once again Tim, you show no comprehension.. The data must F

Tracer is absolutely right - you should only contribute the data that you can verify. And if you dont have the DVD, that will limit your information.

So speaketh the Goddess of the Rules.

And no, Skip, my statement does Not require us to set up separate profiles for each disc ID. That's already well covered by the rules.

My statement covers the fact that I cannot take 'as credited' data from my Fox Lorber copy of Breathless and submit it on the Criterion version which is only in my Wish List.

Just to be clear, the green bolded words above are yours which you inadvertently included in my quote.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Man you are thick, tonight.

Please stick to the issues.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Let's say we have a brand new entry and that all the data is correctly entered
Let's say Bill Shatner is the On Screen Credit, let's assume that current population count is Bill 2 William 3, and you jump staright to the Alias, the Name table will now FALSELY report Bill 2 and William 4, instead of Bill 3 William 3.

If the count is Bill 2 and William 3 and you enter a new credit of Name: William Shatner [Credited As: Bill Shatner], the count will then correctly report Bill 3 and William 3. The count comes first from the Credited As, if present, and from the Name if no Credited As is present.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Now there comes another new entry for Bill and you do the same thing based on the count so now the count will report Bill 2 William 5, when it should now be Bill 4 and William 3 and we now have a bad database yielding FALSE answers.

If you enter another credit as William Shatner [Bill Shatner], the count will correctly report Bill 4 and William 3. The database gives a true answer; however, the common name does need to be changed to Bill at that point for all 7 entries.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I don't mean to take shots at Ken but i didn't design it, but i do understand how it works and what we have to do to get correct results from it.

I'm not sure you do based on the Bill/William Shatner example you've given.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Sam eproblems are reflected and magnified in the program limitaion relative to upper and lower case. We'll take an easy one
Lois De Banzie, I have 7 titles with her in at least one role, she is primarily a TV actress so there maybe multiple Episodes. My database says I have 7 Lois De, how many of those might be Lois de, I know at least ONE but as for the other six I have no idea, the other six may well be listed actually credited as De, or there may be some sort of a split between the two. But because the program does not see the difference between upper and lower case, I cannot produce an accurate result. Since none of us can produce an accurate result neither can the Online.

You cannot use the filter to determine the answer, but you can record the correct data in the Credited As field. You won't be able to use the Lookup tool to determine which is more frequent, but the correct data will be in the program.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I don't think you are right, But you don't know how much I hope you are. Now I have to try and think of way for some "gaming" to test it. If you think I like the idea of it being a two step process you are dead wrong, but since the Common name is derived from the Name Table your explanation would seem to fly in the face of logic, but I can think of way that would work programming wise.

From the first page of the lookup announcement:

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
The Credit Lookup tool is now available for use.  Visit the Database section of the site and click 'Credit Lookup'.  Enter the name to search and a summary list of matching profiles will be displayed.  Click the profile to view a detailed list of the selected credit's entries in the selected profile.

Notes:
- The credit match is done by displayed name, which will be either the full name or the Credited As name if entered, and so should be a true indication of the credit's frequency.
- Matches are done on Cast and Crew together

The bold is mine.

Sounds like a good "game", tweeter. I'll have at it in a bit.

Skip

Thank you.  Glad i could help.

Yes, it looks like i got casual with Mr. Ross that time.  I wasn't doing them ST episodes in numerical order and by the time i got to this one it was so obviously him i failed to detail it. 

Here's one reference: he's referred to on the startrek.org as "David L." for the episode in question.

James:

I seem to recall you takingexception to my stating my opinion relative to you and Rick's ummm veracity. Yet according to the history here both you and Rick slandered me long before I mentioned credibility. I suggest you that you need to re-think not only your position but your choice of words. They were not only insulting but inflammatory and baiting. Certainly not designed to engage discussion or get any reaction from me other than the one you got. Catch my drift?

Skip

No need to be confused, amigo. Just choose words more carefully, I would think you know me well enough to know that is a very touchy subject with me, and that I simply won't put up with it. You have an interpretation and I have one, both of which are reasonable from their own given point of view. I have not told you that you were wrong, in fact quite the contrary, but I have said that I don't agree with it. To jump that to a Rules Violation based upon your interpretation, as if yours was the only one with any validity is simply outrageous, James. With me it is guaranteed to get my hackles waaaaaay up everytime, and as I said earlier such inflammatory comments prevent me from seeing any point you might have. So.....don't do it.

Skip

With one very notable exception which still is stuck in my craw. I generally would not say that. Particularly if i can understand how it might be interpreted to fit within the Rules. In that one case, there was no justification that could be rationalized, it was simply a wanton and deliberate violation. I believed it then, I still do and always will.

There were three little words involved which had no other interpretation...Don't Do It.

As for plans of others of others, i can't say I recall anyone picking up a ball.

Skip