Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Except for the fact, that you see this as extremely inaccurate, everybody seems to understand what goes into that field, and there is rarely a question about it.

There seems to be a little hypocrisy regarding this.  Over and over I read about submissions being denied because of accuracy.  Contributors not being allowed to use IMDB as a source, because it is inaccurate.

Of course we "understand" what goes into the field, because it is the only choice.  I'm trying to get that choice changed to what is out in the real world, not what it only was 50+ years ago.

Yep, when it comes to correctly applying the editing role to a crew member, accuracy is thrown out the window.  I'm sure there are other crew member roles that need "fixing" as well.  This is the first one I've easily run across.

When it comes to your "and there is rarely a question about it," I think of the three monkeys.

Quoting MrVideo:

Quote:
The second part is that two MORE roles entries are needed.  I never said to take away the "Film Editor" role, but to add two more: "Edited by" and "Editor"

There's no more need for that then there is to add these to the Writing section:

Adaptation and Dialog by
Adapted for the Screen by
Film Play by
Original Screen Play by
Scenario and Dialog by
Screen Play by
Screenplay by
Teleplay by
Written for the Screen by

The list could grow quite long if you want to add every possible variation of every role.

---------------

Quoting MrVideo:

Quote:
The crew entry for editing only has one, extremely inaccurate, entry: Film Editor

Ever since electronic non-linear editing has come into play, in both movies and more specifically, television shows, Film Editor has been replaced with either Editor or Edited by.

Regardless of the current vogue in technology, they still serve the same function. I would hardly call it extremely inaccurate. A bit anachronistic perhaps, but it doesn't require a huge leap of thought to make the connection Film Editor -> Editor or Edited by. Looks like you're trying to "fix" something that has never been a problem.

Quoting MrVideo:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Except for the fact, that you see this as extremely inaccurate, everybody seems to understand what goes into that field, and there is rarely a question about it.

There seems to be a little hypocrisy regarding this.  Over and over I read about submissions being denied because of accuracy.  Contributors not being allowed to use IMDB as a source, because it is inaccurate.

Of course we "understand" what goes into the field, because it is the only choice.  I'm trying to get that choice changed to what is out in the real world, not what it only was 50+ years ago.

Yep, when it comes to correctly applying the editing role to a crew member, accuracy is thrown out the window.  I'm sure there are other crew member roles that need "fixing" as well.  This is the first one I've easily run across.

When it comes to your "and there is rarely a question about it," I think of the three monkeys.

You talk about "Three Monkeys", but seem to be blind to copyright violations

From IMDB

Quote:
IMDb grants you a limited license to access and make personal use of this site and not to download (other than page caching) or modify it, or any portion of it, except with express written consent of IMDb. This site or any portion of this site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of IMDb. This license does not include any resale or commercial use of this site or its contents or any derivative use of this site or its contents.

Bolding by me

Invelos is a commercial enterprise, and the Online DB is an asset of that commercial enterprise. 

I don't argue accuracy of IMDB as much as Legality.

As far as "Three Monkeys", every one of my edited profiles have the correct "as credited" crew position in the custom field.  This is what I see, in my display and in my online.  I track a number of roles this way, that don't necessarily fit into the broad categories that DVD Profiler allows.

If you want the header to say "Editor", you may do that.  Profiler only stores the tag, and you can alter the reference for that tag locally.

If Ken decides to change it, I hope he gives it something besides "Editor".  I can see the arguments that start for all the sound, Dialogue, adr, foley and music editors. 

Film Editor conveys a meaning that most people understand.  Whether or not it is actually film or not, is really irrelevant.

You seem to portray yourself as more than average knowledge about the what people still refer to as the "Film" industry.  If this is the case, then you are not the average "Joe" that will use this program.  You really need to think about this on that level.

MHO

Charlie

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I can understand wanting to change the name to 'Editor', but I don't see the need for either of these options as they both say, basically, the same exact thing.

That didn't stop us with director of photography and cinematographer. Some people argue they should mean something different, but as applied, they mean the same thing.

I think you misunderstood what I meant.  DoP and Cinematographer, while virtually the same job, are two completely different credits.  Edited by and Editor are the same credit.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
There's no more need for that then there is to add these to the Writing section:

Adaptation and Dialog by
Adapted for the Screen by
Film Play by
Original Screen Play by
Scenario and Dialog by
Screen Play by
Screenplay by
Teleplay by
Written for the Screen by

The list could grow quite long if you want to add every possible variation of every role.

---------------

Those primary roles are not available for selection?  Sigh!

Quoting MrVideo:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Small correction here...IMDb can't be used as a source because it violates their ToS.

And just how are they supposed to know that someone used the IMDB as a source for a cast/crew list?  There are multiple sources of that data.

That really isn't the point, now, is it?  It violates their ToS and Ken has stated that he will honor it...'nuf said.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Personally I have no problems with the function being referred to as "Film Editor" but if it were to get changed I'd suggest "Picture Editor." Many editors refer to themselves as exactly that.

I have never seen such a cfredit ande since it is Credits we deal withg perhaps you can point to su8ch a credit, it is not relevant what somebody calls himself...what is the CREDIT?

very wise to not proceed further vwith your complete fiction