Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong but it looks as though you are suggesting something that is not part of the current program. From what I have read you are saying to Ken your way is better and he should abandon his way and revise his program to what you are suggesting.

If that is your suggestion then I am against this feature request. I would like to see us make the program work with the features Ken has given us WITHOUT making him go back to the drawing board and re-do the software.

EDIT : Directed at Skip's method of name linking not the moratorium in general

Nobody is a God here, not even Ken.  He came make mistakes, just as YOU do, and as we all do.  It is also possible that somebody can come up with a better way to do it than the way he did.  I don't give a damn about getting credit for it, I'm only interested in a way to do what YOU want (I already said I have no use for either feature) without forcing me and others to accept data we don't want, or have our data changed arbitrarily by the program and have no control over that.

I have a great deal of respect for Ken and his ability.  But he isn't the only programmer here, and he can learn from us just as we learn from him.  As for going back to the drawing board, it is frequently the easiest way to fix something that isn't working rather than trying to force it to work when it isn't set up right.  A good programmer isn't afraid to do that.  I've done it many times, so has Skip, and I would expect Ken has as well.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Please explain how this will allow the two different Kevin Smith's to be associated only with their respective movies.  Neither has any alias.

OK, so out of 50,000 actor names and aliases, you get a handful that have the same identical name. Add a middle initial, or some other arbitrary value to make them different.  Call the young one Kevin "Silent Bob" Smith.  Whatever.

So you are suggesting that we "make up" a name for the second person?  And who will be the arbiter of the "fake" name?

You are complaining that Ken's solution is "not complete" but you casually dismiss the issue when a deficiency in your proposal is pointed out! 

Do you ever offer ANYTHING constructive, Hal?  Ever?  What do you think IMDB does in such cases?  They add a number after the guy's name.  Oh, gee, what a sec!  They can't do that!  It's an arbitrary name!  Welcome to the real world.

As Skip noted, however, you're talking about a different issue, and a very minor one at that.  Try getting with the program for once.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong but it looks as though you are suggesting something that is not part of the current program. From what I have read you are saying to Ken your way is better and he should abandon his way and revise his program to what you are suggesting.

If that is your suggestion then I am against this feature request. I would like to see us make the program work with the features Ken has given us WITHOUT making him go back to the drawing board and re-do the software.

EDIT : Directed at Skip's method of name linking not the moratorium in general

Rick:

I have said from the beginning that I believe a simple association is a better route to follow, that is nothing new. I have also said several times that that is just another programmer's opinion, and that if you lock two programmer's in a room they may well come up with diffrent approaches, as there is always more than one way to do almost ANYTHING.

That said, let's take a look at why I think the simple association method is better.
It is easy to implement, transparent to the user and should cause no isssues.

What do we have now. A perfectly good system, that from the beginning has embroiled us in a discussion on the best way to implement a standard and we are no closer to that. From my viewpoint as another programmer, if I implement something that causes this kind of controversy, then I blew it and need to rethink it. But again that is just my opinion, and it is up to ken and i am waiting to see what our friend has up his sleeve.

Since I have said this all numerous times, Rick. might I inquire as to the objective of your post, as if I didn't have a suspicion. Does repeating it all contribute something new.

Skip

No objective other than clarification and thank you for clarifying.

And again I would voice my objection to your feature request of having Ken change the program. IMO our efforts should be directed at making what he gave us work and not telling him of a better way (in your opinion) to do it.

Quoting Rifter (bold added by me):

Quote:

Nobody is a God here, not even Ken.  He came make mistakes, just as YOU do, and as we all do.  It is also possible that somebody can come up with a better way to do it than the way he did.  I don't give a damn about getting credit for it, I'm only interested in a way to do what YOU want (I already said I have no use for either feature) without forcing me and others to accept data we don't want, or have our data changed arbitrarily by the program and have no control over that.

I have a great deal of respect for Ken and his ability.  But he isn't the only programmer here, and he can learn from us just as we learn from him.  As for going back to the drawing board, it is frequently the easiest way to fix something that isn't working rather than trying to force it to work when it isn't set up right.  A good programmer isn't afraid to do that.  I've done it many times, so has Skip, and I would expect Ken has as well.

Yes, we all make mistakes, but Ken's choosing to write the code for his program in a way you don't like doesn't make it a mistake.  We have some bugs to work out is all.

Never said anyone was looking for credit. I have no idea where you get that from. 

Everyone who downloads any profile is forced to take whatever is in the profile. Plain and simple. If you or anyone else don't like what the online Db has to offer you are free to do whatever you want locally. I personally don't care much about crew. I like directors though. Unfortunately if I want directors I am 'forced' to take whatever crew is there as well.

No, Ken isn't the only programmer here, but it is still his program (something Skip has bashed into all of our heads for 3 years now that I know of). If you have a feature request please make it and let the community decide if we like it. Then Ken will see if he likes it. Then maybe he will add it to the list. Other than that, unless Ken asks for help or a better way of coding his program it is arrogant to tell him he has made a mistake.

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong but it looks as though you are suggesting something that is not part of the current program. From what I have read you are saying to Ken your way is better and he should abandon his way and revise his program to what you are suggesting.

If that is your suggestion then I am against this feature request. I would like to see us make the program work with the features Ken has given us WITHOUT making him go back to the drawing board and re-do the software.

EDIT : Directed at Skip's method of name linking not the moratorium in general

Rick:

I have said from the beginning that I believe a simple association is a better route to follow, that is nothing new. I have also said several times that that is just another programmer's opinion, and that if you lock two programmer's in a room they may well come up with diffrent approaches, as there is always more than one way to do almost ANYTHING.

That said, let's take a look at why I think the simple association method is better.
It is easy to implement, transparent to the user and should cause no isssues.

What do we have now. A perfectly good system, that from the beginning has embroiled us in a discussion on the best way to implement a standard and we are no closer to that. From my viewpoint as another programmer, if I implement something that causes this kind of controversy, then I blew it and need to rethink it. But again that is just my opinion, and it is up to ken and i am waiting to see what our friend has up his sleeve.

Since I have said this all numerous times, Rick. might I inquire as to the objective of your post, as if I didn't have a suspicion. Does repeating it all contribute something new.

Skip

No objective other than clarification and thank you for clarifying.

And again I would voice my objection to your feature request of having Ken change the program. IMO our efforts should be directed at making what he gave us work and not telling him of a better way (in your opinion) to do it.

Rick:

Trust me I would love to see someone come up with a standard we can all use for this. I am not saying that Ken's way is wrong. We have been trying to create a standard now fo rtwo months, and I have been pulling my hair out here desperately trying to come up with something. As long as that is the way the Program works, I will continue to hope that one of us can come up with "Eureka, I have it". As I noted, speaking for myself, as a programmer if I had set something up that caused something like this I would head back to the drawing board, muttering to myself, and probably calling myself a few names on the way; but that's me and I am not Ken contrary to popular suspicion. I do not dash into a phone booth and come out as Ken, IF I can find a phone booth I might dash into it, but I come out...still Skip. I am also hopeful that Ken has something up his sleeve, that I can go AHA!!! there it is. But until then I wait as patiently as possible and continue to suggest that we should wait pending the outcome.

It does us no good to be setting up data, which may have to be re-done, we'll see.

And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion. Answers.....anyone.      

Skip

Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am saying that with a simple association system, James, no interface would be required as such and it would be invisible to the users, it would affect searches and that is all.

I'm just trying to understand what you are describing, so...are you saying that the program would automatically know how to make the associations or would users still make the associations either in their local or in the online? How would the distinction be made between Lon Chaney, Sr. and Jr. for example, in cases where they were both credited as Lon Chaney?

James:

It is a simple association

Once I set up the association

Lon Chaney=Lon Chaney Jr=Lon Chaney Jr.=Lon Chaney, Jr.
with Documentation of course for Contribution purposes.

No further action is required on my part, John's or yours(once you download the updated data) there is no change in the appearance of the data, in ANY way. The association has been made ando now no matter how you seach on Mr. Chaney, you will get the same set of data. If we find a new credit for the actor, that new entry is documented and added to the association...simple.

Skip

Or more precisely,

Lon Chaney (birth year 1906)=Lon Chaney Jr=Lon Chaney Jr.=Lon Chaney, Jr.=Creighton Chaney

Sr. was never credited as such during his lifetime, but if he is so credited in a compilation of some kind (or in recreated title cards for a silent) then we would have:

Lon Chaney (birth year 1883)=Lon Chaney Sr=Lon Chaney Sr.=Lon Chaney, Sr.

Both birth dates on at least these two are well documented.

But, both Skip and John don't want to use a birth year, they want only to enter 'as credited' from the film credits. The current system can work for this case, this alias file system can't.

pdf

There is no standard required, James. And as, John, puts it, once the association is made it is invisible to the user and only impacts searches.

The system as ken has designed it requires a priority common name, that is where the standard comes in, james. What defines that priority, as you and I discussed, the actors given name, his most commonly credited name or something else.

The association requires NO priority
it is simply

Lon Chaney=Lon Chaney Jr=Lon Chaney Jr.=Lon Chaney, Jr.
with Documentation of course for Contribution purposes.

Now we would for example

Lon Chaney (Common Name) priority
        Lon Chaney Jr
        Lon Chaney, Jr.
        Lon Chaney, Jr
        Creighton Chaney

The end result is the same, it is all in how you get there, and that the current system has embroiled in "Is the (Common name) Lon Chaney and if so why, why not Lon Chaney, Jr. We seem to be no closer to answering that question.

Skip

But your association would also have:

Lon Chaney=Lon Chaney Sr=Lon Chaney, Sr.=...

Therefore Lon Chaney, Sr. = Lon Chaney, Jr.

Major problem there I think.