Quoting synner_man:

Quote:


Yes, I meant the Rating Details field.  The idea is that existing CoOs would be converted to simple text (so it would read "United States", "France", "Japan", etc.) in the new field, leaving the blanks available for new countries.  As for Multiple CoOs, we just add a simple slash and the additional countries (i.e. "United States/France/United Kingdom").  It could be done in order of production company, if we are looking for a rule to order them.

I could support this idea, or adding all the countries + an entry marked "multiple."  Either one is an eminently workable solution in my opinion, since both of them would give me the option of correctly entering the country or origin for a given film, or at least notating that a film is from multiple countries.

The only problem I see with making the field like the rating details field is that I think then each of the different co-production entries would become its own "country" in sorting.  If we're going to have a blank customizable field, perhaps it might be better to have them like the fields for studios - multiple slots for multiple countries with the ability to add a new one if it's not already on the list, and you would leave extra slots blank for single country productions.

The issue I see - as I understand the way the database is set-up currently (and my understanding may be flawed) - with creating an entry for "other" and making that customizable in the current set-up, is this - say "other" is added and I customize it for Osama to become Afghanistan.  Later I pick up something from my wishlist, say Barrio Cuba.  Other has already become Afghanistan, it may not now become Cuba. 

The only way around that would be to make "other" customizable multiple times, but the way the field is set up now I do not believe it could work that way.  At least, that's the way I understand the field to be currently set up - it was suggested when I first asked about what to do for films whose country is not listed that I could change a country I'm not using to the country I need - that field would then become the new country, but the old country would disappear and I would then have a problem if I acquired a film from that country.

I see what you mean about spelling, northbloke.  We must take into account that while a number of people are very smart and most people are about average, there are out there people of astounding dumbness (my best friend - a chef - had to explain that turkeys are hollow).  Given that, I no longer take for granted the stupidity and ignorance of some people.  So you're probably right, a fixed drop-down list (or lists) or a set of checkboxes are likely the best way to go.

North is correct, Other in and of itself would not be unique, so Cuba would not change to Afghanistan. It would be unique to the particular film. But he is also correct about the filtering issue.

Something else occurred to me that may be disturbing. It kind of reminds me of what I have repeatedly asked  about Media Companies. I keep seeing people asking for Multi-COO entries, I want more information on this concept, I fear soem users may or will confuse COO relative to Production, with filming locations. Pick any James Bond as an example

Skip

I know that, paul and you iknow that. But...you missed the point. Again. Without better definition of Multi-COO field, don't try and tell me we won't see users tryong to interpret locations.

You seem to believe me some sort of an idiot, which as often as you miss the point causes me to wonder. Whew! Have I been giving to much credit?<scratches head>

Skip

Paul:

I suspect that you are trying to wind me up all the time, every time. I don't worry over much about typos, I don't criticiz any user over the mistakes that they make, and we all make them, nor do i criticize a user if he doesn't communicate in English very well, I figure out what he is saying. I am sorry if they bug you, this isn't English Composition Class or a Typing Class. My thoughts are not hard to sort out, even though I do have a penchant to ramble on occassion, I give everyone credit with enough intelligence to deal with them, so why you consistently miss the mark, I don't know, your ability to miss the point has become almost as humorous to me as my typos are to you.<shrugs>

As I said Paul and I stand by it, i don't think we need to capture each and every piece of possible data for Contribution purposes. I make suggestions very sparingly and very carefully. I still don't see the need to have to cope with 190+ Countries and even more langauges, some languages are even completely imaginary. Should we list Aramaic as a language just because there is a single film which uses the language, despite the fact that a lot of users own the film...in my opinion no.

WE have already gotten into problems with at least one new dataset which was implemeted hastily and without a clear understanding and definition of what was trying to be achieved. If we get the same response to Multi-Coo we WILL have users who will try and interpret COO as location shooting. I am not objecting to the concept, I am saying that we must get it nailed relative to what is desired, BEFORE it might be implemented not after.

We also have problems, right now, relative to data that is displayed or NOT for updates, which is making them painful for a user like myself. My requirements for acceptance of data by you or anyone far exceed the Online Requirements. If notes are weak, you may get it into the Online, but not here. The new Ratings info is not showing for updates, nor is any of the BD data, these are both high priority items which need to fixed before moving on to new data of any kind...including some of my suggestions. About the ONLY info I accept from BD updates right now are Disc ID data and Audio data.

As I have also said I WILL, absolutely feel free to give my opinion on any Feature request that i feel necessary, sometimes a thumbs up, sometimes a thumbs down, sometimes I have no pinion which I may also voice. I have the right to voice my opinion without insult or attack, I will spell out as I have on this issue why I don't like it and IF I can come up with a viable option I will offer that up. I base everythin on a cost-benefit analysis, which is why i use myself, I know what those numbers are and compared to some users, my collection is small and that cost is something that I always keep in the forefront. Seconds add up to real time. Right now I am working on a c-b analysis of the new Crew data, and it isn't very pretty, but I don't enough data yet to talk about it...but i will. All in good time.

Skip

Yes, as I said above, the idiocy of some of the masses (I had to explain to a man you pay tax on DVDs yesterday) should not be taken for granted.  Nevertheless, that is no reason to exclude valid and useful (at least for some) data from the database.

The answer is to simply craft a rule for the new field(s), something like - "enter Country of Origin based on the home country of the production studio(s) of the feature."  So, for example if we look at a co-production film like Paroxismus, we get Cinematografica Associati, Terra-Filmkunst, and Tower of London Productions, giving us Italy, Germany, & Great Britain.  This rule should also qualify to say that we are not interested in theatrical distributor here - we're interested in who actually made the film. 

Yes, it will mean the contributor may have to look up locales for the production companies.  Yes, this will take a bit of time.  If one does not have the time, one wouldn't include that information for contribution.  That's how I see that answer.

http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=334766

Resume to the poll.

Totall: 32
Yes: 28
No: 4

87%-13% Crearly the opinion of forum.

Quoting SH84:

Quote:
...all you have to do is sort your profiles by CoO and check the empty lines.

I had just assumed this was possible, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to do it.  I can't find a way to sort by CoO, nor can I filter CoO for "unlisted"/blank.  Apart from tags, is there an inherent way to find profiles lacking CoO?