American History X --> Tom Bellissimo (visual effects)
American History X --> Tommy L. Bellissimo as Cop #2
Pulp Fiction --> Tom Bellissimo (Make-up effects)
Saw --> Tom Bellissimo (visual effects)

Dogma --> Tom Bellissimo (Special Effects co-coordinator) not valid

Saw: Tom Bellissimo
What Lies Beneath: T. Brooklyn Bellissimo
The Mask: Thomas L. Bellissimo

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Not wanting to offend....but I never see the point of this sort of thread when the CLT seems quite clear.

The rules state to use the CLT to determine the common name

http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=430575&PageNum=2&messageID=1171683#M1171683

What is his credit on Shade?
I own the US dvd, audited it myself, and don't even have him for local only. I would've kept a local note on him I would think, unless I was very high.

Quoting ninehours:

Quote:
The problem is that the CLT is a very blunt tool and should not be blindly followed

I understand the reasoning behind this type of thread...just not the point.

The rules state: "To determine whether to enter the name directly as credited, or to use the "Credited As" field, use the Credit Lookup tool."

So, if the rules state to use the CLT then we should just go with those results.

On the surface the 20 results are the majority...and if everyone used that name as the common name; then the majority would increase; therefore making this sort of thread a little redundant IMO.

Like I said, where there is a very close margin between results I can understand it more readily.

It cannot be expected that users of this program should analyze the results of the CLT in minutiae and then create threads to investigate further. The process becomes unwieldy and subsequently puts people off (myself included).

I want to look at the CLT and use the results...not be running to the forum every five minutes to get more information.

On topic, irrespective of the results of this thread I will not be revisiting all the profiles I changed today and resubmitting. I have a common name locally, that matches the results of the CLT - and that is ALL that is required according to the contribution rules.

'License to Wed': Tom Bellissimo (a valid "Special Effects Coordinator" credit, since there is no "Special Effects Supervisor").

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
but consists of whittling down those inflated numbers by subtracting IMDb-mined profiles, profiles with incorrect production years and profiles with missing or incorrect original titles. Only then will you arrive at the actual most-credited form of a person's name.

You may think I'm being deliberately obtuse and I can assure you I'm not.

I actually don't need an explanation of the whys and hows of this situation...I know and have heard it all before.

The point I have been trying to make (rather unsuccessfully I may add) is that the Contribution Rules do NOT tell us to do any of the things you mention.
Quite simply they tell us to use the CLT results.

It is unreasonable and unrealistic (IMO) to expect users to go through the process you describe T!M (no matter how 'easy' it becomes with practice).

If the CLT is not reliable or accurate then either Invelos need to scrap it and start again or the rules need to be amended.

My point is that this situation is, once again, the forum imposing their instructions upon the users of Profiler with nothing to back it up.
I contribute a lot and I mainly use the CLT and unfortunately that's the way it's going to stay.

So, I would request that in future if someone spots a Credited As entry of mine that they disagree with or have doubts about that they drop me a PM. I will then withdraw that contribution while the person who contacted me investigates further.

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
You may think I'm being deliberately obtuse and I can assure you I'm not.

I didn't think that at all. Still I felt your post warranted a reply, even if there probably wasn't anything in there that you didn't already know.

Quote:
The point I have been trying to make (rather unsuccessfully I may add) is that the Contribution Rules do NOT tell us to do any of the things you mention.

It does, actually, but it limits itself to the phrase "use the credit lookup tool", without stating exactly how to use it. Over the years, Ken has further commented on that in the forums, and I just gave you a recap of all that. Again: Ken has told us from the start that we're supposed to use the most-credited form of someone's name as the common name, and he immediately also stated that the raw CLT numbers should not be trusted blindly. Right from day one, mind you. Whenever users have played the "but the rules only state to use the CLT" card saying that common name-finding threads carry no weight, he has repeatedly come in to confirm that the results from common name-finding threads do trump the raw numbers.

So no, you're not forced to do anything, just like, for instance, you're not forced to contribute complete data to a profile, but are also welcome to contribute partial data. Which is pretty much what submitting a name without attaching it's proper common name really is: submitting partial data. So yeah, submitting partial data is allowed. But then don't be surprised if someone comes along to complete it. That's all. This thread is (possibly) just an example of the latter, and yet you're complaining. I don't understand why. If a credit needs the addition of a common name, then so be it. I don't see what your problem with that is. You're not forced to do more work than you want to do, so that can't be the problem, yet it seems you don't want to be faced with the perfectly valid findings of someone that does the extra work? Why not?

Quote:
If the CLT is not reliable or accurate then either Invelos need to scrap it and start again or the rules need to be amended.

Again, I'm sure many people agree with you - heck, even I agree with you up to some point - but right now, it is what it is, and we can only work with what we're given. Again, it's nothing new that the CLT isn't accurate: Ken literally said not to blindly trust the numbers right from day one, so I never did. I understand why you'd like to simply look at the totals and be done with it, but right from the start, we were told that it doesn't work that way. We can complain about that, and hope/campaign for change, but until that time comes, it's what we have.

Quote:
My point is that this situation is, once again, the forum imposing their instructions upon the users of Profiler with nothing to back it up.

Now that is just not true. All those things are publicly stated by Ken. That's not exactly "nothing to back it up".

Quote:
So, I would request that in future if someone spots a Credited As entry of mine that they disagree with or have doubts about that they drop me a PM. I will then withdraw that contribution while the person who contacted me investigates further.

That made me laugh. I, too, would like PM's from anyone who votes "no" to any of my contributions, with me waiting while they investigate my mistakes or omissions further. That would sure be a lovely improvement of the contribution process, yeah.