Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Since the people who are doing contributions are mere movie lovers and not for the most part film industry experts, this concept is doomed to failure. Expecting them to understand all the nuances of the different ways people are credited is just never going to work.

And I see your concern. I daresay I share it to some degree, even. But seriously: from that point of view, the recent crew additions shouldn't have happened in the first place. For example, the whole addition of both "make-up artist" AND "make-up effects" without even defining those terms anywhere in the rules or the program seems like a huge mistake. Then again: maybe Ken doesn't even expect the "mere movie lovers" to deal with fields like this at all. I agree: checking off lists is easier, and certainly "fool-proof". Fact of the matter is that it doesn't work: not only keeps it valid credits out of the database, but it's also causing users to enter lots of incorrect credits into the database. From what I've seen (again: valid data stays out, bad data gets in), that approach does FAR more damage then letting the users who DO care about these fields actually THINK for themselves...

Before you continue to try to make this into something "black and white" as well, let me once again explain the approach I'm supporting here - as voiced by Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Rl3058:

Quote:
While watching a DVD I came accross "Special Make-up Created By" I was wondering if this would be contributable under "Make-up Effects".

I had a similar credit and included this in my notes:

"Michael Mills is credited as 'Charater Make-Ups created by'.  I think that is closer to 'Make-up Effects' than 'Make-up Artist'.  If you disagree, I will change it."

Everyone voted 'yes' and it was approved.  If it were me, I would do the same for the credit in question.

So: Unicus used his own common sense when profiling the crew, shared his vision with both the voters and the screeners, and it was unanimously approved by everyone involved. That is, IMHO, a perfect example of how the system should work. And apparently, it does work like that already! Why are we still talking about this again?

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

"A Film By..." or "A Film from..." is not necessarily a Director credit, (...)
Those credits are just as often used for Executive Producers or the person who provided the funding.

I have never seen "a film by" meaning anything other than director!

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

"A Film By..." or "A Film from..." is not necessarily a Director credit, (...)
Those credits are just as often used for Executive Producers or the person who provided the funding.

I have never seen "a film by" meaning anything other than director!

Are you suggesting that because you have never seen it, that it hasn't been done?

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Since the people who are doing contributions are mere movie lovers and not for the most part film industry experts, this concept is doomed to failure. Expecting them to understand all the nuances of the different ways people are credited is just never going to work.

And I see your concern. I daresay I share it to some degree, even. But seriously: from that point of view, the recent crew additions shouldn't have happened in the first place. For example, the whole addition of both "make-up artist" AND "make-up effects" without even defining those terms anywhere in the rules or the program seems like a huge mistake. Then again: maybe Ken doesn't even expect the "mere movie lovers" to deal with fields like this at all. I agree: checking off lists is easier, and certainly "fool-proof". Fact of the matter is that it doesn't work: not only keeps it valid credits out of the database, but it's also causing users to enter lots of incorrect credits into the database. From what I've seen (again: valid data stays out, bad data gets in), that approach does FAR more damage then letting the users who DO care about these fields actually THINK for themselves...

Before you continue to try to make this into something "black and white" as well, let me once again explain the approach I'm supporting here - as voiced by Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Rl3058:

Quote:
While watching a DVD I came accross "Special Make-up Created By" I was wondering if this would be contributable under "Make-up Effects".

I had a similar credit and included this in my notes:

"Michael Mills is credited as 'Charater Make-Ups created by'.  I think that is closer to 'Make-up Effects' than 'Make-up Artist'.  If you disagree, I will change it."

Everyone voted 'yes' and it was approved.  If it were me, I would do the same for the credit in question.

So: Unicus used his own common sense when profiling the crew, shared his vision with both the voters and the screeners, and it was unanimously approved by everyone involved. That is, IMHO, a perfect example of how the system should work. And apparently, it does work like that already! Why are we still talking about this again?

You (and Unicus) give the voters far more credit than I do.

I can't tell you how many times I have been the sole "no" vote on a contribution that is undeniably wrong and it is subsequently approved by the screeners.

Unfortunately, contribution notes rarely include the actual on screen credit that people have "interpreted" into a "functional equivalent" in DVDP, so the voters and screeners are totally clueless when they vote unless they actually load up the DVD to check for themselves.  I seriously doubt this happens very often, although I do it myself quite frequently.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
It makes perfect sense to me.  I don't know how you can question that he wanted to restrict the roles to only those listed in the table based on a deliberate change in the wording of the Rule.

What he failed to remember to do is review the table for all the roles that needed to be there.

It's not that confusing at all! 

How can it make perfect sense when you admit that he failed to review the table for all the roles needed?  That, in and of itself, proves it doesn't make any sense. 

Quote:
This is just silly.

To compare a mis-statement in the Rules telling you to use the wrong column with a deliberate change in the wording of the Rule which occurred in conjunction with this release to prevent people from entering whatever they want for crew roles just goes to prove how desperate you are to enter your personal preferences for Crew.

No, what is silly is you assuming that it was a mis-statement then and not a mis-statement now.  Either Ken meant what he wrote or he didn't.  You can't claim it was a mis-statement when you don't agree, and then claim it wasn't when you do.  And you have the audacity to call us 'desperate'. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
It makes perfect sense to me.  I don't know how you can question that he wanted to restrict the roles to only those listed in the table based on a deliberate change in the wording of the Rule.

What he failed to remember to do is review the table for all the roles that needed to be there.

It's not that confusing at all! 

How can it make perfect sense when you admit that he failed to review the table for all the roles needed?  That, in and of itself, proves it doesn't make any sense. 

No, it only proves that Ken is human and is guilty of an oversight in not updating the crew table!

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
This is just silly.

To compare a mis-statement in the Rules telling you to use the wrong column with a deliberate change in the wording of the Rule which occurred in conjunction with this release to prevent people from entering whatever they want for crew roles just goes to prove how desperate you are to enter your personal preferences for Crew.

No, what is silly is you assuming that it was a mis-statement then and not a mis-statement now.  Either Ken meant what he wrote or he didn't.  You can't claim it was a mis-statement when you don't agree, and then claim it wasn't when you do.  And you have the audacity to call us 'desperate'. 

Are you really suggesting that Ken intended for us to use role names in a column of the crew table that did not even exist???? 

Comparing that error in wording in the previous version of the Rule to forgetting to update the table with role names when he re-emphasized what he wanted for crew role names, is a far, far different scenario.  You can't seriously believe they are analogous.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
No, it only proves that Ken is human and is guilty of an oversight in not updating the crew table!

And you get to decide which part of the change was an oversight?  Yea, I don't think so.  Either there was an oversight in the rules or there wasn't.

You seem to be a pretty logical person.  Ken makes a change to the wording of the Rule.  Logic would dictate that such an action is deliberate.  He does not make any change to the table.  This could have been either deliberate or an oversight.  Given the verbiage in the Rule change, it seems far more likely that he simply forgot to review the table and add the necessary role names.  This makes far more sense than that he mistakenly updated the wording of the Rule and deliberately did not update the table.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g

Quote:

Are you really suggesting that Ken intended for us to use role names in a column of the crew table that did not even exist???? 

No, I am suggesting that it was a mistake...just like I am suggesting the current wording was a mistake.

I agree that the previous wording was a mistake.  When he revised the Rules, Ken deliberately corrected that mistake to reference the correct columns in the table.  If the current wording update was a mistake, then he made it twice.  The wording saying to use the roles in the table was already in the previous Rules.  He then added another sentence re-emphasizing that we are to use only the roles in the table.  I'm sorry, but that hardly seems to be a mistake and the only reason for believing that it is, is so that you can enter the roles that you want to enter as opposed to what the Rules tell us to enter.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Comparing that error in wording in the previous version of the Rule to forgetting to update the table with role names when he re-emphasized what he wanted for crew role names, is a far, far different scenario.  You can't seriously believe they are analogous.

A strict reading of the old rule prevented good data from being entered.  A strict reading of the current rule prevents good data from being entered.  It sure seems like it is the exact same situation to me.

A strict reading of the old Rule prevented ALL crew data from being entered.

A strict reading of the current Rule prevents only data that is not listed in the appropriate columns from being entered.

That is not analogous... no matter how hard you try to convince us that it is.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
What he failed to remember to do is review the table for all the roles that needed to be there.

Once again: these lists will never ever be "complete"....

They are not intended to be "complete".

Can you provide a link, to a post from Ken, that indicates this is what he intended?  If not, as I said earlier, you are just guessing.  What makes your guess the correct one?

Quote:
They are intended to list those roles that Ken wants included in the DVDP online database.  Everything else goes under "Custom".

It's that simple!

So he doesn't want 'J.R.R. Tolkien' listed in the profiles for 'The Lord of the Rings' Trilogy?  He doesn't want 'Stan Lee' listed in the profile for 'Spiderman', 'Ironman', 'The Incredible Hulk', etc.?

I really find that hard to believe.

This argument does not even merit a reply!