 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 ...12  Previous Next
|
 Bemused! (Locked) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT. If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary. However, in most cases it is not required.
I have notified the evaluators to disregard general demands for specific documentation of common name outside the use of the CLT.
Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data. Thank you Ken. I did exactly what you said. It's what I have always done. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Oh heck, I stopped contributing "credited as" data almost a year ago. I still do profiles but if I have any "credited as" cast or crew, I simply won't submit that section. I just don't have either the time nor energy to waste on dealing with the community. Besides that, I freely admit that I pay little or no attention to the CLT. Personally, my system for choosing a common name is to pick the name that stands the best chance of being unique, in order to avoid the BY. That means if I have middle names or initials, I wll always choose that to be common to avoid having multiple John Smith's. | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT. If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary. However, in most cases it is not required.
I have notified the evaluators to disregard general demands for specific documentation of common name outside the use of the CLT.
Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data. YES!  | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I will admit that line of thinking confuses me.... simply because 2 names are similar don't mean they are the same person. But as I have said many time before... I will always go by what Ken says... so I will not vote no for that reason again... that I promise. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with Addicted here. How is it decided if a "No" vote against a name is warranted or not? I agree with cases such as Nicole deBoer Vs Nicole de Boer but what about something like John Adams Vs John L. Adams? or Mike Johnson Vs Michael Johnson (made up example)?
Also are the rules going to be updated to include this so those who vote but don't read the forums are aware of the situation? |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT. If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary. However, in most cases it is not required.
I have notified the evaluators to disregard general demands for specific documentation of common name outside the use of the CLT.
Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data. THANK YOU!! I've been saying the exact same thing for years now - it's good to finally have an official word on this. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT. If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary. However, in most cases it is not required.
I have notified the evaluators to disregard general demands for specific documentation of common name outside the use of the CLT.
Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data. This is your db and I will, of course, follow your direction...even if it doesn't make any sense to me. Why doesn't it make sense? Because, without some form of documentation, how do we know they are the same person? How do I know, as a fictitious example, that 'Jason Smith' and 'Jason Lee Smith' are the same person? I don't and, if someone wants to link the two, the onus should be on them to prove they are. But, as I said, this is your db and I will vote according to your rules. I will not, however, allow data based on assumptions into my local db.  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | I guess everyone will just have to check for themselves from now on.
If in doubt then do the work to confirm and vote accordingly.
I recently double checked someone's contribution and the CLT results didn't match. I vote NO with the reason.
Personally, I feel this puts much more emphasis on trust in the community - something that has been sorely lacking lately. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT. If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary. However, in most cases it is not required.
I have notified the evaluators to disregard general demands for specific documentation of common name outside the use of the CLT.
Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data. You're the man, Ken! | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
I will admit that line of thinking confuses me.... simply because 2 names are similar don't mean they are the same person. Quoting Forget_the_Rest: Quote:
I agree with Addicted here. How is it decided if a "No" vote against a name is warranted or not? Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
This is your db and I will, of course, follow your direction...even if it doesn't make any sense to me. Why doesn't it make sense? Because, without some form of documentation, how do we know they are the same person? I don't know Ken's reasons, but since I agree with him and I'm happy about the decision, I can give my own reasons. Perhaps they speak to where Ken is coming from. To me, there are competing goals and interests with a database such as this. Accuracy is one, size is another, and the features of the program are another. But accuracy is not the only goal. When the bar is set very high toward 100% accuracy, the number of users who are willing to contribute at that level must diminish, in my opinion. I know for myself that there are certain things I'm willing to contribute and then fix to my needs while there are other things that I can't be bothered with anymore due to the complexities. With fewer contributions, this adversely affects the size and completeness of the database as well as the ability of casual users to utilize program functionality. What I see Ken doing is setting an accuracy level that keeps contributions coming in and keeps them utilizing program features. There's some cost toward 100% accuracy, but it's a judgment call as to where exactly to draw the line. That's my take on it anyway. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
I guess everyone will just have to check for themselves from now on. No, I refuse to do your work for you. If you did the research, it shouldn't be that hard to include that research in your notes. I simply don't understand the desire to make everyone else redo the research...but that's just me. I am a little amused at the turn of the tables here. Those people who claimed that the on-line was useless for them, have now made it useless for other users. I mean, if we all have to do the work anyway, why bother downloading cast and crew? | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Maybe Ken has seen a decline in submissions and wants to rectify the problem. I've recently been doing a quasi-study of contributions that I'm getting. I own 5000 DVDs. I used to get approximately 40-100 updates a day. Lately that number is down to 10-20 and most of those are for small changes. Here's an example of the last 3 days Day 1 - 7 updates Day 2 - 18 updates Day 3 - 13 updates They were made up of: 10 of my own contributions (full audits) 8 Crew changes - of which only 3 were adding the 3.5 crew. 5 Cast changes - of which 2 involved Credited As entries. 7 Studio/Media Company changes. 13 Certificate/Rating changes 6 Overview changes. 3 Genre changes. 2 Country of Origin changes 1 Audio section change Out of those there was only 1 that didn't need something else doing (usually the overview formatting for bold/italics or the Rating details added). Maybe, just maybe, Ken has realised that contributions have dropped because the forum members have made it so damned difficult and complicated to contribute that many people just can't be bothered any more. Or maybe he just didn't want to see another thread go on for 50+ pages and get nowhere...?  |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
I don't know Ken's reasons, but since I agree with him and I'm happy about the decision, I can give my own reasons. Perhaps they speak to where Ken is coming from.
(***) I am sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense to me. I thought people wanted linking so that they could see which movies a particular person was involved in, regardles of how he was credited. How does linking two actors, who have similar names, without knowing that they are the same person accomplish that goal? Seems to me that linking two different people to the same name flies in the face of the stated desire. Or am I missing something?  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
I mean, if we all have to do the work anyway, why bother downloading cast and crew? That's being facetious. No one is asking you to do the cast and crew entries yourself. What you are being asked to do is either check the Credited As entries of someone's contributions or trust that they have correctly established the link. I'm quite happy to check a couple of entries in a profile if it means more people will contribute. That's much better than people NOT contributing because they can't be bothered to face the firing squad for not writing War & Peace in their contribution notes. The way I see it you have a choice - spend up to an hour adding cast and crew yourself... OR spend 10-15 minutes checking out a few Credited As entries in a profile. That's a no-brainer IMO. I know my data is correct. I also know it adds to the online db. I also feel that if someone doubts the integrity of my work then the onus is on them to prove that it's untrustworthy - not on me to prove otherwise. I don't need to be spoonfed and I don't think anyone else should need to be either. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
I don't know Ken's reasons, but since I agree with him and I'm happy about the decision, I can give my own reasons. Perhaps they speak to where Ken is coming from.
(***)
I am sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense to me. I thought people wanted linking so that they could see which movies a particular person was involved in, regardles of how he was credited. How does linking two actors, who have similar names, without knowing that they are the same person accomplish that goal? Seems to me that linking two different people to the same name flies in the face of the stated desire. Or am I missing something? Use of the CLT will get you to the goal most of the time. Will it be 100% accurate? No. But it does balance competing goals. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think you are nitpicking a bit on Pantheon. It clearly states that if a contribution has valuable data that is correct, that a tiny mistake (if it is really one, I am not sure), does not matter and the contribution is approved. For me it is logical if a user adds like 7 valuable changes and adds one that is discussable, the contribution should and will get approved. And Ken made the decision, so we will follow  Don't really get why a tiny, tiny thing sometimes leads to pages or arguments. Let's all have a beer together cheers Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com | | | | Last edited: by DarklyNoon |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 ...12 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |