| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
The CLT has been enhanced to give a more accurate title count. Outstanding  . Thank you. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ken:
Well, my stance remains the same. Undocumented assumptions of CLT usage on that basis alone is pure garbage, this has been explained by several other users besides myself. If you are willing to allow to such GIGO into the database, that is YOUR business, such undocumented crap will not be entered into this database. I am not lazy and i will do the work that is necessary to try and ensure that the data is correct, as I always have. Keystrokes are not important to me, but i will NOT tolerate undocumente4d garbage PERIOD. The sloppiness of some well-known is beginning to run off some users, some who have made many Contributions and are no longer participating, even myself, Ken. I do not Contribute anywhere near what I could and that is because of the behavior and attitudes of a few, I do not view this as positive for the Community, but I consider the attitudes and behavior of these few to be a bigger negative for the Community.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
Functional equivalents would only allow an alternate role name, if it is used for the same job done for the film (or at least almost the same job).
Please explain to us exactly how the average user would know and/or determine this?
The average user may not care and leave the credits out of the profile. The educated user on the other side may add the credit of a functional equivalent role to the profile and document/reason this case in the contribution notes. The voters and screeners would decide on that basis.
For well known alternate role names the crew table in the rule may give hints through the "credited as" and "note" columns. I would expect this table to have the explanation for "sound recordist" stated in the "note" column of the "sound" and "production sound mixer" credits because this is a well known and already solved problem. Other cases would be obvious. E.g. "based on" and "based on the novel xy by" would both be equivalent to "original material by" without much explanation. The same would be true for "photographed in technicolour by" etc.
The problem is that people "who think" they know what an "functional equivalent" is will contribute stuff that is not. This will make the data useless and be an endless source of debate and argument on these forums as well as ping-ponging while people argeu about whether it is or not.
No, they would be voted down the same way bad data is voted down today. They would not be voted down because neither the voters nor the screeners will take the time to actually verify the data because it would be way too time-consuming! People will either vote yes out of ignorance or neutral because they know that they don't know! | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
The CLT has been enhanced to give a more accurate title count. What does this mean? Does the CLT now counts original titles? I certainly hope so. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
For instance: look up Gil Hill. That credit appears in only two films ('Beverly Hills Cop' II and III - he's credited as "Gilbert R. Hill" in the first one), yet the CLT manages to report a staggering 22 "titles"... Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
The CLT has been enhanced to give a more accurate title count. So, now a search for Gil Hill results no longer results in 22 "titles", but only 14. More accurate indeed, but still a far cry from the two titles that it should report. I guess this means that the "original title" mostly isn't filled out in those foreign-language-titled profiles? So here's a plea to all users all over the world: even if you don't feel like working on cast and crew data yourself, you can still help improving the accuracy of the "credit lookup tool" results just by entering the proper original title, as it's shown in the credits, into the appropriate field. Thanks! | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 10, 2007 | | Posts: 4,282 |
| | Posted: | | | | In this case there are several titles- Beverly Hills Cop 2, Beverly Hills Cop 3, Beverly Hills Cop II, Beverly Hills Cop III and a few foreign versions with no original title.
The CLT list also now shows the entered original title in the title list in parenthesis after the title.
Note that it also uses production year in the matching, so corrections there will also improve the matching. It seems all are fine in this case. | | | | Invelos Software, Inc. Representative | | | | Last edited: by Ken Cole |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hooray, now tell us Costume Designer should only be used for design and we'll all be able to sleep again.  | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands | | | | Last edited: by Daddy DVD |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
In this case there are several titles- Beverly Hills Cop 2, Beverly Hills Cop 3, Beverly Hills Cop II, Beverly Hills Cop III and a few foreign versions with no original title. Yes, I expected as much. This change doesn't perform miracles, but it's certainly an improvement. And unlike before, we can now improve things ourselves just by adding the original title and using the correct production year. As these things get entered, the number of titles for any given name should drop considerably over time, giving us a closer to "accurate" number. I assume various editions (some have none, some have "Widescreen Collection", some have "Collector's Edition") no longer count as multiple titles, though, right? |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Daddy DVD: Quote:
Hooray, now tell us Costume Designer should only be used for design and we'll all be able to sleep again. Yes, please! Something like: Costume/Wardrobe DesignerOnly if those aren't credited:Costume/Wardrobe/Gowns [Supervisor/by]should do just fine (similar to how it's done for the cinematography department). |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ken,
Would it be possible to restore the subject for this and any other thread started by Giga? I'm not asking that the messages he deleted be restored, just the subject line -- so we know what the thread is about. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
|
| Registered: March 10, 2007 | | Posts: 4,282 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
I assume various editions (some have none, some have "Widescreen Collection", some have "Collector's Edition") no longer count as multiple titles, though, right? They don't but actually they never did, as long as it is entered in the Edition field and not as part of the title. We won't be restoring the posts or subjects Giga removed at this time. | | | | Invelos Software, Inc. Representative |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
I assume various editions (some have none, some have "Widescreen Collection", some have "Collector's Edition") no longer count as multiple titles, though, right?
They don't but actually they never did, as long as it is entered in the Edition field and not as part of the title. Great! All in all, many thanks for this adjustment! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Ken Cole: Quote:
We won't be restoring the posts or subjects Giga removed at this time. Since people have continued to post to this thread and continued the discussion without his input, so there's still interest. If you don't intend to restore the subject lines, would you at least close the threads? Otherwise, we don't have any way of knowing what the existing posts are about without opening the thread(s) titled "." | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 | | | | Last edited: by kdh1949 |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Approx 750 posts by Giga were wiped out before the edit restrictions came into place. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
They would not be voted down because neither the voters nor the screeners will take the time to actually verify the data because it would be way too time-consuming! People will either vote yes out of ignorance or neutral because they know that they don't know! You mean they would vote the same way as they vote today for contributions which break the rules? Maybe you're right. There would be no big difference between somebody who breaks the rules today to enter a credit of his choice and somebody who would overstrech the meaning of a functional equivalent to get a credit entered. But this does not speak against allowing functional equivalents. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
They would not be voted down because neither the voters nor the screeners will take the time to actually verify the data because it would be way too time-consuming! People will either vote yes out of ignorance or neutral because they know that they don't know!
You mean they would vote the same way as they vote today for contributions which break the rules? Maybe you're right. There would be no big difference between somebody who breaks the rules today to enter a credit of his choice and somebody who would overstrech the meaning of a functional equivalent to get a credit entered.
But this does not speak against allowing functional equivalents. No, you're blinders simply prevent you from seeing the difference. When the Rules say list only those roles that match exactly to the roles listed in the crew table, any user AND the screeners can very quickly and easily verify whether the contribution is right or wrong. This is simply impossible to do with functional equivalents and would allow far more incorrect contributions into the database because neither the voters (on balance) nor the screeners are going to take the time to research whether the credit being submitted really is a functional equivalent or not, even if there was actually a place to go to actually find this out. I suggest that you be very careful crossing streets....since you cannot look either left or right!  | | | | Hal |
|