Quoting Woola:

Quote:
...we are not being served well by this arrogance...

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
...have a problem your arrogance...

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
...I am offended by your arrogance...

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
...Tim, the person derailing this thread was YOU with your pompous attitude....

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
cannot even begin to describe the disgust and the depth to which I am personally offended by nearly every Contribution that is made by Tim.

Quoting Woola:

Quote:
That did it, the liar, Tim is YOU.

Where are moderators ? They are quick to ban people who tell the truth about Woola, but do nothing when this user continuously insults others.

There are no errors in the titles. Some are extended editions, some are regular editions, some are unrated, some are special, some are not so special. 

My point is, that there are so many different editions and releases of a given title, that it would be impossible to nail each and every one based on assumption. As long as a profile has a uniqe UPC/Disc ID they should IMO count as a profile - regardless if the title already exists!

Why would the CLT differentiate between titles and profiles, if they indeed want us to filter even more?

No - if Ken does not adress this specifically in the rules, I will continue to interpret it my way, as I see no need for micro-management in a system that will eventually correct itself....

Quoting Berak:

Quote:

My point is, that there are so many different editions and releases of a given title, that it would be impossible to nail each and every one based on assumption. As long as a profile has a uniqe UPC/Disc ID they should IMO count as a profile - regardless if the title already exists!

Ok, so you question the merits of determining the common name based on Titles vs. Profiles. That makes sense. Nothing wrong with that, but has using one number over the other been determined by Ken at all? Are we supposed to use the Title number or the Profile number? To me it seems the Title number is the more important, but that's me. And you seem to care more about the Profile number. Regardless, this isn't the thread to discuss such debates. A new thread should be started to debate whether one or the other is more important.

If you prefer the use of Profiles, that's fine, but I don't believe that what Kluge or T!M are doing is is "incorrect". They are submitting their contributions of common name based on the "Titles" field and by doing so the Special Editions and whatnot, as reybr pointed out, aren't taken into consideration. The only reason their are 17 "Titles" rather then 2 is because the Original Title field is blank. So we're left with Alien vs. Predator 2: Requiem and AVP2: Requiem being considered 2 different titles when in fact they are one.

Like I said Berak. I am in agreement with you in that I don't want to have to drill into these CLT results. I do the exact same thing you do and take the numbers at face value unless something really appears out of wack, then I might look deeper. But what Kluge is doing has been done for as long as I've joined these forums and has never had this kind of backlash from my knowledge. I personally commend them in their efforts to better the database with more accurate information but until the CLT is rewritten or we go to a separate Cast/Crew database or something, I won't be putting forth the same effort they do.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Vittra:

Quote:
has using one number over the other been determined by Ken at all? Are we supposed to use the Title number or the Profile number?

Click!

It can't be more clear than that.

Quoting Berak:

Quote:
Quoting Vittra:

Quote:
Quoting Berak:

Quote:

My point is, that there are so many different editions and releases of a given title, that it would be impossible to nail each and every one based on assumption. As long as a profile has a uniqe UPC/Disc ID they should IMO count as a profile - regardless if the title already exists!

Ok, so you question the merits of determining the common name based on Titles vs. Profiles. That makes sense. Nothing wrong with that, but has using one number over the other been determined by Ken at all? Are we supposed to use the Title number or the Profile number? To me it seems the Title number is the more important, but that's me. And you seem to care more about the Profile number. Regardless, this isn't the thread to discuss such debates. A new thread should be started to debate whether one or the other is more important.

If you prefer the use of Profiles, that's fine, but I don't believe that what Kluge or T!M are doing is is "incorrect". They are submitting their contributions of common name based on the "Titles" field and by doing so the Special Editions and whatnot, as reybr pointed out, aren't taken into consideration. The only reason their are 17 "Titles" rather then 2 is because the Original Title field is blank. So we're left with Alien vs. Predator 2: Requiem and AVP2: Requiem being considered 2 different titles when in fact they are one.

Like I said Berak. I am in agreement with you in that I don't want to have to drill into these CLT results. I do the exact same thing you do and take the numbers at face value unless something really appears out of wack, then I might look deeper. But what Kluge is doing has been done for as long as I've joined these forums and has never had this kind of backlash from my knowledge. I personally commend them in their efforts to better the database with more accurate information but until the CLT is rewritten or we go to a separate Cast/Crew database or something, I won't be putting forth the same effort they do.

No!!! I want to use the profile number! That is my point exactly in this case, as the title number for Kan is 6 and "Kan" is 17. No way would I count profiles!

(bold by me)
I'm so confused...  I'm sorry if I misunderstand your stance on the matter. But it seems to me that you are battling against the use of "Titles" as the basis for common name. Because had all these "Profiles" been entered correctly per the rules, including use of the "Original Title" field, as others have stated it, would be 6 vs. 2 "Titles". I'm not sure how to get much clearer then that... Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say. I have meant no offense to you Berak or your side of the argument, I was merely trying to understand where you were coming from. 

I do stand by my statement of this not being the place to debate such matter though, as this kind of thread (common name) has been common place (no pun intended) on these forums for quite sometime and has never been an area of debate. The numbers given by CLT don't need to be taken at face value as people, including Ken, have stated. This type of research and "filtering" of the CLT isn't against the rules and has the database in it's best interest.

Anyway, no offense meant. Just chiming in with my opinion and trying to understand yours. 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Berak:

Quote:
as the title number for Kan is 6 and "Kan" is 17.

Except that the actual title number for "Kan" isn't 17, but only 2...

Why do you insist on lying Tim? The actual title number for "Kan" according to CLT is 17. If this do not conform to your standards, I am sorry, but these are the facts as they stand today!

No one at all is lying, some are just doing the work of the CLT where it can't due to limitations.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
For this to work, everybody has to be on the same page.

But that's where this thread comes in. By publicizing his findings here for all to see, Kluge has done everything in his power to maximize awareness. We've done these common-name finding threads for ages, and this is how they work. And Ken has supported that right from the start, by saying that "the lookup tool is not to be blindly trusted", and by specifically stating that we should take such errors into account. There's nothing new about this particular thread - if anything, I'd have expected it to be even less of an issue than usual, as this one doesn't have any "ambiguous credits" (titles that are, usually due to IMDb-mined data, listed under more than one name variant).

With 6 vs. 2 titles and no ambigious credits, you'd think this was a slam dunk.