OK, I said I was working on a solution to the case type problem.  This is just the first draft, and I want feedback, so keep an open mind.  If I missed any case types, it was not by design.

The problem is two-fold:  First, is it or isn't it a boxset?  [A boxset is defined as two or more movies or one or more TV Seasons in a single unit.]  Second, depending on how you answer the first question, which case type do you choose?

Ken already has things set up with a drop list for case types.  So, the easiest fix is to utilize that and expand on it.  As you know, it is very easy to program this sort of thing.  Each list element has an assigned code that the program uses internally.  What we see is just the English translation of that code that we see on screen.  This way, you can add or delete list items with no detriment to the database itself.

So, I set the list up in two sections, based on the answer to the first question.  Then its just a matter of picking the appropriate selection:

Method One                                                              Method Two

BOXSET (Movie or TV)                                            Alternate Method:
                                                                            Add a checkbox to indicate [] Boxset
Keepcases w/S.cover                                                      Then pick approp. case type
Keepcases w/Sleeve                                                Keepcases w/S.cover
Digipack w/S.cover                                                  Keepcases w/Sleeve
Digipack w/Sleeve                                                  Digipack w/S.cover
Custom                                                                  Digipack w/Sleeve
                                                                            Keepcase
SINGLE TITLE                                                        Thinpack
                                                                            Digipack
Keepcase w/S.cover                                                Custom
Keepcase w/Sleeve
Keepcase
Digipack
Thinpack
Custom

Now, I'm not sure what a steelbook is, so I didn't know which group to put it in.  If there are any others that I missed, add them where they go.  The length of the list is not a problem as I said, and as long as the definitions we use for Box or non-Box are clear, then there should be no problems picking the appropriate checkbox.

The Alternate might be easier from a user standpoint, but would require more work from the programming side to add the checkbox for indicating a Boxset.

I have tried to consider, and include, all sides of the argument in this solution.  If I have missed anything it was not intentional.  Let's try to keep things in a discussion mode.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
I have a solution to the problem that I think accommodates everybody; in fact I have that and an alternate version.  Either will fix the problem quite nicely, but I hesitate to offer it.  In the past, some people have been less than ready to discuss any proposals simply because of who was offering them.  I don't need the abuse.  But I will post them if enough ask me to with an eye toward a reasonable discussion of the merits.

I've read your proposals, and changes like that have been proposed before, several times in fact. I won't bash them - sure, they could work - it's just that both involve more work for Ken, and he seems to have already decided. He chose to fix things by adding a few of the much-requested case types, and rename "box set" to "slip cover" to eliminate the confusion that caused some users to use the "box set" case type to reflect the profile type instead of the case type. Sure, the "case type" section could also be set up in different ways, like in your proposals, but I just don't think it's going to happen. With some clear instructions (yes, these ARE needed!), everything can be handled absolutely fine within the current system.

I also can't help but feeling your attitude about this is a bit condescending: you will post your wonderful solution to the problem "if enough ask"? What is that about? If you have something to say - just say it. You know you will anyway - looking back at the posts since you told us that, only one single user posted to say he was interested. Apparently, that qualified for your "if enough ask" remark. Again, if you have something to say, just say it. Don't patronize the community with strange posts like that.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
I have a solution to the problem that I think accommodates everybody; in fact I have that and an alternate version.  Either will fix the problem quite nicely, but I hesitate to offer it.  In the past, some people have been less than ready to discuss any proposals simply because of who was offering them.  I don't need the abuse.  But I will post them if enough ask me to with an eye toward a reasonable discussion of the merits.

I've read your proposals, and changes like that have been proposed before, several times in fact. I won't bash them - sure, they could work - it's just that both involve more work for Ken, and he seems to have already decided. He chose to fix things by adding a few of the much-requested case types, and rename "box set" to "slip cover" to eliminate the confusion that caused some users to use the "box set" case type to reflect the profile type instead of the case type. Sure, the "case type" section could also be set up in different ways, like in your proposals, but I just don't think it's going to happen. With some clear instructions (yes, these ARE needed!), everything can be handled absolutely fine within the current system.

I also can't help but feeling your attitude about this is a bit condescending: you will post your wonderful solution to the problem "if enough ask"? What is that about? If you have something to say - just say it. You know you will anyway - looking back at the posts since you told us that, only one single user posted to say he was interested. Apparently, that qualified for your "if enough ask" remark. Again, if you have something to say, just say it. Don't patronize the community with strange posts like that.

I'd like to add that, while you may think otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree with your definition of what is a "box set". As a profile type, that is, not as a case type. Like Ken, however, I now feel that we should not allow the term "box set" back in under "case types" - it's just too confusing. Case in point: your entire first method is based on the distinction whether something is a "box set" or not. We shouldn't do that, as "box set" is not a case type, but a profile type. And as such, "box set" profiles could be anything: they could be sets with multiple movies, or TV-sets, and some might even consider a movie-with-a-bonus-disc (imagine that it's packaged as two keepcases in a slipcase) as a "box set". Since it can be basically anything, and can be packaged in virtually anything, it doesn't belong under "case types".

With Ken's change to "slip cover", this confusion will finally be over. "Box set" will only be a type of profile, and no longer have anything to do with the actual case type. I'm opposed to any method that would reintroduce the term "box set" into the "case type" field.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
I have a solution to the problem that I think accommodates everybody; in fact I have that and an alternate version.  Either will fix the problem quite nicely, but I hesitate to offer it.  In the past, some people have been less than ready to discuss any proposals simply because of who was offering them.  I don't need the abuse.  But I will post them if enough ask me to with an eye toward a reasonable discussion of the merits.

I've read your proposals, and changes like that have been proposed before, several times in fact. I won't bash them - sure, they could work - it's just that both involve more work for Ken, and he seems to have already decided. He chose to fix things by adding a few of the much-requested case types, and rename "box set" to "slip cover" to eliminate the confusion that caused some users to use the "box set" case type to reflect the profile type instead of the case type. Sure, the "case type" section could also be set up in different ways, like in your proposals, but I just don't think it's going to happen. With some clear instructions (yes, these ARE needed!), everything can be handled absolutely fine within the current system.

I also can't help but feeling your attitude about this is a bit condescending: you will post your wonderful solution to the problem "if enough ask"? What is that about? If you have something to say - just say it. You know you will anyway - looking back at the posts since you told us that, only one single user posted to say he was interested. Apparently, that qualified for your "if enough ask" remark. Again, if you have something to say, just say it. Don't patronize the community with strange posts like that.

I'd like to add that, while you may think otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree with your definition of what is a "box set". As a profile type, that is, not as a case type. Like Ken, however, I now feel that we should not allow the term "box set" back in under "case types" - it's just too confusing. Case in point: your entire first method is based on the distinction whether something is a "box set" or not. We shouldn't do that, as "box set" is not a case type, but a profile type. And as such, "box set" profiles could be anything: they could be sets with multiple movies, or TV-sets, and some might even consider a movie-with-a-bonus-disc (imagine that it's packaged as two keepcases in a slipcase) as a "box set". Since it can be basically anything, and can be packaged in virtually anything, it doesn't belong under "case types".

With Ken's change to "slip cover", this confusion will finally be over. "Box set" will only be a type of profile, and no longer have anything to do with the actual case type. I'm opposed to any method that would reintroduce the term "box set" into the "case type" field.

Why do you insist on side-stepping the fact that this is a two-part process?  You cannot correctly pick the case type unless you know what type of unit it is.  If its a box set, it has a parent profile by definition, and that requires in most cases some sort of outer case.  If it ISN'T a box set, you don't have to worry about the outer case.

As for making more work for Ken, if he uses Method 1, all he has to do is add more choices to the existing list, and a bit of rewording of the current choices.  You aren't changing anything programming wise except for adding more choices.  Its a no brainer on his part programming wise.  More importantly, it solves the problem.

Reybr:

One reason is, this hasn't happened to my knowledge in Digipak form...yet, that a slip cover over a keep case for example, which is later re-released without the slip cover is non-descriptive calling it a keep case instead of slip cover or slip case ( as appropriate)(See recent Labyrinth re-release which is a slip case). This would give auser to actually be more definitive and allow Ken to easily allow for duplicated upc #'s.

For example
Original release is a Slip Cover or Slip Case

It gets re-released without the Slip, so now it is a Keep case
User Contribution Notes
"This title is a re-release of a previously released title using the same UPC#, different case style"

Now we have more definitive information available for ALL users.

Note this note approach might even be conceivably used for re-released titles, different cover art.

That is one of the biggest reasons I think this plan is flawed as it is currently laid out.

Skip

Maybe one of you can give Ken an image and have him tell you what it is. That could end this very quickly.

Anyway. Either of Rifter's solution will work, but since the first suggestion is the easiest to implement that's the one I think we have the biggest chance of getting. But ultimately I think a checkbox to indicate box set is better to use. That way we don't don't confuse case type with box set profile

At least I think so

Quoting Kulju:

Quote:
It is not called digipack, it's called digipak.

You say Tomayto, I say Tomahto