Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You just can't resist can you, Rick

Skip

C'mon. I'm not starting anything.

Locks are the answer for ALL OF US who don't like something in the Db

Would you please stop seeing everything I (and others) say as an attack. It's simple not the way it is.

Rick:

You pretend and Hal seem to blieve that you have the ability to divine my thought in a post. You, in particular, when you presumed to know why I talked about being swamped. So what's the difference here? If you can presume what I am thinking, then I can equally presume that were being deliberately offensive with locks comment.

As I said I am very concerned about the LOW standards wanting to be applied. let's use IMDb style, Hal even stated bluntly for "ease of data entry", I read that as lazy. I think for data accuracy Online purposes we should apply the highest standards we can to the data, and NOT try to copy what someone else has done. Only then will we ultimately develop the "best" database in the world, not something that is filled with user preferences and shortcuts. It is disappointing to see that I am the only oneb that holds myself to the highest of standards for my data, I have done this in the past and I will continue to do so in the future.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

As I said I am very concerned about the LOW standards wanting to be applied. let's use IMDb style, Hal even stated bluntly for "ease of data entry", I read that as lazy. I think for data accuracy Online purposes we should apply the highest standards we can to the data, and NOT try to copy what someone else has done. Only then will we ultimately develop the "best" database in the world, not something that is filled with user preferences and shortcuts. It is disappointing to see that I am the only oneb that holds myself to the highest of standards for my data, I have done this in the past and I will continue to do so in the future.

Skip

As has been pointed out many times most users of the program do not have the time to spend on their Db as you. It doesn't make them lazy at all. They just have different priorities than you.

Since you do hold yourself to such high standards do you have a suggestion as to how we can come up with a common name (and not "as credited" since we know that is not where the program is headed)?

I'm sure many here respect your knowledge and your work, I know I do. If you have a real suggestion as to how to make this work I would like to hear it. 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

As I said I am very concerned about the LOW standards wanting to be applied. let's use IMDb style, Hal even stated bluntly for "ease of data entry", I read that as lazy.

Obviously, this concept is not being made clear.

The "Common Name" is only used for one thing; to be able to link all of the "credited as" names together.  It does not matter what it is.  It is not a matter of accuracy.  It is simply a "key" to tie together "credited as" names which MUST be exactly as they appear on the screen in the actual film credits; that is where accuracy matters.

KEEP IN MIND THAT THE "COMMON NAME" IS NOT DISPLAYED ANYWHERE EXCEPT WHEN YOU CLICK ON THE "CREDITED AS" NAME IN THE CAST LIST (and of course in the drop down list when selecting cast members to add to a cast list).

The name that shows up in the cast list when you display a profile AND when you view a comparison screen when voting is the "CREDITED AS" name, NOT the "COMMON NAME".

It is also NOT a matter of laziness to follow the suggestions I've made.

You have argued over and over in the past that we can't use "COMMON NAMES" because "who would be the arbiter".  Well, unfortunately (for you), "Common Names" are here.  So what is the best way to implement them?  How do we reduce the complexity of names so that we don't have endless arguments about which one to use as the "Common Name"?

The answer is to make simple rules about how the "Common Name" should be formed.  Since it doesn't matter if it matches the person's REAL name, take as many variables out of the equation as you can.  Variables include things like accents, punctuation (including commas and periods).  I'm sure there are others that we can identify.

The more "rules" we can apply to how the "Common Name" is formed, the fewer arguments we'll have down the road.

I am thinking about it, Rick. It may take awhile, now that I understand what Ken has done and how he implemented, it's not the way I would have done it but...that is simply two different programmers opinions.

Just off the top of my head, a person's earliest credit would seem to me to be the best answer for Master, this something that is easy to verify and also easy to verify and change should we at some point come up with an earlier credit that is different.

I understand fully well, Rick, that I have a luxury that few users have, not to mention experience and expertise in some areas. But just because users do NOT have trhe kuxury that I have does not mean we should not hold to the highest possible standards we can develop to create the best database possible, because of my competitive nature, a database second to NONE. Quality is my byword, always has been and always will be.

Some users have no clues, so let me take a brief moment to ATTEMPT some education at this juncture. I am sure it has occurred to more thann one user that my notes are detailed almost to the extreme. Why do I do that? Our Contribution Notes become part of a permanent place in the database, making it easy for users to see not only how data was derived but any documentation which might be a part of it. It also serves a personal purpose, in that it is easy for me to see, that I have already Contributed a dataset and what it consisted of against what is being changed. Or that I have already Contributed a Disc ID, and you are submittiung a new Disc ID, therefore I don't have to worry about re-contributing that Disc ID because Ken's system has already captured it.

But I will continue to think about it.

Hal:

It was you who chose to use "ease of data entry", not I, I merely told you how it struck me. It reminds me of a user who still balks at typing Contribution Notes, beyond "it is because I say it is" because he doesn't want to do the keystrokes...same concept, Hal and to me lazy. Sorry, I call it as I see it.

Skip

Hal:

You refer to me as lazy for 1/2/3, you are right. Why? Because I spend from 2 to 4 hours on every Profile for myself and the Community. And the response I get is constant abuse. I am not bragging nor complaining but you are not entitled to me spending even another 60 seconds  per Profile. You want more from me put the hammers away. You want to discuss ideas, fine let's discuss ideas, you and some others want to make ME the focus of duscussion, forget it.

I am admittedly hard-headed and stubborn as a mule, you have also seen me numerous times  change my opinion IF and when someone can come up wiuth a rational argument that I can buy. I have noticed to distinct reactions today when they apparently couldn't successful;ly argue their point with me, one was to call for help, Skip is beating us again and the other one was to say he wasn't going to play anymore. What a surprise...not.

I have been thinking about this during the break and I don't think there is a good answer here, I wish there was, I keep hoping to see someone come up with a Eureka moment<fingers crossed>. The only likely answer is also the least efficient and will slow the entire process down....a poll on each and every name that we want to "standardize"<shivers at the thought>

What are some other possibilities?
The most frequently used credit for an actor, also easy to verify, and easy to change as the database grows and more information becomes available.

The only other thing I can come up with is soemthing ummmm how to descibe it based on really nothing..

I hope we have someone who can give another angle on the forest, I would like to see it. But you also know me, I am not big on data from anyone that "is because I say it is".

Stop trying to make me the focus, this includes you chilbul, if you can't add something to the discussion then don't bother. I am at least trying here. And by all measn STOP trying to interpret my words and twist them to suit you. Case in point, my earlier reference to being swamped, followed by a derogatory comment from a user. Now let's see that could be taken two ways as a mere statement of fact (which it was) or I can take that statement and twist into something which allows me to repond negatively about the user who made the swamped statement. None of you can read my mind and you have absolutely no clue what I am thinking when I am typing, except that right now I am annoyed with the lot of you because I have to type this. So stop it, ALL OF YOU, this about IDEAS not ME, get it. I hope so.

Skip

I very much agree with the suggestion of using the IMDb-name as "common name" for our purposes. This is something that is very easily accessible for everyone, not just a bunch of forum regulars who might be willing to take the time to start a forumthread about each and every single name. To achieve maximum consistency, we need to make this as simple as possible for everyone. Using something as widespread as the IMDb-name - data that's basically spread out over the whole internet - seems like the best way.

I can see that there are some people that still have to deal with their "hate" they accumulated for IMDb-data during the previous "as credited" only handling of DVD Profiler, but there's no need for that anymore. The new system still provides us with a cast list that exactly matches the credits, so none of those old concerns matter anymore. Now, frantically searching for another way to establish the "common name" while dismissing the most blatantly obvious choice is a bit ridiculous, I think. Please let's not go to extreme lengths to ensure that our "common names" differ as much as possible from IMDb.com - that'll only cause less consistency when you take on board the users that do not always want to take the time to get "forum consensus" on each and every cast or crew name.

Quoting chibul:

Quote:
You make yourself the focus with your negativity toward others.

Just because YOU think the ideas are bad doesn't mean they are.

I think many of us are more than willing to move on with this without your support - it's certainly not required.

Chilbul:

When I am attacked I will respond. I gave my opinions on Hal's ideas, ALONG with an explanation as to why. If you want to deabte ideas, let's do so. I am NOT up for debate by YOU or anyone else.

The typical problem is that my rationale are generally hard to argue with, even if a given user doesn't wish to admit it. Not impossible and I am always willing to change an opinion, it happens quite frequently in fact, but I will not be swayed by insults, derogatory comments, or personal attacks. In fact that only convinces me that I am correct in my opinion, the person is unable to come up with a convincing counter argument and results to name-calling, etc. You have stated that this is a new start, but you have yet to make a single post, I have seen that does not represent some form an attack on me. Stop it NOW.

You want to talk ideas, fine let's talk. Otherwise be quiet.

Skip