| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | It is getting worse by the day. We are desperate need for something other then UPC/EAN and Disc ID to make profiles with. It seems to be more and more common to release the same discs in multiple sets.
I am bringing this up again today because I just had to vote on such a case where literally neither side is in the wrong. But since there is no way to do it... it has to be one way or the other.
The set I am talking about here is The Big Bang Theory: Season 6...
This set was released two ways that I know of... a Blu-ray/DVD Combo and a DVD release... both released on the same day... so there is no "which release came out first?" for us to go by... so the best we can do? Go with the first one in the database wins. A very unfortunate situation.... One that I have been on both sides of... where what I have was the first in so my info matches the online and where the first info in was for the release that I didn't have.
And while I haven't seen this happen yet... playing Devil's Advocate... what if you have say... a 4 disc set... The first in is say discs 1 and 2 of one set and discs 3 and 4 from the other?... can happen... what then?
@Ken Cole...
I really think this is getting beyond the point that something needs to be done in the program. Lets get this fixed so we can have situations like this done properly!
This of course will also help with re-releases and such.
I am not a programmer... so don't know what is possible or how hard something like this is... but was wondering if you couldn't just ad on to what is already there....
Say for a re-release of a film...
Original UPC: 031398811725
Have any re-releases something like...
UPC: 031398811725-A
UPC: 031398811725-B
UPC: 031398811725-C
etc, etc, etc.
Same for Disc ID profiles...
Original Disc IDs:
Disc ID: B39B4CD9EF01F7AA
Releases with same discs in sets...
Disc ID: B39B4CD9EF01F7AA-A
Disc ID: B39B4CD9EF01F7AA-B
Disc ID: B39B4CD9EF01F7AA-C
etc, etc, etc.
Whether you use a dash or a period or what have you... whatever works.
Whether you use a letter after separator or a number... whatever you prefer. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
We are desperate need...
A very unfortunate situation...
@Ken Cole...
I really think this is getting beyond the point that something needs to be done in the program. I don't think it's quite as bad as you suggest, since we can still download the disc profiles and locally change the covers, etc. If you can just hold out a little longer it will finally get beyond the point where something needs to be done in the program. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I obviously think we are already past the point.
Especially when I am sitting here voting no to a profile that would normally be accepted... just because it didn't get submitted to the database a day or two sooner. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,279 |
| | Posted: | | | | Personally I agree with Addicted, the next release of the program really needs a means of coping with multiple entries under 'one' id.
One real difficulty I can see is how the program/submission process/screener knows something is to be duplicated?
Taking the Big Bang example, if person A submits the dvd profiles from the Blu-ray set and person B submits them from the dvd set they'll both end up under the same disc id submission. In these cases they may or may not have a proper cover scan and may or may not be seen by the same screener.
I guess a step to that would be some sort of tick box on the submission screen that indicates this is a re-release/duplicate.
We would have to live with day 1 duplicates not being submittable until the first profile submitted was accepted. | | | | IVS Registered: January 2, 2002 | | | | Last edited: by Lithurge |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | I see no reason to create even more duplicates of mostly the same data. What is needed however is a way to upload more than one cover to a profile without overwriting the existing scans. The user could then select which cover to display both online and locally. | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 | | | | Last edited: by Nexus the Sixth |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,279 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting iPatsa: Quote:
I see no reason to create even more duplicates of mostly the same data. Why shouldn't people be able to capture all of the details relevant to the release they own? The argument about film vs DVD profiler pops into my head, if it were styles as the former I'd agree as it's styled as the latter it should really do what it says and capture all relevant info. | | | | IVS Registered: January 2, 2002 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,217 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting iPatsa: Quote:
I see no reason to create even more duplicates of mostly the same data. Well, the variant would have a new Release Date for example. SRP might change to 0 for a movie that is now in a Boxset, new cover can mean a new Title under the Contribution Rules and a new Overview. We would have to figure out how to handle stuff like that. But however it goes, my basic answer to Addicted2DVD plea is a resounding: YES WE NEED IT! | | | | Mithi's little XSLT tinkering - the power of XML --- DVD-Profiler Mini-Wiki |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | yeah... ideas such as different films with the same UPC come to mind. still need a way to get all the info in there... not just the cover art.
And even with something like the child profiles for The Big Bang Theory.... you still have other info then the cover... you have stuff like the case type as well that will be different.
On other sets... also the release date.. like when a complete series set comes out after all discs released in season sets.
so there is other things to think about then the cover art alone.
In my opinion... if there is to be a fix... there should be a complete fix... right from the start. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lithurge: Quote:
Taking the Big Bang example, if person A submits the dvd profiles from the Blu-ray set and person B submits them from the dvd set they'll both end up under the same disc id submission. In these cases they may or may not have a proper cover scan The Parent Profile will have the proper cover scan which you can (locally) easily copy to the child profiles if they have a different proper cover scan than the one you desire. These are hardly desperate circumstances. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Not necessarily... there is lots of sets that have discs with their own cases.... and the parent is just the slip case. The correct scans then not being available at all. So if they do that with a Blu-ray/DVD combo set and with a just DVD set (and maybe just a blu-ray set)... there could be a few different versions of the cases possible. So that isn't always the case. At least I wouldn't be comfortable taking it for granted.
Of course I understand you don't agree with us that this is something that needs to be done. But it seems (at least so far) most people do feel so. In the end... it is totally up to Ken. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,744 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoted from here: http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=689114&messageID=2147956#M2147956Quoting DJ Doena: Quote:
If it were for me, we'd need an extension of the existing key.
A "variant" so to speak. This way we could cover all sorts of conflicts we have today: Multiple same-day releases, re-releases, UPC-reusage, multiple movies on the same disc and so forth.
In the program you'd say you wanted to create a variant of an existing profile, then the profile ID would change to the existing key + a determined suffix.
When you contribute a variant for the first time, it is not treated the same as a new profile in regards to voting.
It will have to go through the regular voting process, comparing the variant profile with the existing one and the contributor has to explain why (s)he deemed the variant necessary.
The contribution will appear to all owners of the original profile (and all other variant owners) who can read the contributor's reasoning and vote accordingly.
This way the database won't get flooded with variants of profiles which aren't really variants according to the rules just because a user wants his own version of the profile because he doesn't agree with other contributors of the same profile.
Once the variant has been accepted, the owners of the original profile (and other variants) will not get to vote on the variant anymore, because it has been successfully "branched off".
If I don't contribute a variant profile, it remains in my database just like any other manual profile.
Which brings us to the issue of the suffix ID part.
When I create a variant locally, I'd go with [UPC].[Locality].[MV1]
MV = Manual Variant.
When the MV is contributed (and not yet approved) there will be a new online ID created, e.g. [UPC].[Locality].[V4]
During the transmission of the data (which still happens in the program) the web server tells the local profile of this new ID and the V4 is stored within the profile data somewhere.
Once the V4 profile is accepted and the user runs his next update of his profiles, the program properly changes the ID of the profile from .[MV1] to .[V4].
If the contribution is denied or the user never completes the contribution process in the first place, his ID remains MV1.
The rest of the program behaves the same way it already does: When adding by UPC or DiscIDs if there are multiple profile matches, just show them in a list. | | | Karsten
DVD Collectors Online
 | | | | Last edited: by DJ Doena |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | basically the way I was hoping to see done.  | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,796 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have noticed a lot of my older dvds that contributed when INvelos was created that have had their scan chaged, releaase dates, etc. And it would be a lot of trouble try correct these. Even current releases as I do a lot off preorders, that I know were the released data, as I get them the day they are released.
I have enough trouble just correcting my own db without worring about the rest of the world. | | | We don't need stinkin' IMDB's errors, we make our own.
Ineptocracy, You got to love it.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Of course I understand you don't agree with us that this is something that needs to be done. I didn't say that, I just don't see it as a desperate situation, but it's possible that having access to a scanner may give me a skewed perspective. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,744 |
| | Posted: | | | | To expand on a certain part: Quoting DJ Doena: Quote:
When you contribute a variant for the first time, it is not treated the same as a new profile in regards to voting.
It will have to go through the regular voting process, comparing the variant profile with the existing one and the contributor has to explain why (s)he deemed the variant necessary.
The contribution will appear to all owners of the original profile (and all other variant owners) who can read the contributor's reasoning and vote accordingly.
This way the database won't get flooded with variants of profiles which aren't really variants according to the rules just because a user wants his own version of the profile because he doesn't agree with other contributors of the same profile. It is important that all users of any variant see this new contribution because only then they can point out that the newly contributed "variant 10" is already in the database as "variant 3". | | | Karsten
DVD Collectors Online
| | | | Last edited: by DJ Doena |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,279 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting Lithurge:
Quote:
Taking the Big Bang example, if person A submits the dvd profiles from the Blu-ray set and person B submits them from the dvd set they'll both end up under the same disc id submission. In these cases they may or may not have a proper cover scan
The Parent Profile will have the proper cover scan which you can (locally) easily copy to the child profiles if they have a different proper cover scan than the one you desire.
These are hardly desperate circumstances.
--------------- The thing about taking quotes out of context is it allows you to make of them what you will. My post taken in full context was about issues around creating multiple entries. People without scanners cannot submit cover scans, so a screener would not have this info to decide it requires a duplicate entry. You can also see at no point did I use the phrase 'desperate circumstances'. | | | | IVS Registered: January 2, 2002 |
|