MODERATORS:  I deliberately did not put this in the "New Features" forum, so that everyone would have a chance to vote.  If you must, feel free to move it.

At the suggestion of Taro and supported by several other users, I am starting this poll to gauge the community's desire for a new actor/crew linking system as described recently in another thread.

Here's how I see it possibly working:

Eliminate the "As Credited" function of the program as well as the CLT.  All credits would be entered WYSIWYT.

Ken would create a "Linking" table which would contain all variations of a person's name.  This table could be initially populated by Ken by extracting the current "As Credited" data from the main database.  This means that all the work done over the past couple of years trying to link names using "As Credited" would be preserved and we would be starting this system with a significant number of names already linked.  This table would become part of the download files whenever you "Update" your local database.

Ken would have to modify the code for the local application such that when you double-click on a name in the cast or crew section, the program would find the exact name that you clicked on in the table (referenced above) and list not just the profiles with an exact match, but profiles with matches to all name variants listed in the table for that name.

The program would link all instances within your local database automatically without making you manually go to each profile and update the credit to include "As Credited" data.

For new links, users would submit "Link Requests" through a separate contribution process.  These requests would require sufficient supporting evidence that the two linked names are in fact the same person.  These "contributions" would be voted on the same way as profile contributions today, and ultimately reviewed by the screeners and approved/rejected as appropriate.

We all know that the current main database is riddled with IMDb data.  A simple linking system wouldn't care if the actual credits in the main database are "As Credited" or not.  It would only need to know that credit A equals credit B equals credit C, therefore, a "cleanup" of the main database is not required to make this system work immediately.

In all fairness, I need to point out one downside of this system.  Take for instance "Al Smithee".  Today, with as credited, "Al Smithee" has been identified to be an alias for more than one person (which is in fact the case) and only the profiles that are associated with the same person will get linked.  In the simple linking system, this cannot be done, and all people associated with the name of "Al Smithee" will get linked together.

Personally, I believe this scenario is so infrequent, that the benefits of a simple linking system far outweigh this one small flaw.  And knowing this community, it is entirely possible that someone here can come up with a solution to that problem, too.

To really put a cap on this, if we collapse the name fields to a single name field, we'd have a near perfect system that would eliminate 75% plus of the arguments in the forum. (I think that's a good thing????).

Please feel free to shoot this full of holes!!! 

I think it's a good suggestion in theory. I've just got a couple of "issues".

Quote:
Ken would create a "Linking" table which would contain all variations of a person's name.  This table could be initially populated by Ken by extracting the current "As Credited" data from the main database.  This means that all the work done over the past couple of years trying to link names using "As Credited" would be preserved and we would be starting this system with a significant number of names already linked.  This table would become part of the download files whenever you "Update" your local database.

Although I can fully understand why you suggest doing that, I think that I would prefer the harder, longer approach and work from scratch for linking. This would remove any and all incorrectly linked entries which we "all" know exist in the database. I think there are plenty of users here who wouldn't mind helping with that. Perhaps those who participate in the beta could start to populate the new system while those who want to wait can. Of course that would mean Ken would need to run two systems for a while a beta & 3.5.1 system.

On reflection, if a change was put in place, regardless of how, we'd need to have two systems for a while to allow users some time to change over.

Quote:
To really put a cap on this, if we collapse the name fields to a single name field, we'd have a near perfect system that would eliminate 75% plus of the arguments in the forum. (I think that's a good thing????).

Again I can see the reasoning but I don't want to have everyone sorted by their first name. To me that just sounds so wrong. Of course if you couple that with the suggestion that's previously been made for a LOCAL sorting field then I'd go with it. I can understand though that some wouldn't want another local only field.

Good points Hal and forget.

Skip

Works for me. I'd like to see this form the basis of a Database of cast and crew but this is an improvement over what we have. The only problem is bandwidth as the table woudl need to be present locally and be regularly updated. Not an issue for us and the desktop version but probably for Ken and depending on the size the windows mobile version. Plus of course it would need a re-write of all versions at the same time to make it compatible
which must be headache for the authors and for very little extra return unless they start charging for upgrades, which I would pay, but with all the issues arouind that.

I like the idea Hal.  It will certainly show an improvement over the system as it currently stands.  I like that it preserves the credits and that it also may provide mostly correct linking.  Like Taro, I'd be all for trying it out - and I'd be willing to pay for the upgrades, also if it wasn't too expensive.

I just have one question:  How will your proposal handle credits for different people with the same name?

For example, there are several people named Michael Davis (by my count 11 different crew people and 16 different cast people).  Currently to differentiate any of them from each other I need to find birthdays.  How will your proposal differentiate them?

(Hopefully this isn't the same as the Alan Smithee problem you have already pointed out.)

Since I do a lot of crew/cast contributions I would be in favor of a system like Hal has suggested. 

         

   

The one thing that has me a bit concerned is actually reflected by the way one of the options is formulated: "Let's try the simple linking system described below." (bold by me).

Ken once decided to go in the Credited As direction and he explained that that decision wasn't made lightly. This seems a bit like "oh, we don't like this, let's try something else to check if that works better". And if it doesn't we just try again...?


BTW, I didn't vote against it either, I am one of those with a desire to nap.

With the current system in my local db, I can link or separate any credit, whether it's Alan Smithee or the Alan Hales or Harry Stradlings, the screenwriter Arthur Miller and the cinematographer Arthur Miller, etc. Unless this new suggested system could provide that same level of distinction, I wouldn't want to change.