| Author |
Message |
  | Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 |  Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | First of all, I know that info like overview, cover scans and release dates from re-releases aren't allowed to be contributed for the profile of the original release. I thought that the only thing that could be contributed from the re-release that differs from the original release is the disc-ID. Another disc-ID is in many or even in most cases the ID of a re-release, at least I thought it was. The rules state that other IDs are stored and will be used for future purposes.
So what about re-release ID's, are they allowed or not? | | | | Cor |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | From the rules:
"If your Disc ID differs from the Disc ID in the main database, you may change it and re-contribute it if you are doing a wider contribution, but don't make a specific contribution for this reason. All Disc IDs will be stored in the main database for a future development of DVD Profiler." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yes Disc IDs for re-release would still count. And should be uploaded as long as you are making a bigger contribution. There is nothing in the rules that states not to add disc ids for re-releases. While I don't agree with it the rules do tell us not to make Disc ID only contributions... Quote:
If your Disc ID differs from the Disc ID in the main database, you may change it and re-contribute it if you are doing a wider contribution, but don't make a specific contribution for this reason. All Disc IDs will be stored in the main database for a future development of DVD Profiler. So maybe that was the problem? All you were doing was adding an additional disc id? | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,640 |
| | Posted: | | | | If it's for the same UPC then I would assume that an alternate disc id would be ok, even if it is from a re-release. I don't see any reason why it would not be ok. The other things that you mention we can only have one of, so it should be from the original release, but since we can have multiple disc ids it should be ok... (mind what Pete wrote, though). | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm doing a wider contribution. I didn't contribute the info that differs from the original release, like the overview and cover scan. I still got a No-vote (it's the only vote) saying that I'm adding the ID of a re-release. So that's why I got confused. | | | | Cor | | | | Last edited: by Corne |
|
| Registered: January 1, 2009 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,087 |
| | Posted: | | | | Adding an laternate Disc Id is, as I know allowed, so I can't understand the No-votes. As I understand the new Disc Id will be stored alternate.
But changing the Disc ID of a profile based on Disc ID, that looks different, I think. |
|
| Registered: December 13, 2008 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't know which contribution this is and thus haven't voted on it. Based on the rules as they are now I'd vote Yes though.
(But does anyone actually know if the disc-id is added. Cvermeylen and I once tried to experiment, but his contribution was (incorrectly?) declined because of a NO-vote, so in the end we didn't get to see what would have gotten into the main profile. Either way it's obviously not completely clear to the screeners either, because they rejected the contribution on this point.
If the disc-id is indeed stored somewhere else and doesn't overwrite the one in the online profile there'd be no objection. If however the new disc-id does overwrite the existing information and people who download the profile now get a rerelease disc id instead of the original id that would be a strange result.)
) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | I know Ken clarified this matter... but I am having a problem trying to find the post. If I remember correctly what it boiled down to is that it added all the disc ids to the profile... but only shows the latest one added in the profile when you download the profile. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | I found the post that I thought mentioned the above... and I was mistaken. It don't cover what Disc id is downloaded when you first download the profile. Just that all the disc ids are used. sorry for the confusion. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: May 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,033 |
| | Posted: | | | | As Addicted2DVD stated, Ken has said that even though only one Disc-ID shows the program keeps track of all the disc ids. I had also thought that it was the latest ID that was visible.
Something helpful to do is include the actual disc id in the contribution notes, something like:
added new disc id: olddiscid -> newdiscid
this way you can see which id's have already been added. also, I wouldn't say changed disc id because it does keep all. perhaps the no vote doesn't understand that all disc id's are kept so thinks its removing the current id.
Mallrat, it's not really a strange event because if you put the disc in your drive, based on Ken's statements, it will still recognize the disc and prompt you to download the correct profile even if your disc id doesn't match what is currently shown as long as the disc id has been added. It would be stranger to not accept it because then if someone tries to add the disc by id then it won't be found, yet the profile does exist.
It makes sense to only show one disc id because how else will it display. The only way to guarantee that the disc id in your profile matches the disc id of your copy is to insert the disc, set disc id, and then lock the field. Then no matter what else is added yours will always match and you won't have to worry about overwriting it.
-Agrare |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | Right... and I don't know if it is default or just a setting in options. (can't remember if I set it like this) But profiler can/will automatically lock the disc Id field when you add it manually from the disc. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: December 13, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Agrare: Quote:
Mallrat, it's not really a strange event because if you put the disc in your drive, based on Ken's statements, it will still recognize the disc and prompt you to download the correct profile even if your disc id doesn't match what is currently shown as long as the disc id has been added. It would be stranger to not accept it because then if someone tries to add the disc by id then it won't be found, yet the profile does exist.
-Agrare Ahhh, learnt something new there, thanks. (I do seem to remember the program not recognizing the DVD when my disc-id didn’t match the visible on various occasions though. But because there is apparently no way of telling if my disc-id is already “hidden” somewhere or still has to be added that is of course possible.) There is however a different aspect that hasn't been mentioned yet. Sometimes it's not only the disc-id that is different but also the actual data on that particular disc(-id). That's the reason I don't contribute data that is disc-specific when my disc-id doesn't match the one in the online. For example if my disc only has Dutch subtitles but the existing profile has Dutch and English, AND the existing profile has a different disc-id how would I know that the existing data is incorrect? I just browsed through my collection and came across this in my notes for 8715664008478 (BANDITS): different disc-id than online. mine has more features, kept this local. srp from dvd-outlet.Although the UPC was the same, the disc-id was different. If I had added the disc-id it wouldn’t have matched the profile it was added to. (Not saying this changes my vote though. The rules say it can be done so the NO-voter in Corne’s case is mistaken IMO) |
|
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | My experience is the most recent approved Disc ID is the one in the on-line profile. The replaced one(s) are still in the database and recognized by the program.
I always try to do as Agrare suggests and note the old and new disc ID in the contribution notes. | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
|
| Registered: May 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,033 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mallrat: Quote:
There is however a different aspect that hasn't been mentioned yet. Sometimes it's not only the disc-id that is different but also the actual data on that particular disc(-id).
That's the reason I don't contribute data that is disc-specific when my disc-id doesn't match the one in the online. For example if my disc only has Dutch subtitles but the existing profile has Dutch and English, AND the existing profile has a different disc-id how would I know that the existing data is incorrect?
I just browsed through my collection and came across this in my notes for 8715664008478 (BANDITS): different disc-id than online. mine has more features, kept this local. srp from dvd-outlet.
Although the UPC was the same, the disc-id was different. If I had added the disc-id it wouldn’t have matched the profile it was added to.
(Not saying this changes my vote though. The rules say it can be done so the NO-voter in Corne’s case is mistaken IMO) As far as a case like this goes, its also possible that the current information is from the packaging and not correct per the disc. Does your cover art match the online? or are the features listed on the case different. If the covers are different and lists different features than its possible it was a silent re-release. If your cover matches the online and your disc has more/less features than stated on the cover I would go ahead and contribute it, if someone does have an earlier release that lacks those features they can vote no and say so and then you can withdraw. in my opinion, thats the 'proper\best' way to handle a scenario like you mentioned. -Agrare |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mallrat: Quote:
Quoting Agrare:
Quote:
Mallrat, it's not really a strange event because if you put the disc in your drive, based on Ken's statements, it will still recognize the disc and prompt you to download the correct profile even if your disc id doesn't match what is currently shown as long as the disc id has been added. It would be stranger to not accept it because then if someone tries to add the disc by id then it won't be found, yet the profile does exist.
-Agrare
Ahhh, learnt something new there, thanks. (I do seem to remember the program not recognizing the DVD when my disc-id didn’t match the visible on various occasions though. But because there is apparently no way of telling if my disc-id is already “hidden” somewhere or still has to be added that is of course possible.)
There is however a different aspect that hasn't been mentioned yet. Sometimes it's not only the disc-id that is different but also the actual data on that particular disc(-id).
That's the reason I don't contribute data that is disc-specific when my disc-id doesn't match the one in the online. For example if my disc only has Dutch subtitles but the existing profile has Dutch and English, AND the existing profile has a different disc-id how would I know that the existing data is incorrect?
I just browsed through my collection and came across this in my notes for 8715664008478 (BANDITS): different disc-id than online. mine has more features, kept this local. srp from dvd-outlet.
Although the UPC was the same, the disc-id was different. If I had added the disc-id it wouldn’t have matched the profile it was added to.
(Not saying this changes my vote though. The rules say it can be done so the NO-voter in Corne’s case is mistaken IMO) Yes, unfortunately this happens all too often. I agree that if you have a different disc ID and the features are different than the on-line, that those differences need to kept local. There is no way for you to know if the on-line is correct or not. An even worse case of this is when the original release is a dual-sided disc with Widescreen on one side and Foolscreen on the other, and then they re-release it as a single-sided disc with the same UPC and Disc ID. | | | | Hal |
|
| Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | The contribution has been declined. I don't know why, probably because there was just one vote and that was a negative one. The only other corrections were some cast and crew changes and the aspect ratio. Session 9 (5410504967238.9). I locked this profile. Too bad  BTW, thanks for all your input! | | | | Cor | | | | Last edited: by Corne |
|