Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
@skip
Sorting isn't a local issue, it's a program issue. We have no control over how the cast and crew names are displayed in the "edit profile" window.

Why don't you make a request for those fields, to be displayed in separte columns, you could drag the in any possition you want. like we can now with name and role? see this thread:
Roles on the left, names on the right

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting Giga Wizard:

Quote:
sorry, i did not take anything out of context, You may then have noticed that:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
We are in the request forum. If the request is accepted,rules will have to be changed.

I'm sorry but are you doing this simply because of the person who said it?
Did you happen to miss the "If the request is accepted" bit of the sentence?
A lot of the feature requests made would require rule changes - are you saying they're all out to destroy the rules too?

There are Rules changes and there are Rules changes. The Rules will be modified with every iteration of the program. As new features are added, modifications made etc. However anm attack on the funadmental basis of the Rules is not change. As I have described many time when you develop a program or a Rules structure, there are many different yardsticks which can be used to build the foundation. For example, had Ken been willing, we could have continued using IMDb as our center refeernce point. I looked at every possibility, including the concept of allowing users to use a "dartboard" and define things however they wanted, this is fundamentally a bad idea. It was decided that the best concept was to rely o concrete data that could be seen and referenced, not imagined, hallucinated or otherwise not exist in the real world. Thus the film credits and As Credited was born, the filmmakers are the ULTIMATE source for accuracy. Have you made ANY movies, north, I rather doubt it, I have never seen IMDb listed as a Producer of ANY film yet they purport as you do to able to divine data OTHER than its appearance ON SCREEN. The foundation is As the data is seen On Screen, that means that anything not seen On Screen must be dealt with in some other fashion. There are possibilities to do that both in the Program AND the Online, the Online require some sort of compromise, which means trhat you won't be 100% happy, but will it do the job that is wanted. The other is Locally, in which case you the user are in total control of YOUR data and can present it any form you like that makes you happy. You want to use Yun-Fat//Chow, /Yun-Fat/Chow instead of Chow Yun-Fat(As Credited) you have that ability AND that authority NOBODY is going to tell you what to do with YOUR data. Further when youy upload your collection we all get to see how you are handling your data, we can even duplicate if we like it, though that takes some effort.

But the above is not what YOU want. See my comment to lars for further clarification, you like everybody else sat on the sidelines, and you wat to use a DIFFERENT standard (foundation) that is NOT based on HARD data that appears On Screen, it is based on a variety of interpretations of that data, or dartboards if you will.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
For example, had Ken been willing, we could have continued using IMDb as our center refeernce point.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what we ARE doing for the time being. Why? Because (a) about 75% of the data in the Invelos-database is still mined IMDb-data, and (b) we're subsequently told to use the "credit lookup tool" to establish a person's name. Thanks to the large chunk of IMDb-data in the database, the CLT results will essentially always declare the IMDb-name the winner. As we speak, I'm once again getting multiple no-votes to me correcting obviously incorrect IMDb-names, with reputable users quoting the ridiculously flawed CLT results as reason for voting against it. So it seems we haven't moved away from IMDb at all just yet.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:

PS. BTW, I've not the slightest idea about what really means what you wrote. Translated in french, that means nothing consistent...

We really should be careful about using colloquialisms in an international forum.

Ken has modified the phrase "That's like the pot calling the kettle black".

Since both the pot and the kettle are black, it is a saying people use when someone accuses someone else of something that they are guilty of themselves.

I hope that is clear???? 

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:

PS. BTW, I've not the slightest idea about what really means what you wrote. Translated in french, that means nothing consistent...

We really should be careful about using colloquialisms in an international forum.

Ken has modified the phrase "That's like the pot calling the kettle black".

Since both the pot and the kettle are black, it is a saying people use when someone accuses someone else of something that they are guilty of themselves.

I hope that is clear???? 

That is clear, thanks.

But I accused nobody. Kdh confessed his own sins, and I just showed that I found him courageous to do that in public..    

Quoting Giga Wizard:

Quote:
Why don't you make a request for those fields, to be displayed in separte columns, you could drag the in any possition you want. like we can now with name and role? see this thread:
Roles on the left, names on the right

Because that would affect the entire database, not just individual names.

I don't think it's necessary to completely alter the program by eliminating one or two fields. I think the checkbox is a good idea but this can be accomplished without elimating fields. Here is a variation of synner_mans's proposal: Enter the credit as credited on-screen. Each of the three fields will have a checkbox. The last field for the surname will always be checked by system default. If the surname is not in the last field, as is the case with Asian names, then check the appropriate box.

Edit: Thinking more on this, perhaps it would be better that the middle field be checked by system default because the vast majority of the credits in the database use just two fields.

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
I don't think it's necessary to completely alter the program by eliminating one or two fields. I think the checkbox is a good idea but this can be accomplished without elimating fields. Here is a variation of synner_mans's proposal: Enter the credit as credited on-screen. Each of the three fields will have a checkbox. The last field for the surname will always be checked by system default. If the surname is not in the last field, as is the case with Asian names, then check the appropriate box.

Edit: Thinking more on this, perhaps it would be better that the middle field be checked by system default because the vast majority of the credits in the database use just two fields.

I'm confused - why the middle field?
I think one checkbox telling the system to use the first name for sorting instead of the last name would be enough to clear up the problem.