 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Desktop Feature Requests |
Page:
1... 14 15 16 17  Previous Next
|
|
Importing data from online resources like IMDB |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,272 |
| | Posted: | | | | Down with Rutte!  | | | HDTV: 52" Toshiba Regza 52XV545U AVR: Onkyo TR-707
Speakers: Paradigm Monitor 7 v6, CC-190 & Atom Monitors Subwoofer: Definitive Technology ProSub 800
BD/DVD: Oppo BDP-93 (Region Free) HD PVR: Motorola DXC3400 500GB w/ 1TB Expander
BD/DVD/Game: 250GB PS3 Slim DVD/Game: 250GB XBox 360 Elite Special Edition (Black) Game: Wii
Remote: Logitech Harmony One w/ PS3 Adapter WHS: Acer H341 Windows Home Server |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 681 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Everybody has the right to call himself lazy. But nobody has the right to call lazy people they do not know. Nobody knows about others' motivations, and what they do instead of contributing. There are people that work for others (doctors, nurses, fire men...) who may just not have much time for their hobbies and choose to watch their movies rather than contributing. Who may judge they are lazy ??? I don't write here often, but I have to agree with surfeur51 here. He didn't really even have to bring up the "other time consuming stuff". Yves has perfectly valid point in what he brings to our knowledge every now and then, and I share his frustration. If one knows that current rules (or Ken's board addendums regarding cast&crew database) demand incorrect information (NOTE: incorrect according to common sense and naming rules nobody has reason to doubt, not according to rules; I'm talking about the accents, acutes, graves...) to be entered into the database, why would even the most non-lazy person care to contribute full profiles to the online database? They would be spending time and energy to make the cast/crew database, in their/our eyes, even worse than it currently is - or at least they would be conforming to the design/rules fault that they are criticizing against. Yves is anything but lazy judging by the scene stills collection he has maintained. That work is very much appreciated by many of us. Regarding Finnish profiles, I used to contribute quite a lot a few years ago. I have 800+ Blu-rays and 1500+ DVDs, and I constantly run into profiles that are not in the database. Nowadays I very rarely contribute. My reasons being... 1) Most of the information is not interesting to me. I don't care, what is the audio format or the aspect ratio or the subtitles (other than whether Finnish/English is there) or the case type etc. etc. ... If I am interested enough to own the movie, I'll watch it on my telly anyway, regardless the technical details  I don't even care that much for quality cover scans nowadays... for me it's enough if I find a "decent quality" scan online; I'll use that and that's fine. 2) Most important detail of the database for me is cast/crew and the "linkability" (I guess that's not really a word ). I need to see, what movies / tv-episodes I have of whatever particular actor. The rules as they are, are prone to miss the linkability when I search them, for the reasons e.g. Yves has brought up. For me this is first and foremost a movie database, and only secondarily a release database. I know many of you disagree, but FOR ME that's how it is. 3) I use that beautiful plugin to bring cast/crew information from IMDb. I accept the fact, that there are errors, but I consider that downside to be acceptable to the option: spending lots of time to enter all the cast and crew based on end credits and NOT KNOWING how many link misses I will do in the process when I don't know that name X is actually the same person as name Y in some other movie. 4) If I'm going to not contribute cast and crew or cover scans anyway, I don't think what my contribution would be useful for anyway. The information I WOULD be contributing would be a couple of minutes task to anyone anyway. Sorry for off topic. I'll return to my lurking mode again... BUT, I would be very happy to see the change to the database that I've seen some members suggested - separating the release and content database. Someone (It might have been DJ Doena) suggested this variant-model for different releases. I find that very very promising. Hopefully something along that line will become reality one day! | | | Mika
I hate people who love me, and they hate me. (Bender Bending Rodriguez) | | | | Last edited: by Draxen |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Draxen: Quote:
Yves is anything but lazy judging by the scene stills collection he has maintained. That work is very much appreciated by many of us. No one suggested ANYTHING different!!! You people do seem to get fixated on the cast and crew aspect of Profiler. Quote:
The information I WOULD be contributing would be a couple of minutes task to anyone anyway. A couple of minutes that someone ELSE could be using for other things! That's the point I have been trying to get across. If you only take a minute or two on a profile to submit SOMETHING then it adds benefit to the database. By saying 'someone else will do it' gives the impression that you are lazy (whether or not that is the truth). Simply put - don't leave it for someone else to do if you can do it yourself (if you have the time!). |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 485 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Draxen: Quote:
<...>
2) For me this is first and foremost a movie database, and only secondarily a release database. I know many of you disagree, but FOR ME that's how it is.
<...> Actually, few will disagree I think, when they think the matter through. But first of all, you state that it is your opinion and you are perfectly right to have that opinion. No reason to fight it. By the way of the design of the program and its underlying data, TECHNICALLY it definitely is a release database. Whether you treat a profile likewise or are more interested in the movie part of the data, is a personal choice. A choice everyone is free to make. Second, yes, many of us TREAT it as a movie database, perhaps with 'TV show' database as second. Testament to that are furious debates on movie details, especially cast and crew (a few rare releases excepted, these are usually uniform throughout the many locality releases of a movie). Like promoting IMDB data, even if incorrect or legally unadvisable, because it promises the right linking -- whether it does that is worth of its own thread  . This is also supported by the fact that other types of DVD or BR's containing for instance music performances, ballet, documentaries and the like are usually poorly maintained in data. To me, that says that few are interested in releases that are not movies or TV shows. So be it. You say you only look at the data parts you need. Fair enough, anyone's prerogative on how to use the data. But many have also stated that they use the data for a pre-buy check. Releases in different localities, especially when done by the smaller distributors, tend to differ heavily in types of sound track, extra's, etc. Or --many of those in the past, like aspect ratio-- outright incorrect info on a back cover. If you're not bound to subtitles in your own language, it is a good way to check other available releases which you can import by buying online or simply crossing the border (as I live close to two borders...  ). So even if I see your logic, I also recognise the need to compile the extra data. If someone just bought a luxery 7.1 audio setup, you do not want to be fooled by wrong back cover data... To me, your post --and actually this whole thread and the poll-- emphasises the need for Invelos to focus for any next release on the linking issue. Perhaps with undoing some unwise rule details in the process. Way in the past I think this was promised for version 4 of the program. And for years on end now we're just progressing along 3.x versions. To me, it tells me Invelos is a bit apprehensive about taking v4 really on. Then again, cast, crew and linking (from Asian names to prefixes and suffixes, from middle names as given or surname parts to how to spell something like "EJ", "E.J." or "E. J.", interpreting CLT etc etc) are among the most heavily debated items and submitted profile changes. IOW, the need is there and the need is huge. So, Ken, what's keeping you ? | | | Eric
If it is important, say it. Otherwise, let silence speak. | | | | Last edited: by eommen |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,337 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting eommen: Quote:
Way in the past I think this was promised for version 4 of the program. And for years on end now we're just progressing along 3.x versions. To me, it tells me Invelos is a bit apprehensive about taking v4 really on. Actually it was promised for 3.8 and present version is 3.8.2. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 681 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
If you only take a minute or two on a profile to submit SOMETHING then it adds benefit to the database.
By saying 'someone else will do it' gives the impression that you are lazy (whether or not that is the truth).
Simply put - don't leave it for someone else to do if you can do it yourself (if you have the time!). That is true, although I don't really need the online database for my own collection. In my case, I contribute very rarely to it, BUT at the same time, I don't expect anyone else to do that work for me either. As I said, I don't care, what is the exact aspect ratio, audio format, complete listing of subtitles, exact runtime (I tend to trust back cover) and other technicalities so for new contributions (which my most purchases nowadays would be) I don't check these things against the disk. And I don't use cast&crew directly from actual credits for my local collection, for the reasons I explained in my previous message. I very rarely even scan the covers anymore - I just take a scan from internet if I happen to find one, even if it's quite small. Same thing with overview, for me it doesn't need to be from actual back cover. So, I would be either 1) entering information that is not checked, or 2) leaving blank the majority of available fields. For that reason I said that my contribution wouldn't really benefit anyone. I would think a barebones contribution with UPC, title and perhaps retail price and release date is not much needed by anyone(?). Of course, I could do those, I'm not THAT lazy So all in all, my ways of using this program have changed quite a bit since 1999 when I joined here... but the key here is that I don't expect anyone else, to do the work I choose not to need, either. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to take time that they may have sparsely anyway, to check release level details according to rules if they would be ONLY doing it for others, not needing such detailed information themselves. | | | Mika
I hate people who love me, and they hate me. (Bender Bending Rodriguez) |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 681 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting eommen: Quote:
By the way of the design of the program and its underlying data, TECHNICALLY it definitely is a release database. Whether you treat a profile likewise or are more interested in the movie part of the data, is a personal choice. A choice everyone is free to make.
Second, yes, many of us TREAT it as a movie database, perhaps with 'TV show' database as second. Oh, definitely. What I really meant was content database in contrast to release database. Content being movies, tv-series episodes, music performances etc. etc... Quoting eommen: Quote:
To me, your post --and actually this whole thread and the poll-- emphasises the need for Invelos to focus for any next release on the linking issue. Perhaps with undoing some unwise rule details in the process. Way in the past I think this was promised for version 4 of the program. And for years on end now we're just progressing along 3.x versions. To me, it tells me Invelos is a bit apprehensive about taking v4 really on.
Then again, cast, crew and linking (from Asian names to prefixes and suffixes, from middle names as given or surname parts to how to spell something like "EJ", "E.J." or "E. J.", interpreting CLT etc etc) are among the most heavily debated items and submitted profile changes. IOW, the need is there and the need is huge.
Completely agree. Separate cast&crew-database where all releases of same content would get that information from (with room for variants for different cuts), would be ideal for my usage. The linking would be there in the way IMDb has it now. I have no idea how difficult process it would be for Ken and the developers and I am not expecting that kind of change to happen anytime soon, even less demanding anything of the sort I'm just happy with the program it is now, I use it only for my own cataloguing + some personal extra info with HTML-windows + "Easter Eggs" and "Notes" text-fields, not completely the way it is expected to be used! | | | Mika
I hate people who love me, and they hate me. (Bender Bending Rodriguez) |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Draxen: Quote:
The linking would be there in the way IMDb has it now. While I agree with most of what you said, the quoted part still is something I heavily disagree with. Simply because I don't see in how far the IMDb-system (or any other system) is supposed to solve the problems in linking as such. When creating a profile I will, no matter which system we use, have to decide if "John Doe" is John Doe (I), John Doe (II), a new John Doe, a variant of "John X. Doe", or something completely different. The same persons that are unwilling to apply linking nowadays (and demand another linking-system) will most definitely be unwilling to undergo the effort of linking with no matter which system. Because that's what it is: " effort". And from what I have had to read here, that's what many users are not willing to have with the maindatabase (their own local now is something completely different). Instead of helping to improve the database "to best knowledge", its much easier to complain about an imperfect database. Strangely most of these complaints come from people that shortly after this complaint admit that they contribute "scarcely, if at all". So: In how far is a change of the linking-system supposed to improve linking? | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 681 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
Quoting Draxen:
Quote:
The linking would be there in the way IMDb has it now.
While I agree with most of what you said, the quoted part still is something I heavily disagree with.
Simply because I don't see in how far the IMDb-system (or any other system) is supposed to solve the problems in linking as such.
When creating a profile I will, no matter which system we use, have to decide if "John Doe" is John Doe (I), John Doe (II), a new John Doe, a variant of "John X. Doe", or something completely different.
The same persons that are unwilling to apply linking nowadays (and demand another linking-system) will most definitely be unwilling to undergo the effort of linking with no matter which system. Because that's what it is: "effort". And from what I have had to read here, that's what many users are not willing to have with the maindatabase (their own local now is something completely different).
Instead of helping to improve the database "to best knowledge", its much easier to complain about an imperfect database. Strangely most of these complaints come from people that shortly after this complaint admit that they contribute "scarcely, if at all".
So: In how far is a change of the linking-system supposed to improve linking? Good points, didn't think of that. I haven't gone through the entire thread, I admit. The thing it boils down to, I guess, is that it is not realistic for us to be experts enough to know which John Smith is in whatever particular film out of several dozens of his namesakes. And especially, when same person is credited with different names in different movies. The problem is obvious and imho practically unsolvable with obscure little known actors/crew. How important it is to any of us, then, to know that "this bit part performer in this obscure movie is infact the same guy as that another bit part performer in another obscure movie", is of course relative But the problem is there nevertheless. For my use the IMDb-plugin is very very helpful. As I said before, I accept the errors that are there and that common names in their database can and do change, because I do trust that different, less well-known actors, do link much better than within DVDP cast&crew database with its CLT - getting that system even close to as complete seems a humongous effort, but I really do tip my hat for everyone who do that hard work and choose to use DVDP cast&crew database instead. | | | Mika
I hate people who love me, and they hate me. (Bender Bending Rodriguez) |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,747 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
So: In how far is a change of the linking-system supposed to improve linking? Ideally, because you only have one set of credits for one movie. And not 382 times the same credit for the same movie dipsersed over countless localities and releases. But even if a new linking system kept the current bonding between DVD release and credit scroll, it'd still be easier than rumaging around the CLT, first trying to determine a common name or finding a birth year so you can distinguish the actor from another one. You simply select the name, open a "link dialog", search for the guy, find several people, one of whom starred in the same movie on a different release and you know you got your guy. You never need to touch this particular credit in this release again. No worry if a birth year might become necessary in the future, no worry that all the other credits are carbon copies from IMDb and that the actual common name might change in the forseeable future. You are simply done here. | | | Karsten
DVD Collectors Online
 |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DJ Doena: Quote:
Quoting Lewis_Prothero:
Quote:
So: In how far is a change of the linking-system supposed to improve linking?
Ideally, because you only have one set of credits for one movie. And not 382 times the same credit for the same movie dipsersed over countless localities and releases. I think you misunderstood. Splitting up the data between Cast/Crew and Media-Release data will undoubtedly bring an improvement. But it is not inclined to help us with linking as such. I will not have to skim through 382 profiles on the quest for "John Doe", but it will still not tell me which John Doe it is I'm just seeing the credits of. So yes, it will help after the linking is done, since it would (hopefully) clean out the Junk-data, but it will not help to decide to whom the link has to be made. Quote:
You simply select the name, open a "link dialog", search for the guy, find several people, one of whom starred in the same movie on a different release and you know you got your guy. First of all this wouldn't require a new system, but "simply" an additional tool. Worse is: With the current state of the database you will most likely find that the guy you are looking for appeared in the movie under 6 name variants (depending on which profile you are looking at). And still: In how far is this going to help me with a NEW title, that isn't in the database yet. So again without further investigation I will be completely lost. The premise for this tool being helpful is that the database gets cleaned first. But: With this premise being fulfilled even the Common Name will give decent results. I consider it to be slightly unfair to compare the (desolate) Status Quo of our database to Utopia. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
The same persons that are unwilling to apply linking nowadays (and demand another linking-system) will most definitely be unwilling to undergo the effort of linking with no matter which system. Because that's what it is: "effort". I'm ready to spend hundreds of hours to work on a database with linking names, as soon as the linking system respects "real" names. With "real", I mean the name used by the actor himself, that may be a stage name. In fact very few actors use several names for themselves. We have married women names problem, and a few stage names that can vary as Dwayne"The Rock" Johnson. We have also suffixes that can be easily normalised. But most variants in the Invelos database are fabricated by inappropriate rules (thousands of accented names and Asian names ...). To differentiate the different "John Smith" needs more work, (the problem is more in crew than cast), but errors with a false linking between two different obscure crew are far less important than the non-linking between Gong Li and Li Gong or between Gérard Depardieu and Gerard Depardieu Many people have already worked on a correct linking for their local and are probably ready to share their informations. But those persons will do nothing with a system generating its own errors. | | | | Images from movies |
| | Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | My problem with the CLT is not the crew and cast names or how they link or don't link. Mine is with the TV sets, & disc level profiles.
Take the recent common name thread for Joe Badalucco, Jr. - 49 titles/252 profiles. I have updated the screen credits, original titles, and produced years to get the 2 films to match Ransom 1/16, Godzilla 1/58 but the Sopranos Season 1 is 47 titles and 78 profiles, because there isn't a common title name that can link all DVD titles to 1 common name and disc level profiles. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 485 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Draxen: Quote:
<...>. I have no idea how difficult process it would be for Ken and the developers and I am not expecting that kind of change to happen anytime soon, even less demanding anything of the sort <...> For the record: as far as we know, Invelos is a single person developer: Ken. Yes, there are the developers of the plug-ins (actually, DVDp users like you and me), but I don't think you meant that. | | | Eric
If it is important, say it. Otherwise, let silence speak. |
| | Registered: March 26, 2007 | | Posts: 77 |
| | Posted: | | | | Technically indeed this may be a release DB. But I do think, that practically, people buying the DVD for the content that is on. So even it may be a release DB, the most important part, surely for me, is the content eq movie/concert or whatever. This like also has being stated by others.
About the linking part, I have to agree, that most likely no linking system would be perfect. But if need to find out if it will be John Doe (I), (II) to (V) or you need to find out if it’s John Doe (1966) or John Doe (1950), will there be that much of a difference, If also in John Doe (II) you can see his birthday being 1950? I think the (I) or (II) is only to make it seen as it is a different person. And also I think that if it is a person of an important role in the movie, he would have a unique name so he will distinguish himself. Yes, for the completeness he can be mentioned in the DB, but for me I think I will hardly miss his name and also wouldn’t be a big lost, if this one is linked to the wrong John Doe. But that is mine opinion.
And I have started I long time ago, to make my local DB so there would be a linking system in the Cast & Crew. But in the end it is almost impossible to maintain like that, for me that is. So therefore I also started to use external tools. But regarding how great those tools are, they can’t do what any internal build in can do. Like for an example; Simply to update the profile(s).
Also, for me that is, I do think that IMDB has a good linking system and surely a much more complete DB, regarding movies that is, than DVDp has. And with complete I do mean, the number of movies. I know, nothing will be flawless and nothing ever will become flawless, neither will it match everybody’s needs/opinions. But because of my needs and interest, I would like to have the IMDB option in. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 736 |
| | Posted: | | | | "About the linking part, I have to agree, that most likely no linking system would be perfect. But if need to find out if it will be John Doe (I), (II) to (V) or you need to find out if it’s John Doe (1966) or John Doe (1950), will there be that much of a difference, If also in John Doe (II) you can see his birthday being 1950? I think the (I) or (II) is only to make it seen as it is a different person. And also I think that if it is a person of an important role in the movie, he would have a unique name so he will distinguish himself. Yes, for the completeness he can be mentioned in the DB, but for me I think I will hardly miss his name and also wouldn’t be a big lost, if this one is linked to the wrong John Doe. But that is mine opinion."
I think one way to handle those actors under a new linking system would be to have to a little pop-up window that asks which ID you want to link to. If you know the specific and correct person when you contribute, you check that person's name and they are linked in the main DB under the proper ID. If you don't know, there can be an "unknown" checkbox that allows it to remain unlinked to a specific ID until another contributor can confirm the proper choice. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Desktop Feature Requests |
Page:
1... 14 15 16 17 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |