 |
|
|
|
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: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2  Previous Next
|
|
Question to United Kingdom |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,197 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quote:
The Rule needs to be changed. If I had a dollar for every time that has been said...  | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:
Quote:
Personally, I'd rather the data be useful than straightforward.
But it is useful. The field tells me what the title in the credits is - that's very useful to me (allow me to point out that I can't see this on the cover - Fine, you want the film credit's title, then ask for Ken to add that field and there will never be any question about what to enter. I want to see the "Original Title" entered in the current field because....oh, yeah....it's called the "Original Title" field. I know that's unreasonable, but there ya go. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: May 9, 2007 |  Posts: 1,536 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's just like "Produced"... oh wait...  | | | | Hans |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 8,723 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Fine, you want the film credit's title, then ask for Ken to add that field and there will never be any question about what to enter. No need, as that is exactly what we have now.  Again: isn't it great to finally have a field where there's never any question about what to enter? I really don't understand the wish to change it into another "anything goes" kind of field instead. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Again: isn't it great to finally have a field where there's never any question about what to enter? Not at all. The interest is not just to enter data into fields, it's to use coherent data. Unfortunately, this is now local only feature...  | | | | Images from movies |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,723 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
The interest is not just to enter data into fields, it's to use coherent data. Unfortunately, this is now local only feature... You almost have it right, but the problem is that the userbase as a whole does not, and never will agree on what "coherent data" is. That's why we need rules, and with each and every rules decision, someone is going to be dissapointed. That's just how it is. As such, your "coherent data" automatically becomes your "personal preference", and the same goes for me and everyone else. And that personal preference - call it your "coherent data" if you want - indeed belongs local only. Remember that the fact that we can do that is the beauty of the program: it lets us track whatever we want, the way we want it. But for the online database, we need a set of rules to ensure as much consistency as we can possibly get: each of us contributing our own "coherent data" results in an "incoherent" mess in the database. Look: I'm no different than you - there are several rules I'm not too excited about either. Rather than consistently whining about it, though, I just happily track what I want to track locally, and contribute the parts of the data that I feel can be contributed under the rules. End of story. |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:
As such, your "coherent data" automatically becomes your "personal preference", and the same goes for me and everyone else. We disagree on that point. Data are not incoherent because of personal preference, they are incoherent because badly designed rules make them incoherent. Rules say where to find them and how to treat them, but do not define what is required. So sometimes (depending of the mood of credit makers), you have a name or another one for the same actor. Depending of the master used by media producer, you get one original title or another. Depending of the cover designer, you get a title or another. Not speaking of discrepancies between back cover and real content of the disc. In my job, I have entered data for numerous databases. The first thing rules said was to define what data were for, and what we wanted to enter to match the goal. Then there were just indications where to find them, knowing that if we find data that do not match the goal, we had to enter correct ones giving necessary documentation. And we had coherent data, even with many users. In dvdprofiler world, rules are the main cause of the incoherence of data that need linking. Funnily, they ask for a great precision (bold and italics in overviews), in fields were strictly no coherence is needed. | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,723 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
We disagree on that point. Indeed we do. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | What's incoherent is to call the field "Original Title" and then place data in it which is not the "Original Title". Just like calling a field "Production Year" and then populating it with "Theatrical Release" year, which has been the topic of ad nauseum debates. The original purpose of the field was to record the "Original Title", thus the name of the field. Unfortunately, a vocal few here on this forum convinced Ken to change the "purpose" of the field along the way, and changed the use of the field in the Rules. The result is that we now have a field that in some instances has the "screen name" and in other instances has the actual "original title" which may not match the "screen name". That's not my idea of data integrity!  As surfeur has pointed out, ease of data entry should not always be the goal, especially when it results in the entry of erroneous data which makes every entry in the field suspect...in other words untrustworthy and therefore useless. | | | | Hal |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,723 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
What's incoherent is to call the field "Original Title" and then place data in it which is not the "Original Title". That entirely depends on your definition of what the "Original Title" is. As we've seen when we discussed this earlier, there are many films for which more than two title variants exist, and where no consensus can be reached on what the actual original title is, again because of the simple fact that there is no solid definition, that everyone agrees on, for what "original title" is and where to get it. As it's such, it's doomed to fail miserably, and therefore, for DVD Profiler purposes, the original title is the title from the film credits. Once again, this is only about the discrepancy between "real-life" and the DVD Profiler universe, much like surfeur keeps insisting that a name like "Francois" (no accent) doesn't exist, and as such should never be entered as such into DVD Profiler. The thing to remember, though, is that DVD Profiler has it's own rules and definitions, and they will occasionally render different results than real-life definitions might have. But for DVD Profiler purposes, Ken decided that we can have an entry for "Francois", and he also had to set a simple, consistent and readily-available source for the "original title" field. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
...Ken decided that we can have an entry for "Francois", and he also had to set a simple, consistent and readily-available source for the "original title" field. That doesn't make a good decision, or beyond debate.  | | | | Hal |
| | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,723 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
That doesn't make a good decision, or beyond debate. Nothing is ever beyond debate, indeed. I do, however, happen to feel that those were very good decisions. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
That doesn't make a good decision, or beyond debate.
Nothing is ever beyond debate, indeed. I do, however, happen to feel that those were very good decisions. You are just as entitled to be wrong as Ken is! | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | I will have to be on that wrong right side along with Tim. As I do feel it is the better of the 2 options. Looking at it from an contribution point of view. I much rather have an easy to follow for all answer (with some having to be changed locally) over having to try to figure out... and argue over what is the "true" original title. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
You are just as entitled to be wrong as Ken is! In fact, Ken probably took the view of the "contributor", trying to facilitate his work. I can understand that since the more contributors there are, the more profiles are in the database, and the more potential users may be interested. On the other hand, this option led to a database which is a real mess for important data (those that link), even if the online is very precise for data that have quite no importance (as a database, meaning using sort and filters functions). And new users discover very quickly that the importance in volume hides a quality which is at the least poor. So, to help the job of a contributor, hundreds of users have to work on their local, being obliged to rebuild since the beginning all the links for actors (speaking only of the biggest problem). In my point of view, the comfort of the contributor is the last thing that is important, knowing that many old contributors stopped contributing when they found that their local profiles became too different from what rules ask. Now we have a few of users, for whom contributing became a hobby, that spend their time to track correct data that could be interpreted as incorrect reading the rules and the 83000 posts of the contribution forum, but nobody cares to enter cast for new movies... | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
That entirely depends on your definition of what the "Original Title" is. As we've seen when we discussed this earlier, there are many films for which more than two title variants exist, and where no consensus can be reached on what the actual original title is, again because of the simple fact that there is no solid definition, that everyone agrees on, for what "original title" is and where to get it. As it's such, it's doomed to fail miserably, and therefore, for DVD Profiler purposes, the original title is the title from the film credits. There is a simple definition, that is actually in the rules, that everyone should be able to understand. The Original Title field will contain the original title for the main feature in the country of origin.The problem is, prior to that very easy to understand definition, Ken added the caveat, "Use the title from the film's credits." Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the two are not always the same and we end up with a localized title as the original title. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |