Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

It's not a matter of inventing data if the error is documentable. For example, if the movie is called "Eugenie" and the person is called Eugenie all through the movie, why would you want to list it as Eugene just because of a misspelling in the credits?

If any data can be labeled invented, it's the role name in the credits.

I find it strange that people think that the credits are more important than the actual movie... 

You are "inventing" data that is not in the credits. You said yourself that the credits are part of the movie, now you say that we don't care about the movie? Sorry, but you're starting to contradict yourself. 

The end credits are a documentation of who was in the movie and what roles they played. Nothing more. It's hardly of more significance than documentation that's outside of the movie. You're saying that you would rather document the documentation than document the actual roles in the movie. I say different.

I'm aware what the rules say, and I abide by it when I contribute.
I was saying how I felt it ought to be.

I agree... go there and the next thing you know we will end up with stuff like IMDB where they use what they think is more "useful" of a role name... giving us long unnecessary stuff that don't even remotely match the credits. And that is the last thing I would want.

Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

The end credits are a documentation of who was in the movie and what roles they played. Nothing more. It's hardly of more significance than documentation that's outside of the movie. You're saying that you would rather document the documentation than document the actual roles in the movie. I say different.

The data on the disc is always of more significance to us than any outside sources. You may disagree but that is how it is. To me the credits are an important part of the movie, exactly because it is often the only first hand documentation we have that can be viewed and examined by everyone. I say documenting the mistakes are more interesting than insisting on some notion of "correct" data. I don't see how we could do it differently and still maintain a credible database. Do you honestly want a rule that says "If you think the role names from the credits are wrong, you may change them to something else."? I prefer the existing rule which is clear, unambigous and not open to interpretation. And most importantly, it reflects the film credits exactly as they are written, not filtered through any personal ideas of correctness.

It's not about any personal idea of correctness. It's about correcting factual errors that can be documented.

If the credits for Star Trek say "Captain Kirk" then that's how it should be in Profiler. Not "James Kirk" or "Captain James Tiberius Kirk". No matter what we know, "Captain Kirk" is not factually incorrect and should not be changed. If, on the other hand, the credit should be misspelled "Captain Kork", then we should be allowed to change it because it is demonstrably an error. It's not an interpretation or someone's personal idea of correctness.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
It's not an interpretation or someone's personal idea of correctness.

That's where you lose me because that is exactly what it is to me. Even if I have no prior knowledge of the film or series whatsoever, I should still be able to enter the credits exactly as I see them. It's not something I should even have to think about.

Personally, I think the rule is fine the way it is.  Mainly because regardless of what the rule is, the online database will never be a neat functioning cross-referenced dataset.  Given that, who cares what the rule is?  The current rule is at least easy to follow.  No matter what the rules are, folks will always make judgement calls and the screeners will always admit questionable data.  If you're not modifying profiles as you download them to suit your needs and instead are expecting the online to be the last word, then you've missed the whole point of how this software was designed.

I've lost count of the number of profiles I've downloaded that have been fully audited by folks whom I respect.  In almost every case, I've found myself locally making small changes to their work to suit my desires.  It doesn't invalidate what they did, and I appreciate the fact that a large chunk of the work was done for me.  I just have to do the cleanup.  Ironically though, that cleanup requires that I do a full audit myself so all that was really saved was a bunch of typing. 

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Do we really want to turn DVD Profiler into End Credits Profiler?

Well, yes. I buy DVDs only to watch credits. And when necessary, I change DVD to blu-ray to make it easier to see more details in those credits. All the rest (especially movie) is just useless stuff that DVD editors could delete to save place and to allow viewers to go more rapidly to what is interesting. 

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:

Since you can put any data you want to into your local database I really don't see a problem.

The problem is that , when you contribute, you send data for other users who will take those data as correct. Sending wrong information is good for members of the credit sect who have the time to redo their local, but useless for most users who just want to use the downloaded information about who played in the movie, for which role.