Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Quoting pdf256:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
...

Let's take an example Alan Hale, Jr. and Alan Hale, Sr. both of which have also been credited as Alan Hale. You see a credit for Alan Hale in The Adventures of Robin Hood, which Alan Hale is it Daddy or Son. It is an easy matter to look at the images for Little John against other images of Alan Hale, Sr. and determine that is Father. However Alan Hale in this case also requires a BY entry to keep the two Alan Hales separate, else the CLT will only report ONE Alan Hale credit thus throwing the data out of whack.

Skip

All Alan Hales with birth year and without are listed under 'Alan Hale'. The CLT cares not about BY!

pdf

Yuck.   That needs fixing.

Skip

Yeah, this is precisely why I've gone to using Jr/Sr for all my local stuff, regardless of CLT results.  Same problem occurs with the Lon Chaney's and on the crew side, the Roger Heman's.  I don't care what the CLT says, Sr/Jr keeps it perfectly straight for me.

Of course the other benefit is that I don't have to waste time with birthyears.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data.

Yes, your personal standards may be different, and that's fine. As the man says: you're free to enforce those rules on your local data. You just don't get to enforce them onto the rest of the community. It's that simple.

This statement is being taken totally out of context.  The statement was in reference to voters who wanted documentation, links to prove that both names refered to the same person, included in the notes.  If you don't want to include the CLT results, that's your choice but, please, don't use Ken's post as your justification.  Nowhere did he address the inclusion, or exclusion, of CLT results. 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Additionally, I can't help noticing that nobody ever bothers to include CLT results for all associated name variants when contributing a "strictly as credited" entry.

I have actually done this when I have submitted a name that's different than the existing name. I haven't done it every time, and I agree with you that the process is the same.

My method when doing an update is to first update to the current version from the Invelos database. Then I go through the credits. If any name coming from the credits is different than what is in the profile, I enter the as-credited name into the Credited As, leaving the Name alone. When I'm done with the credits, I go through and research the names to make sure they're the same person and I use the CLT to determine the most credited name. I put all of the CLT results into the Notes field of the profile.

About half the time, this picks up a valid Credited As and about half the time, the name coming from the credits is more credited than the name in the current profile. For those, I'll list the CLT results since I've looked them up anyway. Then I paste the results into my contribution notes.

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
That doesn't mean just say that you did the research and because you say so it becomes correct, show the work, just as you would if you writing a paper in college. Failure to document the work yields an F from most professors I have known, they probably KNOW that your research is correct, just as I may know your research is correct, but without the documentation to back up the claim then the claim becomes invalid and gets an F.

Contribution notes are not a bibliography. I've never seen anyone from Invelos state as such. There are no professors here. Ken Cole has stated that use of the CLT is generally enough. You will forever be frustrated if you try to demand more than Invelos does.

Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting tweeter:

Quote:
I'm not familiar of a use of "use" that would turn it into a requirement.

I am: this one, for instance.

No matter how many times you repeat it there is no requirement in the statement:
Use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name.

"Use..." is a directive statement rather than a suggestion. I agree with T!M on this. But we've had this argument before in the forums and most people don't want to do it. I've learned to live with that.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:

Quote:
Use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name.

"Use..." is a directive statement rather than a suggestion. I agree with T!M on this. But we've had this argument before in the forums and most people don't want to do it. I've learned to live with that.

True, but there is a caveat included with that directive, "where the person's name differs from the credited name."  If you don't know the person's name differs from the credited name, you don't have to use the "Credited As" field.  To read it any other way means we have to research every single name that is entered into a profile.  Does anyone seriously believe that is what Ken intended?  I know I don't. 

I agree to an extent with Skip and others....

Ken's statement resolving this matter was specifically to do with documentation supporting Mr A=Mr B which is then supported by the CLT.
Ken was stating that we didn't need to list all the sites we use to support the Mr A=Mr B - a statement that CLT supports the data was all that's needed.

However, while I totally agree with NOT listing a bunch of websites I DON'T see a problem with listing CLT results.  I haven't been doing it all the time; but the last couple I have and I have decided to continue with that practice.

To me, that is a decent compromise. To extent it IS saying 'trust me' (sorry Skip) on the fact I've established these are the same people, but at the same time is providing the documentation to show you checked CLT. Good compromise and not too much extra work IMO.

Quoting Staid S Barr:

Quote:
(***)
So a compromise should be the other way round. No details about CLT, but some information about why these are considered the same person.

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on which side of the fence you ended up on, Ken has already nixed this compromise in the bud.  His statement indicated that no information, about why these are considered the same person, is required.  All that is required is the use of the CLT. 

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
he did not say NEVER.

That's right. He did say "generally", though. If there's evidence showing that two name variants SHOULDN'T be linked together - by all means, go ahead and say so. But simply questioning everything without providing any reason for your doubts, like you're doing, is not allowed. And rightly so, of course. Again: it's this sitting by the sidelines, doing nothing except calling out "nah, I don't buy it" every time a bit of accurate, useful data threatens to come your way, that has done far too much damage to this program for far too long.

Your stance on this also nicely illustrates why this whole CLT debate is moot: you'll keep voting no anyway. Having the CLT results in the notes wouldn't change anything for you. No matter what, you'll just keep trying to force your personal standards onto the rest of us.

It's also slightly worrying to see that you didn't realize until today that the CLT ignores birth years. That alone may have caused you to make bad contributions. Seeing as there have been previous grave misunderstandings about the CLT from you (I remember a wonderful belief that shifting common names would propagate automatically), I can't help but wonder if you've ever really worked with it at all? And if not, why would you even bother to chime in here? 

Boy, this seems more than simple to me.

As voters, if a cast or crew member is contributed with a 'credited as' name, we need the documentation that shows this person did go by multiple names.  We don't need a copy of the information, but where to find it should we not trust the contributor.  We always accept links to external web sites as valid documentation, we don't require the contributor to copy the information found into the notes.

When it comes to the CLT, why do we need the numbers in the contribution?  If we can go to the links to check the validity of the various names, it seems that we can accept that the CLT information is always available to be checked too.  Plus, it ensures us that the contributor didn't make up numbers that LOOK like CLT numbers.

In the case where a 'credited as' name is contributed, use of the CLT should be assumed.  Anybody wishing do the validation has the information readily available.