Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I agree.  Listing all of those different roles under the Costume Designer credit is simply stupid and makes the data in DVDP for this role pretty much useless!

This is exactly what you get when you start allowing what some people like to call "functional equivalents".

I agree that allowing "wardrobe supervisor" as an "costume designer" alternative is not very useful. But I do not agree that allowing functional equivalents would be the same. Exactly this example shows that a list of allowed role names fails where the allowance of functional equivalents might work because "wardrobe supervisor" is definitely not a functional equivalent to "costume designer" at least in this case. And everybody agrees to that fact.

Functional equivalents would only allow an alternate role name, if it is used for the same job done for the film (or at least almost the same job).

Functional equivalents even work if the same name is used for different jobs. "Sound recordist" in an old film where this is the only sound credit would get the functional equivalent "sound" credit, whereas a "sound recordist" credited near the "boom operator" in an UK film would get the functional equivalent "production sound mixer". A "sound recordist" in the post production section could get a "sound re-recoding mixer" credit, but I think, I haven't seen this yet.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Functional equivalents would only allow an alternate role name, if it is used for the same job done for the film (or at least almost the same job).

Please explain to us exactly how the average user would know and/or determine this?

The average user may not care and leave the credits out of the profile. The educated user on the other side may add the credit of a functional equivalent role to the profile and document/reason this case in the contribution notes. The voters and screeners would decide on that basis.

For well known alternate role names the crew table in the rule may give hints through the "credited as" and "note" columns. I would expect this table to have the explanation for "sound recordist" stated in the "note" column of the "sound" and "production sound mixer" credits because this is a well known and already solved problem. Other cases would be obvious. E.g. "based on" and "based on the novel xy by" would both be equivalent to "original material by" without much explanation. The same would be true for "photographed in technicolour by" etc.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:

I'm curious as to what the Invelos standard is. I understand for Skip and others, any A=B must be proven, yet we have Ken's comment that "in general" CLT results is sufficient. I have my own interpretation of what "in general" means, but it would be nice to have a standard in the rules in order to eliminate contention.

It would indeed be good to know. Not only for that but for the rest of the rules that can be read in more than one way.

Gunnar has it absolutely correct. With all due respect to some users. Most of you have seen my notes. I go into that detail not for ME, not for Ken or Gerri, I do it for YOU and all the users that come after so that they can SEE that then work has been done. This is partiularly critical with crew data and lower level actors who are not as well-known as HBC. Excuse me for being blunt, but if you are not willing to do the work for the other members of the Community (stop trying to hide behind Ken and Gerri), this is a COLLABORATIVE effort, then don't make the Contribution, as far as i this user is concerned such pathetically researched data is no better than the garbage i put out on the street every week, and it does not reflect well on those users who are only interested in their own keystrokes and not communicating adequately with other users.

I encourage all users to start taking a harder line for such data, remember GIGO.

Skip

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Functional equivalents would only allow an alternate role name, if it is used for the same job done for the film (or at least almost the same job).

Please explain to us exactly how the average user would know and/or determine this?

The average user may not care and leave the credits out of the profile. The educated user on the other side may add the credit of a functional equivalent role to the profile and document/reason this case in the contribution notes. The voters and screeners would decide on that basis.

For well known alternate role names the crew table in the rule may give hints through the "credited as" and "note" columns. I would expect this table to have the explanation for "sound recordist" stated in the "note" column of the "sound" and "production sound mixer" credits because this is a well known and already solved problem. Other cases would be obvious. E.g. "based on" and "based on the novel xy by" would both be equivalent to "original material by" without much explanation. The same would be true for "photographed in technicolour by" etc.

The problem is that people "who think" they know what an "functional equivalent" is will contribute stuff that is not.  This will make the data useless and be an endless source of debate and argument on these forums as well as ping-ponging while people argeu about whether it is or not.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Functional equivalents would only allow an alternate role name, if it is used for the same job done for the film (or at least almost the same job).

Please explain to us exactly how the average user would know and/or determine this?

The average user may not care and leave the credits out of the profile. The educated user on the other side may add the credit of a functional equivalent role to the profile and document/reason this case in the contribution notes. The voters and screeners would decide on that basis.

For well known alternate role names the crew table in the rule may give hints through the "credited as" and "note" columns. I would expect this table to have the explanation for "sound recordist" stated in the "note" column of the "sound" and "production sound mixer" credits because this is a well known and already solved problem. Other cases would be obvious. E.g. "based on" and "based on the novel xy by" would both be equivalent to "original material by" without much explanation. The same would be true for "photographed in technicolour by" etc.

The problem is that people "who think" they know what an "functional equivalent" is will contribute stuff that is not.  This will make the data useless and be an endless source of debate and argument on these forums as well as ping-ponging while people argeu about whether it is or not.

No, they would be voted down the same way bad data is voted down today.