|
|
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... 3 4 5 6 7 ...14 Previous Next
|
Original Title field for TV series |
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
| T!M | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 8,736 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote: [...] still think an open field is better. And that's the entire problem: the CLT will never be able to deal with an open text field. In order for the CLT to properly count the credits, it absolutely cannot depend on an open text field - which is what this entire thread is about. Today, it does depend on an open text field, and as a result of that, the CLT tends to report a single TV credit as, say, 36 credits. So an "open field" is what we have, and we've seen that it doesn't work. At all. The question here is how to fix it. I'll say it again: the easiest way out is no season/disc/whatever indicator in there ("there" being the original title field) at all - and move that bit of data to it's own, separate field. As far as I'm concerned, that new field can remain an open text field. We could also go deeper like Corne suggested, and if Ken wants to go there I'm fine with that as well, but simply moving everything that isn't truly part of the show's actual title out of the original title field will already do the trick. For the record: I fully agree with you that we need to be able to retain what's on the cover, but we've got the title field for that, so that's not an issue. This is just about ensuring that the CLT stops counting a single TV credit dozens of times, rendering the CLT numbers completely unusable, and for that, we need to focus on the original title of TV profiles. But nobody is threatening to ignore title from the cover - I'm sure we'll always track that no matter what. | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Corne | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
Registered: April 5, 2007 | Posts: 1,059 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote: If it is only the original title field I would be ok with it.... but still think an open field is better. The majority of "best of" discs I have has a name not season numbers where you can check them off... Like...
- Alice: Television Favorites - Chico and the Man: Television Favorites - The Drew Carey Show: Television Favorites
Or volumes like Secret Agent aka Danger Man: Vol. 1-6
So on most (if not all) best of discs I have the season indicators really don't come into play. In those cases you can select the seasons of the episodes. | | | Cor |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote: Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote: [...] still think an open field is better. And that's the entire problem: the CLT will never be able to deal with an open text field. In order for the CLT to properly count the credits, it absolutely cannot depend on an open text field. But since the CLT draws on the original title field, that one needs to be formatted differently. I'll say it again: the easiest way out is no season/disc/whatever indicator in there at all - and move that bit of data to it's own, separate field. As far as I'm concerned, that can stay an open text field. We could also go deeper like Corne suggested, and if Ken wants to go there I'm fine with that as well, but simply moving everything that isn't truly part of the show's actual title out of the original title field will already do the trick.
For the record: I fully agree with you that we need to be able to retain what's on the cover, but we've got the title field for that, so that's not an issue. This is just about ensuring that the CLT stops counting a single TV credit, say, 36 times, and for that, we need to focus on the original title of TV profiles. But nobody is threatening to ignore title from the cover - I'm sure we'll always track that no matter what. Nobody? Quoting RHo: Quote: Quoting Corne:
Quote: I would propose a field like the subtitles field. In stead of language you can select (a) number(s) corresponding the season number(s). Just an idea. I like it. With that I would like to omit the season indicator not only from the original title field but also from the title field. And there is the reason for my earlier post. | | | Pete |
| | T!M | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 8,736 |
| Posted: | | | | I honestly don't think that Ken will ever move away from tracking what's on the cover. If the cover says: "The Addicted2DVD Show: The Complete First Season", then I'm sure that'll keep ending up in DVD Profiler no matter what. Even if it's not in one part, then maybe split up into separate fields with the first containing "The Addicted2DVD Show" and the second "The Complete First Season" - but even if we did that, Ken could still have it displayed as "The Addicted2DVD Show: The Complete First Season". In any case, I can't imagine Ken deciding to ignore the title from the cover. I certainly wouldn't want that.
My point here is that we're faced with a very basic problem: the inability of the CLT to deal with TV credits messes up to CLT numbers beyond belief - not just counting them two or three times, but often literally dozens of times. That very basic problem needs to be addressed. Now, there are several approaches to fixing a problem. One approach is to attach so many things to this essentially basic problem that ultimately the only solution would basically be re-building the program from the ground up - which isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Another approach is to say: yes, I'd like to see this fixed, but only if absolutely nothing changes. That isn't very likely either: obviously something needs to change in order to fix the problem...
So my suggested approach is to keep it relatively simple: introduce a new field for the season/disc/compilation/whatever-indicators of TV-profiles, and in doing so, keep the "original title" field free for just the show's actual title, and nothing else. I'm fine with any other method, including more elaborate ones, that would solve the problem as well, but IMHO this fairly simple alteration will already do a world of good for the accuracy of the CLT numbers. | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Corne | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
Registered: April 5, 2007 | Posts: 1,059 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote: I honestly don't think that Ken will ever move away from tracking what's on the cover. If the cover says: "The Addicted2DVD Show: The Complete First Season", then I'm sure that'll keep ending up in DVD Profiler no matter what. Even if it's not in one part, then maybe split up into separate fields with the first containing "The Addicted2DVD Show" and the second "The Complete First Season" - but even if we did that, Ken could still have it displayed as "The Addicted2DVD Show: The Complete First Season". In any case, I can't imagine Ken deciding to ignore the title from the cover. I certainly wouldn't want that.
My point here is that we're faced with a very basic problem: the inability of the CLT to deal with TV credits messes up to CLT numbers beyond belief - not just counting them two or three times, but often literally dozens of times. That very basic problem needs to be addressed. Now, there are several approaches to fixing a problem. One approach is to attach so many things to this essentially basic problem that ultimately the only solution would basically be re-building the program from the ground up - which isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Another approach is to say: yes, I'd like to see this fixed, but only if absolutely nothing changes. That isn't very likely either: obviously something needs to change in order to fix the problem...
So my suggested approach is to keep it relatively simple: introduce a new field for the season/disc/compilation/whatever-indicators of TV-profiles, and in doing so, keep the "original title" field free for just the show's actual title, and nothing else. I'm fine with any other method, including more elaborate ones, that would solve the problem as well, but IMHO this fairly simple alteration will already do a world of good for the accuracy of the CLT numbers. I 100% agree | | | Cor |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | Tim... I was showing you where my reply came from... no more and no less. I will say one more time... and in big bold letters so that just maybe it will sink in. I AM NOT AGAINST A NEW FIELD AS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
But I can also reply to what other people are saying. I don't need you repeating your stance over and over again just because I replied to something someone else said with a reason why I don't think what they said would work. You have done this several times within this thread and I find it very insulting. | | | Pete | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
| | Corne | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
Registered: April 5, 2007 | Posts: 1,059 |
| Posted: | | | | Please no personal vendetta's. Keep it on topic | | | Cor |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | It is far from a personal vendetta... It is completely and totally about someone being able to give their opinion on everyone's ideas... a basic right on any forum. | | | Pete |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,635 |
| Posted: | | | | Well, if we would just dump the current linking system, the CLT system would no longer be needed and we wouldn't have the problem that T!M is referring to.
You guys are ignoring the real problem here! | | | Hal |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | I definitely agree there too... unfortunately I all but lost hope on that one. | | | Pete |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Posts: 2,337 |
| | | Corne | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
Registered: April 5, 2007 | Posts: 1,059 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote: Well, if we would just dump the current linking system, the CLT system would no longer be needed and we wouldn't have the problem that T!M is referring to.
You guys are ignoring the real problem here! And what do you suggest as an alternative? | | | Cor |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 6,635 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Corne: Quote: Quoting hal9g:
Quote: Well, if we would just dump the current linking system, the CLT system would no longer be needed and we wouldn't have the problem that T!M is referring to.
You guys are ignoring the real problem here!
And what do you suggest as an alternative? I've described it many times before. It is a simple association of names to each other using a "linking" database in the on-line database, downloadable to your local database, which eliminates the need for a CLT and links all profiles in your collection at once instead of requiring every local profile to be linked independently. | | | Hal | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | T!M | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 8,736 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote: I AM NOT AGAINST A NEW FIELD AS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Quote: But I can also reply to what other people are saying. Of course you can. As can I, I hope? | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,334 |
| Posted: | | | | Of course Tim... but the way you were replying to me through-out this thread felt like nothing but cramming something down my throat that I already agreed with... when all I was doing is explaining to other people why I didn't like their idea. | | | Pete |
| Registered: August 23, 2008 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,656 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote: Well, if we would just dump the current linking system, the CLT system would no longer be needed and we wouldn't have the problem that T!M is referring to.
You guys are ignoring the real problem here! Bravo, sir. | | | Reviewer, HorrorTalk.com
"I also refuse to document CLT results and I pay my bills to avoid going to court." - Sam, keeping it real, yo. |
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 7 ...14 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|