| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | Seriously does somebody can tell me what is the advantage of removing the rating details? It sure looks more precise for what you want...  | | | | Last edited: by Jimmy S |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Keep iin mind for people who have a lot of NR: how much of that is TV and how much doesn't fall under unrated? I have 2353 unrated profile, but 1985 are TV and 310 should stay film NR under the new rule, so this actually only affects a relative handful. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | That is your choice, Ace. I don't like or appreciate having my time wasted, you should see what i have to vote RIGHT NOW for literally little or NO return. the last time ken made one of these insignificant little changes, it took me three years to get completely clear of it. Sadly one those leading the pack is good friend, yes i am angry, it's outrageous. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: May 9, 2007 |  Posts: 1,536 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting AESP_pres: Quote:
Seriously does somebody can tell me what is the advantage of removing the rating details? It sure looks more precise for what you want...
I don't see why the details need to be removed, even if one would follow the new rule and make this "Unrated". | | | | Hans |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
That is your choice, Ace. I don't like or appreciate having my time wasted, you should see what i have to vote RIGHT NOW for literally little or NO return. the last time ken made one of these insignificant little changes, it took me three years to get completely clear of it. Sadly one those leading the pack is good friend, yes i am angry, it's outrageous. No one is wasting your time. You can just click neutral whenever you see one of these. You aren't the guardian of the DB and are in no way compelled to vet any of these updates. I'm sorry it's an inconvenience to you, but lots of other users find this useful |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Wrong, Ace if you are participating you are wasting my time, for evaluating and votings and the evaluating and deciding to update or not, that all takes significant time and there is very little return relative to useful data.. These types of changes should NOT be allowed solo, in tandem with some other change , sure, but as the only change NO. You are impacting other users, something, Axe, which i know you neither understand nor care about. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Staid S Barr: Quote:
I don't see why the details need to be removed, even if one would follow the new rule and make this "Unrated". Because the details belong to the rating. No rating, no details. | | | 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 |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Because the details belong to the rating. No rating, no details. That's what I expected. In that case, I'm with AESP_pres all the way: his example from the top of this page shows exactly what's wrong with all this. For the life of me, I don't see how the very limited new data on the right is preferable over the detailed rating we had before.  | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting AESP_pres: Quote:
Seriously does somebody can tell me what is the advantage of removing the rating details? It sure looks more precise for what you want...
The interest is to use that field, which has no interest in France (in fact there is no corresponding data on DVDs), for another purpose. I personaly use it for theater audience.  | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,678 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
Because the details belong to the rating. No rating, no details.
That's what I expected. In that case, I'm with AESP_pres all the way: his example from the top of this page shows exactly what's wrong with all this. For the life of me, I don't see how the very limited new data on the right is preferable over the detailed rating we had before. I remember that someone said: Quote:
I think fields should be used for what they say. Straying from that always seem to lead to problems.
...
If you need to differentiate between titles that have not been rated, in order to determine family friendliness or whatever, then the rating field is not the place to do it. Shoehorning in unrelated data into the rating field will only cause confusion Wait, I think that was me... I hate to say "I told you so"... so I won't.  | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
Shoehorning in unrelated data into the rating field will only cause confusion And yet, that's exactly what we're doing now: shoehorning a marketing gimmick, that mostly really only belongs in the "Edition" field, into the "Ratings" field.  Anyway - not to worry: as always, there's little use in beating a dead horse, so I've just locked the necessary profiles (surprisingly few), and that's that. It's just that, even having waded through all endless threads about this, I still don't understand how this is an improvement. Oh well - never mind. |
|
| Registered: May 9, 2007 | | Posts: 1,536 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting Staid S Barr:
Quote:
I don't see why the details need to be removed, even if one would follow the new rule and make this "Unrated".
Because the details belong to the rating. No rating, no details. But contrary to "Not Rated", "Unrated" is generally used as a rating, sort of. | | | | Hans |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 453 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree with Skip on this one, it seems like a waste of time to me, and when did the MPAA add an Unrated detail to the list its Not Rated "NR"? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | neither one (NR or Unrated) is part of the MPAA ratings. So to me that is no argument.
my initial wish was to always use what is listed on the case. But the rule Ken decided on works well enough for me. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 453 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
neither one (NR or Unrated) is part of the MPAA ratings. So to me that is no argument.
my initial wish was to always use what is listed on the case. But the rule Ken decided on works well enough for me. Your right, I just found this, I still think it is alot of work for such a change. "If a film is not submitted for rating, the label NR (Not Rated) or Unrated is used. However, this is not an official MPAA classification. Films not yet rated by the MPAA, but that are expected to be submitted for rating, are often advertised with the notice "This Film is Not Yet Rated". |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Anyway - not to worry: as always, there's little use in beating a dead horse, so I've just locked the necessary profiles (surprisingly few), and that's that. It's just that, even having waded through all endless threads about this, I still don't understand how this is an improvement. Oh well - never mind. And this is where perspective comes in. While it is surprisingly few for you, it is nearly a third for me. I haven't had a chance to mess with the new rating yet, still moving, but based on Pete's and Mark's comments, I am quite sure I will be happy with it. | | | 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 |
|