The production year is also different. 2008 instead of 2007 like the other profiles. So maybe that's why it is counted as a separate title.

I was so focused on the title that I didn't consider the year.

But that raises another question. Should the year be considered? Of couse a person can be involved in two different productions with tha same title, so my initial reaction was - Yes!

But then I thought - it's more likely that a certain movie is profiled with different production years than a certain person being involved in two different movies with the same title. So ignoring the year probably yields a better result than treating them as different titles. It's just a matter of which error you prefer.

Thoughts?

OK, I don't have any strong preferences myself, so unless I hear anyone else telling me the contrary I guess that I'll make year count.

Sensitive subject. Ignoring valid data, leading to incorrect title count, is unacceptable. I get it. And in a perfect world I would most certainly agree. But...

This is not a perfect world, and it's not a perfect database. Not by a long shot. Several things throw off the title count, mainly misspelled titles and missing or incorrect original titles. It's impossible for a program to produce guaranteed correct title counts.

Ignoring production year will get us an undercount of titles. Using production year and ignoring the fact that it is unfortunately sometimes off by a year or more will lead to an overcount of titles. Which is worse? I believe that using production year will actually cause more errors than ignoring it would.

But as I said, I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or the other. This is one of the few programs that I don't develop for my own use, so I'll go with whatever you guys say.

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
I don't know how big the programmatical difference is, but from my personal (selfish) point of view it would be great to have a check box: Differentiate production years Yes/No, which toggles the counts...

I was afraid you would say that ... 

Quote:
The cross linking uses the current (flawfully - does this word exist) CLT as a definition base. Therefore amending the rules of counting denies the reason for its existence.

Isn't that exactly what the common name threads do? That's my main reason for not really liking them. And I imagine that the reason for CLTBoss/CLTinfo would be to support the common name threads, not to replace the CLT, so ... ?

Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:
I don't totally get the "Common Name" thread and have wondered why there was not some kind of tool that maintained a dictionary of common names. Does this make any sense? How would it relate to the CLT?

The tool is not that easy to maintain. Starting from the point, that the data base is corrupt in many ways, following the idea, that the CLT (based on this data base) is defined to be used for determining the common name for cross linking names, leads us to the resolution, that common names can be proven in any other way to correct the invalid data from the data base: hence the common name threads are one of the most popular method to research, provide evidence and last but not least prove the correct common name for a person. The tool you are sugesting would have to consolidate the outcome of various forms of common name threads (and other name proving resources out there)...

With some limitation in presentation and functionality my "List of common name threads" - see my signature - fulfills this requrement.

But the names proven by common name threads are a very small minority, though there are nearly 2000 of them. The vast majority of names is still to be linked using the CLT...

Quote:
Such a tool would not need to be a plugin, I think. But the dictionary would have to be hosted somewhere we all could synchronize with our local copies.

... and this dictionary has to be maintained!

... but if someone is interested in the raw data of the "List of common name threads", PM me...

AiAustria - you got your wish. CLTinfo supports both options for production year. (See Settings)