It is getting worse by the day. We are desperate need for something other then UPC/EAN and Disc ID to make profiles with. It seems to be more and more common to release the same discs in multiple sets.

I am bringing this up again today because I just had to vote on such a case where literally neither side is in the wrong. But since there is no way to do it... it has to be one way or the other.

The set I am talking about here is The Big Bang Theory: Season 6...

This set was released two ways that I know of... a Blu-ray/DVD Combo and a DVD release... both released on the same day... so there is no "which release came out first?" for us to go by... so the best we can do? Go with the first one in the database wins. A very unfortunate situation.... One that I have been on both sides of... where what I have was the first in so my info matches the online and where the first info in was for the release that I didn't have.

And while I haven't seen this happen yet... playing Devil's Advocate... what if you have say... a 4 disc set... The first in is say discs 1 and 2 of one set and discs 3 and 4 from the other?... can happen... what then?

@Ken Cole...
I really think this is getting beyond the point that something needs to be done in the program. Lets get this fixed so we can have situations like this done properly!

This of course will also help with re-releases and such.

I am not a programmer... so don't know what is possible or how hard something like this is... but was wondering if you couldn't just ad on to what is already there....

Say for a re-release of a film...

Original UPC: 031398811725

Have any re-releases something like...

UPC: 031398811725-A
UPC: 031398811725-B
UPC: 031398811725-C
etc, etc, etc.

Same for Disc ID profiles...

Original Disc IDs:

Disc ID: B39B4CD9EF01F7AA

Releases with same discs in sets...

Disc ID: B39B4CD9EF01F7AA-A
Disc ID: B39B4CD9EF01F7AA-B
Disc ID: B39B4CD9EF01F7AA-C
etc, etc, etc.

Whether you use a dash or a period or what have you... whatever works.

Whether you use a letter after separator or a number... whatever you prefer.

I obviously think we are already past the point.

Especially when I am sitting here voting no to a profile that would normally be accepted... just because it didn't get submitted to the database a day or two sooner.

I see no reason to create even more duplicates of mostly the same data. What is needed however is a way to upload more than one cover to a profile without overwriting the existing scans. The user could then select which cover to display both online and locally.

Quoting iPatsa:

Quote:
I see no reason to create even more duplicates of mostly the same data.

Well, the variant would have a new Release Date for example. SRP might change to 0 for a movie that is now in a Boxset, new cover can mean a new Title under the Contribution Rules and a new Overview.
We would have to figure out how to handle stuff like that.

But however it goes, my basic answer to Addicted2DVD plea is a resounding: YES WE NEED IT!

Quoting Lithurge:

Quote:
Taking the Big Bang example, if person A submits the dvd profiles from the Blu-ray set and person B submits them from the dvd set they'll both end up under the same disc id submission. In these cases they may or may not have a proper cover scan

The Parent Profile will have the proper cover scan which you can (locally) easily copy to the child profiles if they have a different proper cover scan than the one you desire.

These are hardly desperate circumstances.

---------------

Quoted from here: http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=689114&messageID=2147956#M2147956


Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
If it were for me, we'd need an extension of the existing key.

A "variant" so to speak. This way we could cover all sorts of conflicts we have today: Multiple same-day releases, re-releases, UPC-reusage, multiple movies on the same disc and so forth.

In the program you'd say you wanted to create a variant of an existing profile, then the profile ID would change to the existing key + a determined suffix.

When you contribute a variant for the first time, it is not treated the same as a new profile in regards to voting.

It will have to go through the regular voting process, comparing the variant profile with the existing one and the contributor has to explain why (s)he deemed the variant necessary.

The contribution will appear to all owners of the original profile (and all other variant owners) who can read the contributor's reasoning and vote accordingly.

This way the database won't get flooded with variants of profiles which aren't really variants according to the rules just because a user wants his own version of the profile because he doesn't agree with other contributors of the same profile.

Once the variant has been accepted, the owners of the original profile (and other variants) will not get to vote on the variant anymore, because it has been successfully "branched off".

If I don't contribute a variant profile, it remains in my database just like any other manual profile.


Which brings us to the issue of the suffix ID part.

When I create a variant locally, I'd go with [UPC].[Locality].[MV1]

MV = Manual Variant.

When the MV is contributed (and not yet approved) there will be a new online ID created, e.g. [UPC].[Locality].[V4]

During the transmission of the data (which still happens in the program) the web server tells the local profile of this new ID and the V4 is stored within the profile data somewhere.

Once the V4 profile is accepted and the user runs his next update of his profiles, the program properly changes the ID of the profile from .[MV1] to .[V4].

If the contribution is denied or the user never completes the contribution process in the first place, his ID remains MV1.


The rest of the program behaves the same way it already does: When adding by UPC or DiscIDs if there are multiple profile matches, just show them in a list.

I have noticed a lot of my older dvds that contributed when INvelos was created that have had their scan chaged, releaase dates, etc. And it would be a lot of trouble try correct these. Even current releases as I do a lot off preorders, that I know were the released data, as I get them the day they are released.

I have enough trouble just correcting my own db without worring about the rest of the world.

To expand on a certain part:

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
When you contribute a variant for the first time, it is not treated the same as a new profile in regards to voting.

It will have to go through the regular voting process, comparing the variant profile with the existing one and the contributor has to explain why (s)he deemed the variant necessary.

The contribution will appear to all owners of the original profile (and all other variant owners) who can read the contributor's reasoning and vote accordingly.

This way the database won't get flooded with variants of profiles which aren't really variants according to the rules just because a user wants his own version of the profile because he doesn't agree with other contributors of the same profile.

It is important that all users of any variant see this new contribution because only then they can point out that the newly contributed "variant 10" is already in the database as "variant 3".