I know there have been several threads on this, but it keeps coming up.  This poll also exists in the rules forum, but I wanted to see of the end results fo the entire community coincide with that poll

Please keep the comments to the subject only.  There are many people that are passionately against the common name system.  That is not the issue for this thread.  This thread is focusing on the existing system and how we count titles/profiles and not whether you agree with the current system which we cannot change without program changes.

This is about how we count titles to determine the common name and how the filter behavior affects the common name.


Here is the filter behavior (I have tested it myself)

Quote:

With Initials
A.J.//Smith is filtered to be A./J./Smith[A.J. Smith] - The filter forces the common name to be A. J. Smith
A.J.//Smith[Albert Smith] is filtered to be A./J./Smith[Albert Smith] - The filter forces the common name to be A. J. Smith

A./J./Smith is filtered to be A./J./Smith
A./J./Smith[Albert Smith] is filtered to be A./J./Smith[Albert Smith]

A. J.//Smith is filtered to be A./J./Smith
A. J.//Smith[Albert Smith] is filtered to be A./J./Smith[Albert Smith]

A J//Smith is filtered to be A./J./Smith[A J Smith]
A J//Smith[Albert Smith] is filtered to be A./J./Smith[Albert Smith]

Initials not affected by the filter
AJ//Smith
A/J/Smith

Jr./Sr. Cases

Albert//Smith Jr. is filered to be Albert//Smith, Jr.[Albert Smith Jr.]
Albert//Smith Jr.[Albert Smith] is filered to be Albert//Smith, Jr.[Albert Smith]

Albert//Smith Sr. is filered to be Albert//Smith, Sr.[Albert Smith Sr.]
Albert//Smith Sr.[Albert Smith] is filered to be Albert//Smith, Sr.[Albert Smith]

Now there seems to be two main opinions when counting titles/profiles to determine the common name.

Option 1
Name variants that the filter would force the same common name should be counted together in title/profile counts.  The logic behind it is that since the filter, created by the database owner enforces the same common name that should be considered when counting titles and profile.

Example:

Quote:

Albert Smith 10 Titles

Albert Smith Jr. - 5 titles

Albert Smith, Jr. - 6 titles

Since both "Albert Smith, Jr." and "Albert Smith Jr." would be forced by the filter to have the sane common name of "Albert Smith, Jr." the counts would be combined

Albert Smith 10 Titles

Albert Smith Jr./Albert Smith, Jr. - 11 titles

Common name would be "Albert Smith, Jr."

Option 2
Name variants that would be counted in a distinct fashion not considering the actions of how the filter alters the common name.  The logic behind this is that each name variant is distinct and the filter actions should not be considered when counting titles and profiles.

Example:

Quote:

Albert Smith 10 Titles

Albert Smith Jr. - 5 titles

Albert Smith, Jr. - 6 titles

Common name would be "Albert Smith"

Bumping this up so it is continued to be seen for participation in the poll

At the time that I wrote this post the count was 27-10 in favor of option 1.

I initially did a poll in the rules committee forum for this Here.  For those that do not have access, at the time of this posting the results are 6-2 in favor of option 1.

This poll was started because of a controversy in a common name thread.  The discussion started at this point Here.  Mainly because this is one of the few cases where counting in the case of option 1 would make a difference.  Because let's face it there are not many cases where the filter alters the common name and most of those do not affect the result of the common name.  But we should get the common name.

But here are some highlights of the conversation in that thread.

In this post ateo357 points out that he believes that this would need a new rule added, or a ruling.

In this post I pointed out how other decisions on how to count have been made by community agreement,and not in the rules or a ruling by Ken.

In this post Kathy points out that based on other posts that Ken has made it is unlikely he will respond or complicate the rules and that he expects the community to come up with the decisions and provide consistency.

Later in the thread it was pointed out again that this should not be done without a ruling from Ken or a rule change. I responded in this post spelling out several of the methods in detail that pertain to counting titles that the community has decided.  I also pointed out in this post how it provides more consistency for option 1.

Some of you may think my recap is a bit one sided (it may be) because you all know my opinion from that thread.  So I would encourage anyone that has not read the conversation to do so, and form your own opinion.

But I do believe the poll was done in a clear and objective manner.  In my opinion that is validated by the simple fact that there were no questions about the poll in the poll thread.

The simple fact remains we are given no guidance in the rules on how to count titles.  We are just told to use the CLT and if we suspect the CLT to be inaccurate then that must be documented.  To do that we typically use common name threads.  In those threads today we currently count distinct titles different than the CLT with only a community agreement on how that is to be done.  In addition when most of us use the CLT data, but count titles manually (because of bad grouping in the CLT) we use those community driven counting methods.

This really boils down to whether you believe that the actions of the Invelos filter shows that Invelos considers certain name variants to be equivalent for the purposes of determining the common name.  And it appears a large percentage of the active forum community does based on the the fact that 73% of the people answering this poll agree with option 1 and in the poll that was taken in the Rules committee forum is 75% in favor of option 1.

Many others (including myself) have pointed out in the past where we believe changes require a rule change or a ruling.  But I don't think this should apply since the precedence has already been set and applied that the community has been defining the methods in which we count titles for common name purposes.  I think this is a similar case where Ken would want us to provide the consistency, just as the community has determined other counting methods/restrictions without a rule change or ruling from Ken. And in this case it is considering actions defined and designed by Invelos and placed in the contribution filter by Invelos.

But don't get me wrong, I would love to see a ruling from Ken either way.  But I don't think we are going to get one, just like there are not any for the other counting rules we apply on a day to day basis.  In lieu of a direct ruling I do think this is something he expects the community to provide the consistency on, just as we have in other counting situations.  Basically if he was going to respond I think he would have by now.

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:
At the time that I wrote this post the count was 27-10 in favor of option 1.

I think you should have a third option to ignore Albert Smith Jr. altogether, since that likely came straight from IMDB. 

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

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
... Option #1 is what I'll use ...

Option1 is clearly against the spirit of the rules as they are written, that ask to use names exactly as credited. That is what we do for other cases, though it creates unexisting variants (you often asked to create those variants). I understand why a majority choose option 1 (the more easy... better for lazy contributors...), but without any statement from Ken, I think option 2 must be used.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
... Option #1 is what I'll use ...

Option1 is clearly against the spirit of the rules as they are written, that ask to use names exactly as credited. That is what we do for other cases, though it creates unexisting variants (you often asked to create those variants). I understand why a majority choose option 1 (the more easy... better for lazy contributors...), but without any statement from Ken, I think option 2 must be used.

Is it?

The rules state to put in the names in as credited, that part of the rules speaks what to input in the “name” and “credited as” field and not determining the common name.  For determining the common we are just told to use the CLT and if we suspect the CLT to be inaccurate then that must be documented.  We have a clarification that title count is more important than profile count.  But we are given no guidance on how to count titles.  As I pointed out above those distinctions have been done by community driven rules/guidelines from this forum and not in the rules. 

As for the “spirit” of the rules I think it is more telling that the filter alters the common name in these cases to be the same.  A filter that Ken designed and wrote.

Also option 1 is not easier, it’s harder so it is not lazy contributors that are voting for option 1.  Combining the results for option 1 accurately will take more time than just option 2.

The way I read the rules is to use the CLT to determine what the common name is. If films are entered properly with the correct title/original title, produced year and actual on-screen credit of said person it will show up as 1 in the CLT. For TV series if entered the same way as films it will show up as 1 in the CLT. Now disc level profiles for TV series are optional and not mandatory, so I think they shouldn't even show up in the CLT and if they are, they are just a duplicate of the complete profile for the season profile, and should not be counted.

Now if people can not contribute correct data or update profiles that have been confirmed with a common name thread, or do not use Film Festival showings as produced year, or have a dispute with the CoO original title that is their problem.

What you want to do is combine totals from 2 different CLT results to make a common name. Next step would be to add " " and ' ' and ( ) together to make a common name. They all show up in the CLT for Tommy "Tiny" 'Tiny' (Tiny) Lister, Jr.

Quoting Scooter1836:

Quote:

With what we are saying it will never go there unless Ken changes the auto filter to do that action.  This whole thing is how the auto filter forces different name variants to be the same common name.  There has been no discussions going beyond what the filter does.  Nor do I think there would be any support to do so. 

It is the filter that shows "Albert Smith Jr." and "Albert Smith, Jr." are equivalent as far as Invelos is concerned since the filter will force the common name to be "Albert Smith, Jr."

There is no next step.  Any combining done that is not supported by the filter is "out of scope"

any combining of 2 different credited name variants in my opinion is out of scope. Whether auto filtered or not. They are still in the CLT under 2 different spellings.

and you keep using the poll results to justify your stance. So if in another poll the majority wants to do something completely insane, I guess we do it because of the majority. Set a standard outside the rules and it will open up more problems.