8Ball I was being as facetious as he was being or perhaps it was sarcastic.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
8Ball I was being as facetious as he was being or perhaps it was sarcastic.

Skip

I'm sorry . I was told before by someone that "we don't do sarcasm here" .

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
8Ball I was being as facetious as he was being or perhaps it was sarcastic.

Skip

I'm sorry . I was told before by someone that "we don't do sarcasm here" .

Yeah..right.          

NOAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Skip

Quoting johnd:

Quote:
This thread demonstrates the bizarre depths that Skip and others have dragged DVDProfiler. These people have totally lost sight of the intent of the product. DVDProfiler is a tool to enhance the enjoyment of movies, not something to hold a dry and dusty catalogue.

If a set of rules diminishes the tools ability to perform this function, then the rules must change. This thread, and several others, demonstrate that some users are prepared to suck all the fun out of this product.

For instance, the slavish listing of cast "as listed in the film" means that the ability to view all movies for a particular actor is now essentially broken, particularly for those earlier films where he may not have settled on the name form he currently uses. "Credited as" is not working, as there are still lots of updates coming down where the cast name is changed, rather than using the "credited as" function.

This thread shows how this perdantic interpretation actually harms the usefullness of the data. "Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds" as a title is plainly ridiculous. This is not the title of the movie, regardless of arguments to the contrary. Consult any textbook on film to see how stupid this argument is.

And trying to bully people into accepting it just won't work, Skip being the prime example of this yet again.

Oh, get over yourself.  Your opinion is no more important than anybody else's.  The program is only disfunctional if people fail to understand that what goes into the online database is supposed to be as generic as possible, so that each individual can tailor that profile for his personal use.  Since every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes along wants to make it into his own personal sandbox to play in, we have to have rules.  The only way to enter the data that makes sense is to replicate what is on the disc itself as much as humanly possible.  Some people don't like that, so they screech and complain and submit illegal profiles and anything else they can think of to break the rules, and then justify it with polls, and demonizing campaigns, and insistence on using features that are not fully functional yet, ad infinitum.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
we might wind up with legitimate possessives being eliminated, or wind up with some possessives that are marketing hype. I think the latter choice is the better choice, better that way than run the risk of eliminating perfectly good data, in your zeal to eliminate the marketing hype.

I think you are saying excessive data is better than incomplete data.

You know, that system is great if the program is only to be used by us super film geeks who frequent this forum and have the energy to meticulously prune every individual profile to our liking.  Excessive data is great because when you edit you have more to work with.

But it will make things more difficult for the average Joe user, like my brother, who also purchased this program and will never edit a profile in his database.  He will enter UPC and disc numbers and take whatever comes from Invelos and leave it that way.  He certainly won't change any sort titles.  And one day he'll be at the Virgin Records store and see "The Birds" on sale and check his mobile phone to see if he already has that title...and when he comes home with it he'll see another copy already on his shelf and exclaim "what the hell?"

My position is we can nearly perfect the data for average Joe using common sense and consistency.

Quoting Addicted2DVD

Quote:
all it says is If the title on the dvd is different then the theatrical title.

In the post you are quoting from, I said "I honestly do not believe Universal Home Video is changing the original title."  That was in reference to the cover.  Your logical response would be better framed as: you agree with northbloke, the design of the DVD cover suggests to you that the Universal Home Video Marketing Department changed the title of this 1963 film, thus qualifying it under the modified title rules.
So if I understood your stance, that's fine.  I say they didn't, you say they did.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
It certainly sounds like possessive titles need special mentioning in the rules.
I myself changed "The Thing" to "John Carpenter's The Thing" a while ago, but now after reading all those possessive credit articles (nice research btw) I'm not sure I made the right decision.
The problem is, I can't for the life of me think of a way of dealing with them that won't also exclude things like "Lemony Snicket's ...", "Frank Miller's" or "Bram Stoker's ..." which in my opinion are valid title possessives.

And as for all this bitching and sniping, I initially voted against moderators, but the sooner they get here the better! 

Serious question here:  Please explain to me what the difference is between "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and "Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo"?  Or between "John Carpenter's The Thing" and "Frank Miller's Sin City"?  Why do you consider some valid and the others not?  Keep in mind that rules of grammar prohibit the presence of a possessive without a corresponding object.

Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
I think this does not bring us anywhere.

Who is there to decide when a possessive is dominant enough to qualify ?

KISS (Keep it simple and stupid), therefore it is 'The Birds'.

Language has rules of use, SIR, and you don't forego those rules because YOU think they are not dominant enough.  You do NOT use a possessive unless you have an object to possess.  That IS making use of the KISS principal.

Quoting djskyler:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
we might wind up with legitimate possessives being eliminated, or wind up with some possessives that are marketing hype. I think the latter choice is the better choice, better that way than run the risk of eliminating perfectly good data, in your zeal to eliminate the marketing hype.

I think you are saying excessive data is better than incomplete data.

You know, that system is great if the program is only to be used by us super film geeks who frequent this forum and have the energy to meticulously prune every individual profile to our liking.  Excessive data is great because when you edit you have more to work with.

But it will make things more difficult for the average Joe user, like my brother, who also purchased this program and will never edit a profile in his database.  He will enter UPC and disc numbers and take whatever comes from Invelos and leave it that way.  He certainly won't change any sort titles.  And one day he'll be at the Virgin Records store and see "The Birds" on sale and check his mobile phone to see if he already has that title...and when he comes home with it he'll see another copy already on his shelf and exclaim "what the hell?"

My position is we can nearly perfect the data for average Joe using common sense and consistency.

Quoting Addicted2DVD

Quote:
all it says is If the title on the dvd is different then the theatrical title.

In the post you are quoting from, I said "I honestly do not believe Universal Home Video is changing the original title."  That was in reference to the cover.  Your logical response would be better framed as: you agree with northbloke, the design of the DVD cover suggests to you that the Universal Home Video Marketing Department changed the title of this 1963 film, thus qualifying it under the modified title rules.
So if I understood your stance, that's fine.  I say they didn't, you say they did.

DJ:

I understand what you are saying. Consistency IS absolutely important. Common sense becomes problematic, you can't codify it, your concept of Common Sense may not agree with the next guys, it's like beauty, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Consistency is handling all the data in the same way, which is the purpose of the rules, to ATTEMPT to get every user working from the SAME page and NOT applying personal interpretation, we have seen what happens when user preference and interpretation enters the picture, we have a mess. Some refer to this as mindless, slavish, etc, data entry is boring and slavish and mindless to some extent by DEFINITION. There is NOTHING I hate more than when I pore over a problem for sometimes years, and think I have a solution only to discover that there was a variable I was unaware of. Then there is always the answer that when exposed to the light of the users, winds up becoming problematic (see the BY issue ).

It is much easier to cope with data when you control the data, but in a situation such as the program, we have absolutely no control over any of the data, the data is there we have to figure out the best way to cope with it, it has to be easy to do, easy to understand by ALL users, and usable in ALL situations. This inevitably results in some areas being problematic and may sometimes result in "excessive" or data which some common sense would dictate  be excluded, but consistency demands that it be done. The SRP was a case in point, the Rules say DON'T DO IT. and that applies to all cases no matter what. But a user decided to ignore that and Contributed a small change nyway and then proceeded to spin, rationalize and do everything he could think to support his position, sadly Ken and Gerri did NOT apply the Rule regardless of the vote, so in terms of SRP we now have NO RULE, a precedent has been set. Some users will vote yes even on IMDb data.<shrugs>

I don't know what to suggest for your brother, I understand the point that you make . But for ALL of the strengths of the multi-tiered Db created by the user-built design, it does have one glaring weakness and you have highlighted it...and I can't say that I have a good answer. At least not at this second.

Skip