Erik:

I want ONE page from which we ALL work. I do NOT want to impose MY page upon you or ANY other user, and I don't want to use YOUR page, particularly if I disagree with it and right now that is where we are. All the formatting discussions are all well and good and very useful, but they do nothing to address the central point and until that is addressed it's a pure waste of time.


Skip

Let me try a slightly different angle. I have, let's say 10,000 titles and some user that has 100 titles is trying to dictate what Priority Name to use, from whence cometh his source. His own extensive collection?
It's enough that he has used a dartboard to choose the name and I cannot vote No, even if my database dictates a totally different answer, what recourse do I have, my options are limited, I can accept the users choice, I can vote neutral and choose not to accept it or I can submit a Contribution of my own changing the choice to one that is backed my own database...all of which are totally unacceptable in one form or another.

This is nothinhg more than a variation on the old sort system, which relied on user choice and people absolutely used it to try to manipulate the Online to their choices. Ken then publicly stated that Sort=Title, that did absolutely nothing to stop the renegade users from trying to impose their own sort on the world. So finally Ken HAD to make Sort a personal choice ONLY.

I love seeing people referring to all of this as Guidelines, they obviously weren't around or don't remember when user used to refer to the Old guidelines as "they are Guidelines and guidelines don't HAVE to be followed". 

Skip

Back to the whole married name thing.  Talia Shire has one or two maiden name credits as Talia Coppola.  I think this would be a case where married name would be justified as that's how most people would recognize her.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Back to the whole married name thing.  Talia Shire has one or two maiden name credits as Talia Coppola.  I think this would be a case where married name would be justified as that's how most people would recognize her.

I would agree with that., mdnitoil.

Skip

Quoting pplchamp:

Quote:
The central point, the only point is that Ken has told use it NOW. That is all that matters, When Ken speaks, we do. The end, no discussion needed.

We're trying to make it so that it works, if you don't want to play, you don't have to.

It seems to me the two or three people that refuse to use the system do so due to a lack of understanding as to how it works. It does not matter what the common name is, that is irrelevant, there is no standard needed.

Come on, Erik, surely you realize that all we are doing is debugging, a la Microsoft betas?  I don't particularly want to use my local DB as the guinea pig for something that isn't 100%, especially if there are no clear standards in place.  It is simply too damn much work to fix afterwards.

And, I must say that it DOES matter what the common name is.  How does one do a search if the common name link is some off-the-wall or out-of-left-field common name that Joe Blow came up with on his own?

Quoting Gadgeteer:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
And, I must say that it DOES matter what the common name is.  How does one do a search if the common name link is some off-the-wall or out-of-left-field common name that Joe Blow came up with on his own?

That is exactly why we are having the polls and discussions to formalize how we arrive at the names.
We're not going to have "off-the-wall or out-of-left-field" common names.

Like it or not ken wants us to carry on using the credited as feature. The best thing we can do is create some guidelines ourselves as oppose to sitting back and waiting indefinitely for Ken to produce a name database from the current online database (which is still largely from 3rd party sources anyway).

Stuart... it's a waste of time, let's just do what Ken wants and leave the others in the dust.

Quoting pplchamp:

Quote:
Stuart... it's a waste of time, let's just do what Ken wants and leave the others in the dust.

You're right. I should know better by now.   

Let's crack on and get this sorted.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

Then I am going to say the following for Priority Names

James Bond 1=Sean Connery
James Bond 2=George Lazenby
James Bond 4=Roger Moore
Right down the line

And they would be rejected outright on the basis that none of those men (to my knowledge) have ever been credited as James Bond, and if anyone wanted to search for Sean Connery in the database, I find it very unlikely they'd start by typing in James Bond!