Quoting Snark:

Quote:

It is absolutely about parsing IMO.  We're forced to parse into 2 fields.

But adding, or removing, the comma will not change how it is parsed.

Quote:
I am sure if we had a film that credited "Wayne, John" and "Eastwood, Clint" that a few people would try to suggest that they be parsed as F:"Wayne," L"John" and F:"Eastwood," L"Clint" but we all know what the real credits are.

I can't deal with hypotheticals.  Show me this credit and I will discuss it.

Quote:
We're already having to deal with parsing issues on foreign names with prefixes like "de la".  (Try and credit THOSE exactly.  Mixed cased names collide.)

The rules tell us how to parse these so I don't understand your point.

Quote:
I agree that a literal interpretation of the rules leads to the madness we have here.

Any other translation leads to ping-ponging and personal preference.  I prefer the literal translation.

Quote:
It's simply time to correct the madness and come up with a solution that minimizes the silliness of having to come up with a "common" name for the same name.

Perhaps but we, the users, can't create that solution.  The solution you want has to come from Ken.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting tlevel:

Quote:
Is that why we parse "John Wayne" into two separate fields, because there is no wiggle room when it comes to screen names?

I never said there was no wiggle room when it came to screen names.  What I said was, there is no wiggle room that allows us to create our own standard.  The rules require that we enter exactly what we see.  No more, no less.

Quote:
I don't understand why people are against standards, don't they understand that the rules are the standard?

Nobody is against standards.  What we are against are user created standards that are contrary to the rules.  If Ken decides to add this standard to the rules, I will happily comply.  Until then, I will not.

Nobody is trying to create their own standards, they are trying to get people to talk about a way to enter in the name so it works with the current design of the program. To link the names, maybe if enough people get on board and understand this it might be easier for Ken to want to change the current rule. But to try to stop the discussion by saying "they're in the rules", just means that you are against it. At least that the way you appear to be, for me at least.

Quoting tlevel:

Quote:
Nobody is trying to create their own standards, they are trying to get people to talk about a way to enter in the name so it works with the current design of the program. To link the names, maybe if enough people get on board and understand this it might be easier for Ken to want to change the current rule. But to try to stop the discussion by saying "they're in the rules", just means that you are against it. At least that the way you appear to be, for me at least.

I am not against discussion.  I just want to be sure that people don't start thinking we can create, and impliment, a standard.  If you guys want this to be changed, the best place to have the discussion is in the rules forum.  That is the place Ken designated for this type of thing.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting tlevel:

Quote:
Nobody is trying to create their own standards, they are trying to get people to talk about a way to enter in the name so it works with the current design of the program. To link the names, maybe if enough people get on board and understand this it might be easier for Ken to want to change the current rule. But to try to stop the discussion by saying "they're in the rules", just means that you are against it. At least that the way you appear to be, for me at least.

I am not against discussion.  I just want to be sure that people don't start thinking we can create, and impliment, a standard.  If you guys want this to be changed, the best place to have the discussion is in the rules forum.  That is the place Ken designated for this type of thing.

In case you didn't already know, there already is a person here capable of letting people know that the rules are the rules are the rules. So that should put you at ease on that dept.

And if Ken so desires, he can move this thread to the rules forum if he also chooses.

Quoting bentyman:

Quote:
I have tried to search, but things got screwed up here. What is the common name to this gentleman? After a search in CLT:
"cuba gooding jr." is credited in the following 209 titles (541 profiles)
and
"cuba gooding, jr." is credited in the following 131 titles (337 profiles)

So is his common name without the comma?

No: as always the CLT will just show you the IMDb-form - in reality, the most-credited form is the one WITH the comma. It may take quite some time for the database to catch up to reality, though, and that's exactly why Ken desperately needs to set a standard for dealing with this. If he doesn't, we'll be propagating IMDb's format for years to come...

Quoting T!M:

Quote:

No: as always the CLT will just show you the IMDb-form - in reality, the most-credited form is the one WITH the comma. It may take quite some time for the database to catch up to reality, though, and that's exactly why Ken desperately needs to set a standard for dealing with this. If he doesn't, we'll be propagating IMDb's format for years to come...

I am assuming you have done the research and have verified that the one with the comma is the most credited form?  If not, then how do you know. 

In addition, if you have done the research...which would be verifying each credit...it shouldn't be that difficult to contribute the profiles needed to ensure that the CLT gives the proper numbers...or am I missing something here?

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:

No: as always the CLT will just show you the IMDb-form - in reality, the most-credited form is the one WITH the comma. It may take quite some time for the database to catch up to reality, though, and that's exactly why Ken desperately needs to set a standard for dealing with this. If he doesn't, we'll be propagating IMDb's format for years to come...

I am assuming you have done the research and have verified that the one with the comma is the most credited form?  If not, then how do you know. 

In addition, if you have done the research...which would be verifying each credit...it shouldn't be that difficult to contribute the profiles needed to ensure that the CLT gives the proper numbers...or am I missing something here?

I'm not Tim, but my experience is the same as his. The comma version of any name is usually the prevalent form that I find in film credits. IMDb does not use the comma. If you look up a "jr." name in the CLT, the usual winner is the no-comma form...because our data is IMDb-laden.

(Yes, again, this presumes that the comma form will be the most credited form, but that's highly likely based on what I've seen in film credits. The no-comma form is an IMDb convention which we pumped into the db years ago.)

So then if I try to fix them, for example, Cuba Gooding Jr. has 878 profiles in the database. I am able to fix 8 of them. So if I document all of the CLT results which show the IMDb-no-comma form as most common and I contribute my 8 profiles (Cuba Gooding Jr. [Cuba Gooding, Jr.]) and get them approved...I will have corrected 0.9% of the Cuba Gooding Jr. profiles. It's not difficult to contribute the 8 profiles. My own part in the process is not so hard.

But then we wait. 

As further users contribute about 105 profiles using (Cuba Gooding Jr. [Cuba Gooding, Jr.]), then the fun begins. At that point, the scale tips and Cuba Gooding, Jr. will now be the most credited form in the db. Either those of us who've previously contributed fixes or new contributors must then change all 878 profiles to simply Cuba Gooding, Jr.  As we do so, at this point, we'll finally start to diminish the IMDb ratio in the db. Until that tipping point, we'll actually increase that ratio in the name fields (as opposed to the credited as field).

And then at some point, the CLT will be accurate. 

It's not my personal effort or Tim's that is at issue. It's the coordination of enough people that are willing to contribute the data to 878 distinct profiles.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:

No: as always the CLT will just show you the IMDb-form - in reality, the most-credited form is the one WITH the comma. It may take quite some time for the database to catch up to reality, though, and that's exactly why Ken desperately needs to set a standard for dealing with this. If he doesn't, we'll be propagating IMDb's format for years to come...

I am assuming you have done the research and have verified that the one with the comma is the most credited form?  If not, then how do you know. 

In addition, if you have done the research...which would be verifying each credit...it shouldn't be that difficult to contribute the profiles needed to ensure that the CLT gives the proper numbers...or am I missing something here?

I'm not Tim, but my experience is the same as his. The comma version of any name is usually the prevalent form that I find in film credits. IMDb does not use the comma. If you look up a "jr." name in the CLT, the usual winner is the no-comma form...because our data is IMDb-laden.

(Yes, again, this presumes that the comma form will be the most credited form, but that's highly likely based on what I've seen in film credits. The no-comma form is an IMDb convention which we pumped into the db years ago.)

So then if I try to fix them, for example, Cuba Gooding Jr. has 878 profiles in the database. I am able to fix 8 of them. So if I document all of the CLT results which show the IMDb-no-comma form as most common and I contribute my 8 profiles (Cuba Gooding Jr. [Cuba Gooding, Jr.]) and get them approved...I will have corrected 0.9% of the Cuba Gooding Jr. profiles. It's not difficult to contribute the 8 profiles. My own part in the process is not so hard.

But then we wait. 

As further users contribute about 105 profiles using (Cuba Gooding Jr. [Cuba Gooding, Jr.]), then the fun begins. At that point, the scale tips and Cuba Gooding, Jr. will now be the most credited form in the db. Either those of us who've previously contributed fixes or new contributors must then change all 878 profiles to simply Cuba Gooding, Jr.  As we do so, at this point, we'll finally start to diminish the IMDb ratio in the db. Until that tipping point, we'll actually increase that ratio in the name fields (as opposed to the credited as field).

And then at some point, the CLT will be accurate. 

It's not my personal effort or Tim's that is at issue. It's the coordination of enough people that are willing to contribute the data to 878 distinct profiles.

Fullheartedly agreed!