Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
I, too, big time agree with the overhaul suggestion.

I don't know what would work best, but this:

Quote:
The only thing that comes in mind that could help is distinguishing actors and crew with a actor database, that show up every actor with every movie he played in in database and with every credited as, ...

For example:
First entry: Actor "John": played in movie y, movie z, ...
Second entry: Actor "John" played in movie v, movie x, ...

Is a good place to start.

And using some kind of numbering system behind the name (John Smith, John Smith [1], John Smith [2]) would be better than what we have now.

IMO, it would take just as much work for verification purposes as the Birth Year, no doubt, but would be infinitely better when it comes to linking, at the end of the day.

I have believed for a very long time, even prior to Ken's implementation of the existing system, that simple association works best As it is now we have a number of problems all eminently correctable but not under a Priority Nam,e system. BUT, I must stress BUT Ken may well have something in mind  in the future that will move the linking into a new world, right now it's primary function is simply to share data among users who want the linking, I would love to be helping in that regard but I can't bring myself to do so given the mess we have now, and it's a mess that I don't think can be fixed, unless we break some basic cannons and make assumptions that are known up front to be wrong.

The system we have now works like this

Priority Name=Name A and Name B and Name C
If the data that makes up Priority Name is corrupted in any, via foreign databases, users not following the Rules, crossover data, whatever...pick your favorite poison. Then the priority name becomes  an empty shell, instead of a reference point.

Under simple association
NameA=NameB=Name C

There is no priority name to be concerned. You as a user can search on any of the thee names (in this example) and the resulting list will be exactly the same. The users COULD be allowed to configure the list in any form they chose, for example Searched Name could be the first on the list followed by Variants in order of frequency. Just as now we only need a method to share the various associations., and we must get stricter on documentation and verification and NIOT allow associations to be made AT ALL based only on the use of the Name Variant Tool, which happens all too often, and many incorrect associations have already been made simply on that basis.

I keep hoping to see Ken participate in one of these discussions, the CLT COULD be made to work, if first all of us understood completely all of its limitations and secondly if Invelos would really tighten up it's verification requirements. Might tightening up the verification Rules a lot result in a drop in associations for the CLT...I think quite possibly it could, but the resultant increase in accuracy would more than offset that "inconvenience".

Skip

Rick:

Screen caps aren't a problem. Try photobucket, they will host a large number of screenshots for FREE. Screen shots aere good thing, I am far more interseted in giood solid data than i am some the drek that i am seeing come down the pipe right now and have. And it all stems from the SAME problems, in each and every case.

BTW I really don't want to put you or anyone else on forum block.

Skip

Branded- a good 2 year TV Series from the early to mid 60's

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
The system we have now works like this

Priority Name=Name A and Name B and Name C

The current system works on a credit by credit basis. Priority Name = Name A only for a specific film credit. It does not always = Name A.

Quote:
Under simple association
NameA=NameB=Name C

This does not address what do when when there are multiple Name As, Name Bs and Name Cs that mean different people. Then it's no longer simple.

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
I still think requiring screen shots or even time codes goes waaaaayyyyy beyond what should be expected from the average contributor.

I agree.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
The system we have now works like this

Priority Name=Name A and Name B and Name C

The current system works on a credit by credit basis. Priority Name = Name A only for a specific film credit. It does not always = Name A.

Quote:
Under simple association
NameA=NameB=Name C

This does not address what do when when there are multiple Name As, Name Bs and Name Cs that mean different people. Then it's no longer simple.

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
I still think requiring screen shots or even time codes goes waaaaayyyyy beyond what should be expected from the average contributor.

I agree.

WHAT! That makes absolutely no sense. Priority Name always equal SOMETHING, even if it based on an Invelos filter.

It MOST CERTASINLY IS whew< i could add some more but it wouldn't be nice or polite....INCREDIBLE.

As to your last comment I can only say Of Course, that only reinforces what I have said previously. I would expect you to say nothing less, james, it ....No don't say it.

Skip:


Rick says: "Regarding your not wanting to put anyone on block... who said you had to and who the heck cares whether you do or don't ?!?"

Where is this insulting? Does he swear? Call you names? No. He simply states that he doesn't care whether you block someone or don't.

I think you're being overly prickly here. I don't care if you block anyone either...does that mean I'm insulting you? I don't think so - it merely means I don't care what you do. And I'm sure the reverse applies.

Besides...blocking is good. I've only used it once and that block is still in effect and I can't say I miss the person in question.

Yawn.

Anyway, back on topic:

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
I still think requiring screen shots or even time codes goes waaaaayyyyy beyond what should be expected from the average contributor.

Fully agree with this. Making this a requirement turns submitting into a job and not something that should be fun.

For me, links are more than acceptable, as well as trust of the person contributing.

Well, James unfortunately the BY system flopped, we should have anticipated the issue...but we didn't and i still give kudos to Hal for a brilliant try. I have suggested an alternate idea when BY cannot be found, but in view of the fact that some users simply don't want to provide verification or documentation, it seems of ANY kind. I think using an arabic numbering system, with numbers assigned and managed by invelos is the best answer...and perhaps a good dartboard.

Skip