First, let me apologize for the length ...  I wouldn't always respond to everyone (especially since I never expected so much help), but I just couldn't ignore anyone's helpfulness. 

Rizor  :  Absolutely. I scanned in the bar code and used the profile that it brought up. I "misspoke" in my earlier post and said Target - I have the Best Buy version. I tried again following the front-back suggestion from several folks - but I may have contaminated the submission by including Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan. I'm not sure if cast or crew should be added for box sets and I can't figure out how to add or import movies into box sets that don't include them. I know there's a way because some sets have little + signs which open out to reveal the included movies. In my personal collection, I've taken to adding the individual movies separately and setting the empty box set count to zero - but I'd rather put the movies in the box. Anyway, I asked for comments if I screwed up the sub. Am I building a bad reputation by early rejections as I learn the ropes? 

The source thing was primarily confusing because of the phraseology. Sites I've subbed to in the past wouldn't accept what I saw as a "source" (my requirements on TVC are quite explicit : I require a url and a timestamp of when "it" happened or appeared in the episode). So when a source was required, I went out and got "back-up" to prove I wasn't just sending in what I knew to be true or "making it up". Pity about any legal crap. I was unaware of any such trouble the site might've had. Perhaps TVC gets away with it because they've now got CBS behind them. 

Addicted : As I said previously, some/many of my shows on TVC, back when I was much more active, had way more info (and more accurate info) than either IMDb or the many other sites I checked and occasionally drew data from. For a time, I subbed additions and corrections to IMDb, but I was far too busy with TVC and IMDb's approval process was horrifically inconsistent so I gave up and concentrated on my own TVC shows.

I do agree with IMDb's "constant character name" for TV characters, however. Credits, in movies and TV shows, are inconsistent at best, especially older shows. A consistent character name, especially in the case of a rank or title which has evolved over time (and/or been sloppily credited) is a good thing and can be explained in the character's biography. The character is the same, whether they've married and divorced or remarried or been promoted or whatever. It does no good whatsoever to have that character appear as several different people. Better that the DB manager decides on one name/title and lists/explains the evolution in a character name database. In this way, and only in this way, can info be consistent over time and entries - as in multiple Trek movies or TV shows (is it Captain Kirk or Admiral Kirk? Is it Barney Fife or Deputy Fife or Deputy Barney Fife?). If not, your DB becomes a walking clusterf*ck without the necessary consistency which must supersede the inexact "exact" screen credits - which, fortunately, is not a problem with standalone, non-series movies.

TheMadMartian : Again sympathy for the site and no wish to increase their legal bill. I never considered or advocated wholesale or exact copying - but, rather, consulting, source citing and checking - the same as a researcher would do in a library. It's quite legal if it's information. Many subbers at my aforementioned site would copy show summaries verbatim and be offended when I rejected them (since so many editors accepted them without question). The information is free, but the text is a creation which is protected. It's just like writing a report in school. You research the information but it better be in your words and not copied. However, again, TVC has never gotten in trouble. Life is unfair.

surfeur51 : Thanks for the sympathy, sorry to get you in an argument.    See my bit about DB consistency in my response to Addicted. Some may disagree but a DB without enforced consistency quickly devolves into a useless quagmire. There has to be a bible and a dictionary - and they have to be consistently followed.

Discostu : Please see my comments to TheMadMartian. I never said I copied the entire cast and crew, I only subbed "'the main stars' and the director" - and not in IMDb's order.  Again, the entirety of a DB (or any given subsection thereof) is "work product" and, as such, is protected everywhere (except maybe China and Korea and such ) - but not the info within. It is free, like the air we breathe. A weak analogy, but : one can own the mineral rights below a property, while another can own the land on the surface (and perhaps even the airspace above, although that's still contentiously litigated) - however, no-one can own the air which flows over the property.

Kathy : Thank you for your thanks on my only (tiny) sub for which votes are showing. I gave you positive feedback for being so nice (I'm assuming there's only one Kathy ). Sorry for such a tiny sub. If I may, what - according to the site's rules - are "cover scans"? Can I download freely available cover pix from Google? Folks who wish to enforce ownership of such photos post them so that one can't copy them (or can only copy small, lo-res versions). Or is that verboten? Are we limited to taking our own photos and then cropping them - or is scanning to be taken literally? The only info I've found so far says nothing about this, only about image quality.

tkinnen : Thanks. Yes I found that. My initial problem was that my first two subs had no votes and thus appeared to be "automatic/mechanical" declines. As I mentioned, my third (tiny) sub is being voted on (for how long I know not). Right now, it's a landslide (23-0 in favor) and I'd like to thank everyone who voted.

scotthm : Hullo again. Good to know that you can add screencaps to stop fraudulent posts and ban repeat offenders. Hopefully folks learn and don't repeat, but … sometimes … 

Lewis_Prothero : Hullo (loved your movie, by the way ). I think I've covered all that in this missive already but it's so long that I'm getting punchy. Again, nothing but sympathy for the site, love the program. Frustrations, yeah, I've got some - but I firmly believe that newbies gotta learn the ropes before trying to make changes or even complain too loudly. And besides, sometimes getting smacked with a rejection is a necessary part of the education process (at least that's what I always told my students, not that they wanted to hear it).

I strongly believe that if there is a role given in the credits it needs to match those credits exactly in the proflile. If it says Kirk... then I want Kirk... if it says Captain James T. Kirk... then I want Captain James T. Kirk... if it says Admiral Kirk... then I want Admiral Kirk... and yes if it says Kork in the credits... then I want Kork in the profile. To me true consistency means matching the source material (the credits).

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:


Luckily wee have a lot more leeway when it comes to TV show main characters because they usually don't have roles attached to them, so we're actually allowed to look outside.

For example, one contributor took it upon himself to correctly profile all the military ranks of the characters in Stargate SG-1, down to the episode where they were promoted.

And there is a contributor that does the same with all the Star Trek series.  To go to all that trouble is a real fan at work.  When someone does all that work to put in that detail, all I can do is applaud their work.

And so what?

The core-word for this database is "user-generated", which basically means: If you notice an error feel free to correct it.

I really have a hard time to understand why it should be easier to persistently come here stating that the database is a mess instead of actually working on its improvement.

And yes, surfeur has a point, and I will be among the first to admit that, sadly our ways to solve the problem are somewhat incompatible, and even worse, we both are convinced that the method of the other will not work and/or is even part of the problem.

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
If you notice an error feel free to correct it.

I would, but the rules don't allow me to.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:

The good news is that these issues can usually be corrected once you know there are multiple "Bill Smiths".

Only if you know the birthyears and/or common names to all of them...

Quoting JMGuer:

Quote:
Indeed.Obvious that some don't.

And this for several reasons, the most common being that the creator of the profile wasn't aware of the name-duplicity in question.

Once more:
If a profile mirrors the data of the on-screen credits it is correct (for a given value of "correct").
It may, for several reasons, not be completed though (among these reasons being: name variants, uncredited cast, necessary de-linking, etc).
Completeness and Perfection usually is something that takes some time and almost never can be expected in the first run. And this even more so, since this completing is usually only achieved by those people that know that there are several Bill Smith out in Hollywoodland, which many of us surely didn't.

Please feel free to take the expression "user-generated" literally, improve this database and correct the error. One profile at a time will suffice.

Quoting StaNDarD:

Quote:
Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:
If you notice an error feel free to correct it.

I would, but the rules don't allow me to.

Now this is only correct for a very limited set of cases where either not enough birthyears are to be found or two people share name and birthyear. With the given de-linking system those can only be solved locally.

Quote:
Quoting scotthm:

Quote:

The good news is that these issues can usually be corrected once you know there are multiple "Bill Smiths".

Only if you know the birthyears and/or common names to all of them...

Wrong!
No one asks you to correct all errors in one go.
Fix those you can. Leave the other problems to those that can (and/or need to) solve them.
E.G. If I know of only 2 Bill Smith in my database, why should I care to find the birthyears for the others.

Quoting Lewis_Prothero:

Quote:

Please feel free to take the expression "user-generated" literally, improve this database and correct the error. One profile at a time will suffice.

I think this is an impossible work. I'll try to explain with a recent example. A user worked on Tchéky Karyo common name thread, and when the common name was found, he corrected most of concerned profiles. The problem is that he worked only on Karyo. If we take the movie "Nikita", we have twelve other "suspect" names:
Laura Chéron
Alain Lathière
Hélène Aligier
Patrick Pérez
Stéphane Fey
Patrick Serrière
José Steinmann
Gérard Touratier
Pétronille Moss
Olivier Hémon
Jérôme Chalou
Michèle Amiel

No common name threads are yet opened for those actors who have variants in CLT. Who can say which are their Invelos common names ?
So the "corrected" profiles are  still wrong per the rules, and will remain wrong for years.

The problem is that we have a program that do not like name variants, and rules (exactly as credited) that generate variants. The solution (as a change of the program is a huge work, and change of rules is easy), is to have rules that reduce as much as possible the number of variants : for example (all "my" solutions could be of course discussed) :
- always correct obvious mistakes
- use maiden name for actresses who use both married and maiden name.
- for Asian names, always put family name in last name field
- for actors using both complete midle name and just initial, or no middle name, always use complete middle name
- for accented names, use the accentuation of the language of the concerned person.
- when no BY is available for same name/different persons, use 8xxx, xxx being the last numbers of the year of production of the first movie of the actor.

With those examples, we could delete without much work 95% of variants existing in CLT, and for the remaining cases, we could use present common name system. This could be implemented tomorrow if all users asked this to Ken, but, unfortunately, many of very vocal users have already said that they want to keep the exact recopy of credits. So everybody is just hoping for a change in the program, but nobody knows when it will come, and even if it will come some day...