| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
But having to find out that the variant without comma is the actual common name and then having to ignore this is ... dissatisfactory. Well, so many things in the common name system is "dissatifactory". What about common names that you cannot find anywhere, even in credits ? So we do not have to "think", only to do what we are told to do. And in that case, it is to use as common name, the most credited name. | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
Just as a minor question to those that refuse the "solution" provided by the poll:
What would happen if the "Albert Smith Jr." variant (without comma) was the most credited form?
There is no way of entering this as "Common Name" into DVDProfiler.
The Auto-Filter would force the variant with comma.
The poll-result only mirrors this behaviour. In fact the auto-filter only leaves us with two options: Either ignoring the variant without comma (Since it cannot be the common name) or combining the count.
But having to find out that the variant without comma is the actual common name and then having to ignore this is ... dissatisfactory. You can enter it as the common name, what the program does is not on us. It's Ken's decision to ignore the credited names as possible common names because of the auto-filter. So let it be on Ken to ignore the CLT results by ruling to add the auto-filter names together for a common name. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ateo357: Quote:
You can enter it as the common name, ??? Locally you may be correct, for the maindatabase I surely can't. Quote:
what the program does is not on us. I'm running out of question-marks here. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
Quoting ateo357:
Quote:
You can enter it as the common name,
???
Locally you may be correct, for the maindatabase I surely can't.
Quote:
what the program does is not on us.
I'm running out of question-marks here. you can add it as the common name and contribute it. The program will change it on its own (what the program does is not on us). If the program doesn't want to recognize that John Smith Jr. is the most commonly credited variant of a person then it's on Ken. It's his decision to take and manufacture incorrect data by forcing an auto filter for names. (What the program does is not on us). so 1 title credit for each of John Smith Jr / John Smith, Jr. / John Smith Jr. / and John Smith, Jr = 4 your way and trumps John Smith with 3. Seems pretty stupid to me. John Smith, III and John Smith III do not get auto-filtered to the correct John Smith III. Where do we add John Smith Jnr. to? Or does it get auto-filtered to John Smith, Jr. How much more confusion do you want to add to contributing? Isn't there enough already |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Obviously there is a disagreement about how these profiles should be entered to the online database.
Whenever I contribute a profile that falls into one of these gray areas the first thing I do is lock my local database.
Posting a query and poll in the forums, to get feedback from others, helps in the evaluation process.
Unless Ken then weighs in on the topic it is up to the contributor to make a decision.
When it comes to these issues, irregardless of personal preferences, profiles should be made in accordance with the majority's decision. Those community members who disagree with the contribution can always vote "no" on those contributions.
Document the fact that the issue has been debated and provide a link to the forum addressing that topic. This will alert the screeners to the fact that the community is divided on this topic.
Of course there is always the option to not contribute any changes that are not clearly addressed in the rules. | | | | Last edited: by Kathy |
|
| Registered: October 30, 2011 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,870 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
Document the fact that the issue has been debated and provide a link to the forum addressing that topic. This will alert the screeners to the fact that the community is divided on this topic.
Divided? Well the community is not in 100% agreement, but I see a clear consensus with the poll being 34-11 |
|
| Registered: October 30, 2011 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,870 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quote:
you can add it as the common name and contribute it. The program will change it on its own (what the program does is not on us). If the program doesn't want to recognize that John Smith Jr. is the most commonly credited variant of a person then it's on Ken. It's his decision to take and manufacture incorrect data by forcing an auto filter for names. (What the program does is not on us).
Well Ken is the database owner and the person who designed the auto filter. What is on us is to provide consistency to contributions based on what is in the online database and want will actually get contributed. So yes, as far as Ken and the online database is concerned the filter shows he considers John Smith Jr / John Smith, Jr. / John Smith Jr. / and John Smith, Jr have equivalent common names. So if Ken (the database owner) considers these names to have the common name it makes more sense to combine the counts. What I see as more confusing is if I have a common name thread that says the common name is John Smith Jr. and I contribute John Smith Jr.[John Smith] what will go in the online is John Smith, Jr.[John Smith], when it is approved that change will download my local ( John Smith, Jr.[John Smith] ), forcing my local to conform to the common name that he wants it to be (unless I lock my local). Everyone that downloads the profile will see John Smith, Jr.[John Smith] with a common name thread stating John Smith Jr. The simple fact is the actions of the auto filter shows that in certain conditions Ken (the program and database owner) considers some names as equivalent. And we should recognize that fact in how we determine the common name. I just tested John Smith Jnr. and the filter changed it to John Smith, Jr. [John Smith Jnr.] So yes Jnr is accounted for in the filter. However anything not in the auto filter we would not combine for counting purposes. Because it is the auto filter that shows the clear intent that the database owner (Ken) considers the names to be equivalent from a common name perspective. Numeric cases like John Smith III are not covered by the auto filter | | | | Last edited: by Scooter1836 |
|
| Registered: December 27, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Scooter1836: Quote:
So yes, as far as Ken and the online database is concerned the filter shows he considers John Smith Jr / John Smith, Jr. / John Smith Jr. / and John Smith, Jr have equivalent common names. So if Ken (the database owner) considers these names to have the common name it makes more sense to combine the counts.
No where in the rules or any posts that I have found has Ken stated that Filter = Common. It is a filtered name. It is you and the other 32 that have decided that filter and common mean the same thing. If you can not understand the difference between the 2 meanings of those words, I can't help you. The Rule uses the word standardization, to me that isn't the same as common. |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Scooter1836: Quote:
Quoting Kathy:
Quote:
Document the fact that the issue has been debated and provide a link to the forum addressing that topic. This will alert the screeners to the fact that the community is divided on this topic.
Divided? Well the community is not in 100% agreement, but I see a clear consensus with the poll being 34-11 The problem is that most of the community does not weigh in on these issues. And, of the few that did, one third disagree with the majority opinion. I believe that the screeners should be aware that there is disagreement so that they can make an informed decision. |
|
| Registered: October 30, 2011 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,870 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
Quoting Scooter1836:
Quote:
Quoting Kathy:
Quote:
Document the fact that the issue has been debated and provide a link to the forum addressing that topic. This will alert the screeners to the fact that the community is divided on this topic.
Divided? Well the community is not in 100% agreement, but I see a clear consensus with the poll being 34-11
The problem is that most of the community does not weigh in on these issues. And, of the few that did, one third disagree with the majority opinion.
I believe that the screeners should be aware that there is disagreement so that they can make an informed decision. I agree the thread should be reference - But 34-11 is 76% in favor  |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Scooter1836: Quote:
I agree the thread should be reference - But 34-11 is 76% in favor A majority in forums means nothing. For example, in this poll made in the Contribution Rules Committee forum, 32 against 14 voted for a proper conversion method for converting 'All Caps' to 'Mixed Case'. (And 32/14 is more significant than your 8/3 in the Contribution Rules Committee forum). The OP proposed this: "Anywhere in these Rules where you are directed to "convert all uppercase or lower case font to mixed case", please apply the conversion in such a way as to preserve the proper spelling of the word/name in the native language of the text presented in that field or of that person..." Do you consider we must follow this majority ? So why follow "your" majority ? | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | It seems that (once more) you mix up two different things.
In the poll you linked to you requested a rule-change and while the majority of the participants supported this request, Invelos didn't implement this rule.
The thread we are currently in now tries to find out how to solve a problem that is entirely uncovered by the rules.
These two threads only have one thing in common:
Poll results are (while giving a good hint on how things should be handled) not binding. Neither for contributors nor for Invelos. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
The thread we are currently in now tries to find out how to solve a problem that is entirely uncovered by the rules. I'm sorry, but the problem we have here is covered by rules : - Take names exactly from credits. - Use CLT results to find common name. Some people are not satisfied by this and ask the possibility to alter CLT results in accordance with program filter actions. This is just a request to change existing rules, which is exactly what was done with the other thread. Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
It seems that (once more) you mix up two different things. It seems that (once more) you refuse to see other points of view than yours. And your "once more" is in direct line with your "blackmail" accusations. | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quote:
It seems that (once more) you refuse to see other points of view than yours. In fact (at least in this case) you couldn't err more. When this problem originally came up (shortly after the auto-filters got implemented) I was one of those propagating the position you chose to take today. While still not entirely convinced I went with the majority because more than someone always opposing this database needs consistency. And that's exactly where we two differ: While in discussion I'm making my point clear, if the majority decides to have it another way that's completely fine for me as long as this "decision" is handled consistently. So, in fact, I see other points and am able to accept majority's decisions (even though I do not necessarily always agree with them). You, even though claiming to "see others point of view", are obviously completely incapable of (or at least unwilling to) accepting those "decisions" that contradict your personal opinion. (No need to respond directly, for some reason you just made it back onto my block-list) | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
... for some reason you just made it back onto my block-list ??? What are you speaking of ? | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm with Lewis_Prothero. Trying to track common names that go against the auto-filter is meaningless if we can't actually put them in the DB that way. |
|