 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4  Previous Next
|
|
Using the CLT (profile count vs. title count) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
The point I was trying to make is that it's a question of perspective.
From an individual's point of view it may seem that choosing one name will create more work - and it may for their database - but for the database overall it would actually create less work.
Choosing Bobby Jacoby may mean you have to edit 4 profiles instead of 17, but it also means that Invelos have to deal with 121 changes instead of 90. Multiply that over all the common name changes and that's gotta be a big number of profiles! I appreciate that, but you're missing the other part of the perspective. The online has potentially thousands of people contributing their labor whereas our personal ones have, well, presumably one person. The whole point of the online was to leverage that labor for the benefit of individuals. To put the online first at the expense of the individuals sort of deflates the purpose. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | That works midnit as long as everyone is playing from the same page, which is what the Rules are about. BUT we know that is not happening all the time, there are still people who do not understand or perhaps simply don't care what the online function is they want it to reflect their bias. In doing so they are corrupting the Online with garbage data, by not using the system butbut using THEIR own alias system or whatever data you wish to put in.
I think the best answer is the TITLES not the PROFILES, there is still going to be SOME errors but not as many....I hope.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Nothing will get done until Ken makes a difinitive statement regarding the proper use of the CLT to determine the most commonly credited name...Titles vs. Profiles. If not, each user will use whatever method pleases him/her and we will be chasing our tails ad infinitum. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
| | Registered: May 22, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 1,033 |
| | Posted: | | | | As far as saying using the name that has the most profiles would require less work this isn't necessarily true.
Before Pearl Harbor came out on dvd the results by title AND profile would support name A. after its initial release it may still have stayed name A depending on how many versions. but as we know there were either enough versions at initial release or from subsequant releases that tipped the scale to support name A when going by profile count. So now all the other titles need to be changed which is more work.
Sure the reverse could be true, but we know we already have that possible situation of needing to go back and changing profiles if a common name changes due to other reasons such as marriage or divorce.
-Agrare |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
... and have the R1 titles to go by to show as proof. Is this really a quote from Ken? I doubt that he asks for the R1 title. R1 is in no way different or special than any other region. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
... and have the R1 titles to go by to show as proof.
Is this really a quote from Ken? I doubt that he asks for the R1 title. R1 is in no way different or special than any other region. No that part was not a quote from Ken... that was me stating that he said he had the region 1 titles of (at least some of) the movies in question... so I was saying that right there proves that any in the credit look up tool for those titles that were wrong... he has proof they are wrong as all he had to do is give the info that is in the credits from his copy... at the most do a screen cap if it came down to it. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting pauls42:
Quote:
Trying to only use Titles is irrelevant - we are not trying to use a 'correct' name - purely the one which appears in the most profiles.
No, we're not. Per Ken's specific instructions, we're after the "most-credited form". I consider that to be slightly different then "the most profiles". Most-credited does not mean: use whatever he's credited as in the one, or the few biggest blockbuster(s) he's in. If there are two huge blockbusters with name variant A, and eight "smaller films" with name variant B, then name variant B is the "most-credited form" - no matter how many copies of those two blockbusters there are...
Case in point: again Robert Jayne vs. Bobby Jacoby. In the meantime, I've "dissected" the CLT results - look here. It looks like there are 17 Bobby Jacoby credits and 4 Robert Jayne credits in the database. Sure, based on 'Pearl Harbor' combined with a few IMDb-mined credits you can claim Robert Jayne is the common name, but with 4 against 17 credits that is rather ridiculous, wouldn't you agree? Especially because in the end, it's all about what you end up with in your local database. It's ridiculous to let blockbusters like 'Pearl Harbor' carry more weight than "smaller" titles, because that doesn't match any of our local databases. It may influence the CLT results, but nobody has 75 copies of 'Pearl Harbor' in his local database. With 17 Bobby Jacoby against 4 Robert Jayne titles, chances are that "Bobby Jacoby" is not only the most-credited form in reality, but it'll also be the most-credited form in the local databases of most users. Why then would we attach so much weight to those 75 copies of 'Pear Harbor'? you see this is a matter or interpretation - I think that we are after most credited - so that the least number of changes would be applied - which must refer to profiles. It makes no sense otherwise. And I think that is what Ken said - most credited. | | | | Paul |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Another thing I thought of overnight is looking at it purely from a practical point of view, it's a lot easier to count profiles than it is to count titles. With the titles you have to take into account differing production years and foreign language titles before you even start looking for inaccurate entries.
Whereas the profile count will always be accurate: all you have to do is check for wrong entries.
Using the current example, we know that Bobby Jacoby has been entered into 90 profiles, but the same result says 53 titles and looking at the list it's actually closer to only 16 titles! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,242 |
| | Posted: | | | | What a lot of people are ignoring is that if contributor 1 has entered the actors name incorrectly (via a typo), but has it accepted, then contributor 2 comes along with the same DVD but different UPC/EAN and just copies (without verifying) then all of a sudden you have two profiles with incorrect data which can then skew the CLT results.
Either way you use the CLT by Profiles or by Titles, it should only carry any weight if the data is 100% accurate in the first place, would anyone out there care to back their life against what is declared in the current CLT, since the CLT gets it's results from current Profiles?
Steve |
|   | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'll repeat myself one more time: "the most-credited form" (Ken's own words) can only apply to the number of different titles someone appears in - anything else just doesn't make sense. The CLT is a wonderful tool, but it offers no "one click solution" whatsoever. Taken on face value, the numbers (both profiles and titles) as reported by the CLT are essentially worthless - only on close examination of the results will you be able to extract something useful. I understand how everyone would wish for such a "one click solution", but seeing as there's such a huge chunk of incorrect data in our database, there just isn't one - there really is no way around that. It takes work to extract something useful from the CLT results - IMHO, we're just going to have to live with that for now. Faced with an 18 to 3 ratio of Bobby Jacoby versus Robert Jayne credits (yesterday I thought it was 17 vs. 4, but I missed one), I just cannot imagine why anyone would consider those three Robert Jayne credits to be "common" or "the most-credited form". Three out of twenty-one: that's just not what "most-credited" means. I'll venture a guess and say that none of the people who took part in this thread actually have more Robert Jayne credits in their database than Bobby Jacoby credits. Why then would some people insist that to be his "common name"? I just don't get it. To me, "the most-credited form" (Ken's own words) can only refer to different titles - that's the one method that makes sense. Since that is how I interpret Ken's instructions, and since my poll on the subject showed the support of a healthy 85% of the voters for using the actual number of titles as opposed to the total number of profiles, that's what I'll use. Oh, and for those that feel it's about minimizing the number of database changes needed: well, if that was the main goal, we'd better strike a deal with IMDb to use their names: their data still makes up the largest part of our database, so if we used those, that would require the absolute minimum of changes. How's that? Really: it's not about that. We have our own standards, and we should stick by them. Ken told us to use "the most-credited form": three out of twenty-one credits is not "most-credited" by any standard. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
"the most-credited form" (Ken's own words) can only apply to the number of different titles someone appears in - anything else just doesn't make sense. Sorry, but that's not true - it could equally refer to the number of credits in the database. That's where the confusion lies. And until Invelos speak up and say "titles" or "profiles" we'll never get it resolved. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
"the most-credited form" (Ken's own words) can only apply to the number of different titles someone appears in - anything else just doesn't make sense.
Sorry, but that's not true - it could equally refer to the number of credits in the database. That's where the confusion lies. And until Invelos speak up and say "titles" or "profiles" we'll never get it resolved. I was trying to mainly stay out of this part of the discussion. But I have to agree with northbloke on this point. You can not say "The most credited form" can only apply to the number of different titles. Ken very well could have meant the number of credits in the database. Ken never stated one way or the other from what I have seen... and until he does there is no way to really know. If you were to ask which way I believe he meant... I really don't know and I wouldn't attempt to guess. Which is why I haven't said one way or the other in this thread. | | | | Pete |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Since that is how I interpret Ken's instructions, and since my poll on the subject showed the support of a healthy 85% of the community for using the actual number of titles as opposed to the total number of profiles, that's what I'll use. A healthy 85% of the community? 37 people participated in that poll. The percent of the community that supported your position was probably less than 1%.  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
I'll repeat myself one more time: "the most-credited form" (Ken's own words) can only apply to the number of different titles someone appears in... Concur with North and Addicted: "most credited form" is not defined. Quote:
...and since my poll on the subject showed the support of a healthy 85% of the community for using the actual number of titles as opposed to the total number of profiles. Your poll was not the mandate you claim but simply people agreeing with you the Lon E. Bender should be the common name over Lon Bender. Your efforts got the result you wanted not because there were a lot of incorrect profiles (i was surprised at how good his credits were actually) but because a lot of people added new credits. Until we can get a reasonably accurate count of titles from the CLT, and right now we can't, they are no better than profiles for determining common names. Probably less. Some profiles are wrong but at least we know how many profiles there are! | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | Whether the credits in the database are correct is utterly irrelevant, given that Ken has said he wants us to use the CLT. If the credits are incorrect, fix them, and maybe the CLT will change, but until then, we have to use the data that's there. And "most-credited" could mean titles or it could mean profiles, and I wish Ken would weigh in with which one he means. And while he's at it, what to do about the television actor thing where they're credited many times for one series. Or one box set. Or one disc. Frankly I can see advantages to doing it either by title or by profile. By title is a more accurate reflection of the actor's career, but by profile indicates which one means less work on a database-wide basis to change (not to mention we have a count for profiles and we don't have one for titles). I don't much care which one Ken wants, just that he tell us which way he wants it!!!  Or maybe he did tell us what he has in mind obliquely, when he gave us the count for profiles and not for titles. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." | | | | Last edited: by gardibolt |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I understand everybody's position and they all have merit, though I think that at this time the best answer is titles not profiles because the tool is such a mess.
This does however, remind me of a discussion that i had with a user. I was left with the opinion that this particular user believed the CLT was the centerpiece of the program around which everything else revolved, without realizing that the centerpiece is the DATA AS CREDITED, the Credited as system is a FEATURE of the program and its results are totally dependent on what has been entered and whether it is correct per the credits and the rules or not. It is a useful feature and important but it is just a feature and does not drive the program forward. The film credits drive the program. How to go about correcting this, I have several ideas though the last time I tried I was villified for it, so....but then that's not new either.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |