Quoting T!M:

Quote:
the rules don't prohibit entering supervising producers at all, and we enter the "supervising" people in every other crew segment.

Sorry T!M, you're wrong here as already said above.
EDIT: It doesn't need to be prohibited, because it's not allowed!

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
There really is no reason to handle producers any differently. I'm afraid that what you *think* someone's pay grade is, doesn't really affect how we deal with them in DVD Profiler. Again: I've supplied sources to back up my claims - can you?

Wrong again, there is a reason, it is called Contribution Rules.
I'm not saying that the rules make sense at this point though.
The ranking of the unlisted crewmember is quite irrelevant.
Skip is possibly wrong with his "Supervising Producer" ranking, but this position is still not listed and the rules are very distinct here.
Your interpretation is neither covered by the wording of the rules, nor by it's intention.
Again, you can put into your credits any position you like (provided you find something that remotely covers the position), but then you'd have to keep your data local, because your local database isn't according to the rules anymore.

If you stop to think for a minute, you will hopefully realize that entering data under false heading does not gain any value to the database. It only renders the data useless since any way to distinguish between real and made-up credits are lost. If we don't know that all producers really are credited as producers and not something else, there is no point in having the entry anymore. Garbage in - garbage out.

I am NOT entering data under a false heading: the credits show me a producer, and I enter him as such. That he's "supervising" is all the more reason to list him - he supervises the others - but he's a producer nonetheless.

Again: we enter the "supervising" people for every other category. I've used "supervising re-recording mixer" as an example, and it's clear that the DVD Profiler community almost unanimously enters those: do me a favor and check in how many 'Anchorman'-profiles "supervising sound mixers" Scott Millan and Bob Beemer are listed, for instance? Are all these profiles wrong, because "supervising sound mixer" isn't listed as an "acceptable" credit? No! It goes without saying (literally: that's why you don't see them in the rules!) that when "sound mixer" is acceptable, that "supervising sound mixer" is, too. It's as simple as that. I really can't stress this key issue enough: almost all of us will enter such "supervising" credits without even giving it any thought. And this producer situation is THE EXACT SAME THING: in both cases the "supervising" is not addressed in the rules. That doesn't mean they're not valid, though: the rules seem designed to track the most "important" crew people. For instance: we track the "principal" editors, not any additional ones. So how could we not track the "supervising" producer, but only those working under him? It just doesn't make sense.

Luckily, most users seem to understand this: Scott Millan and Bob Beemer are listed in virtually EVERY 'Anchorman' profile, and similarly, Gregg Champion  (see the first post of this thread) is listed in the majority of the 'Short Circuit' profiles.

@ Skip: I asked you if you had anything to back up your claims. You answered with "Yes, I have researched by my freiends in the film business, Tim, who have told me precisley what a Supervising Producer IS and IS NOT." That's nice. I'll take the explanation of the Producers Guild of America over the one of your "freiends", though.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Yes, I have researched by my freiends in the film business, Tim, who have told me precisley what a Supervising Producer IS and IS NOT.

Skip

Well, why didn't you say so Skip.  I am certainly convinced now, since your "freiends" have given you the straight story.

Thanks for clearing that up for us! 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I am NOT entering data under a false heading: the credits show me a producer, and I enter him as such. That he's "supervising" is all the more reason to list him - he supervises the others - but he's a producer nonetheless.

Again: we enter the "supervising" people for every other category. I've used "supervising re-recording mixer" as an example, and it's clear that the DVD Profiler community almost unanimously enters those: do me a favor and check in how many 'Anchorman'-profiles "supervising sound mixers" Scott Millan and Bob Beemer are listed, for instance? Are all these profiles wrong, because "supervising sound mixer" isn't listed as an "acceptable" credit? No! It goes without saying (literally!) that when "sound mixer" is acceptable, that "supervising sound mixer" is, too. It's as simple as that. I really can't stress this key issue enough: almost all of us will enter such "supervising" credits without even giving it any thought. And this producer situation is THE EXACT SAME THING: in both cases the "supervising" is not addressed in the rules. That doesn't mean they're not valid, though: the rules seem designed to track the most "important" crew people. For instance: we track the "principal" editors, not any additional ones. So how could we not track the "supervising" producer, but only those working under him? It just doesn't make sense.

Luckily, most users seem to understand this: Scott Millan and Bob Beemer are listed in virtually EVERY 'Anchorman' profile, and similarly, Gregg Champion  (see the first post of this thread) is listed in the majority of the 'Short Circuit' profiles.

@ Skip: I asked you if you had anything to back up your claims. You answered with "Yes, I have researched by my freiends in the film business, Tim, who have told me precisley what a Supervising Producer IS and IS NOT." That's nice. I'll take the explanation of the Producers Guild of America over the one of your "freiends", though.

And if I find any SP data anywheree i will remove it, Tim. I am not surprised at your position no matter how illogical and how self-serving it is. After all,we al know that you beliueve that you know more than i do despite the SIMPLE fact that you had absolutely nothing to do with the Rules and simple research on SP thgreads in the past will tell you exactly what I have said since DAY ONE.

@ Hal can you talk to some of the biggest producers in Hollywood, I do and I can. Sorry if you don't like it but, for example I'll buy what Chris Columbus tells me, or George Lucas.

Skip

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I am NOT entering data under a false heading: the credits show me a producer, and I enter him as such. That he's "supervising" is all the more reason to list him - he supervises the others - but he's a producer nonetheless. Again: we enter the "supervising" people for every other category. I've used "supervising re-recording mixer" as an example, and it's clear that the DVD Profiler community almost unanimously enters those: do me a favor and check in how many 'Anchorman'-profiles "supervising sound mixers" Scott Millan and Bob Beemer are listed, for instance? Are all these profiles wrong, because "supervising sound mixer" isn't listed as an "acceptable" credit? No! It goes without saying (literally!) that when "sound mixer" is acceptable, that "supervising sound mixer" is, too. It's as simple as that. And that same logic applies to producers as well. Again: most users seem to understand this: Gregg Champion in 'Short Circuit' (see post #1) is listed in the majority of the 'Short Circuit' profiles.

T!M,
your argumentation is running in the lines of "Excrements taste fine, two-billion flies can't be wrong"!
Another example, to show you the flaw, are the profiles of "The Dark Crystal" where as was recently discovered the vast majority of the existing profiles was simply false. But even though the false profiles were the majority they were still false.
So please, read the rules and contribute according to them and don't insist on unsustainable positions.

Quoting goblinsdoitall:

Quote:
your argumentation is running in the lines of "Excrements taste fine, two-billion flies can't be wrong"!

No, it's not. My argumentation is that we generally enter "supervising" credits in every crew segment imaginable, whether the rules specifically mention it or not. That's my argumentation. To me, it goes without saying that a "supervising" whatever also qualifies for the whatever job. The rules specifically prohibit co-anythings etc., but not "supervising"-anythings, and quite rightly so, IMHO. Again, as Hal indicated: it's ridiculous to list someone as a producer for two seasons of a certain TV-show, and then drop the credit when he's promoted to "supervising producer" for the third season. It just doesn't make sense.

Quoting goblinsdoitall:

Quote:
So please, read the rules and contribute according to them

I am following the rules! Although I do include "art directors" - hope you don't mind about that.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I truly believe literally EVERYONE is entering "supervising sound re-recording mixers" without giving it a second thought. But for producers it's the EXACT same thing. That I don't get.

I for one, don't enter them. They are supervising the work, they are not doing the actual work

The same goes for a supervising producer. He only "supervises one or more producers in the performance" (Source Producers Guild of America). That means that he doesn't do the actual work.

With the definitions on the Producers Guild of America's website, a supervising producer is much closer to an executive producer than to a producer.