Quoting pdf256:

Quote:
Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am saying that with a simple association system, James, no interface would be required as such and it would be invisible to the users, it would affect searches and that is all.

I'm just trying to understand what you are describing, so...are you saying that the program would automatically know how to make the associations or would users still make the associations either in their local or in the online? How would the distinction be made between Lon Chaney, Sr. and Jr. for example, in cases where they were both credited as Lon Chaney?

James:

It is a simple association

Once I set up the association

Lon Chaney=Lon Chaney Jr=Lon Chaney Jr.=Lon Chaney, Jr.
with Documentation of course for Contribution purposes.

No further action is required on my part, John's or yours(once you download the updated data) there is no change in the appearance of the data, in ANY way. The association has been made ando now no matter how you seach on Mr. Chaney, you will get the same set of data. If we find a new credit for the actor, that new entry is documented and added to the association...simple.

Skip

Or more precisely,

Lon Chaney (birth year 1906)=Lon Chaney Jr=Lon Chaney Jr.=Lon Chaney, Jr.=Creighton Chaney

Sr. was never credited as such during his lifetime, but if he is so credited in a compilation of some kind (or in recreated title cards for a silent) then we would have:

Lon Chaney (birth year 1883)=Lon Chaney Sr=Lon Chaney Sr.=Lon Chaney, Sr.

Both birth dates on at least these two are well documented.

But, both Skip and John don't want to use a birth year, they want only to enter 'as credited' from the film credits. The current system can work for this case, this alias file system can't.

pdf

Paul, while you are correct, that is a far cry from why I think the simple association is a better method. I have spelled that reasoning out in detail.

@James
Documentation, what typoe and so on, I fear is going to be an ongoing struggle. I am not sure we can ever nail that down, beyond DOCUMENTATION. Its going to vary from Contribution to Contribution, which is just one of the reasons that I will always provide more than one source. I am less concerned about the type of Documentation, as long as there is SOMETHING besides the notorious ....

Skip

Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
But your association would also have:

Lon Chaney=Lon Chaney Sr=Lon Chaney, Sr.=...

Therefore Lon Chaney, Sr. = Lon Chaney, Jr.

Major problem there I think.

Yeah, you could end up with = Dick Cheney.

(and yes, I know it's spelled different. I'm just trying to lighten the mood.)

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Please explain how this will allow the two different Kevin Smith's to be associated only with their respective movies.  Neither has any alias.

OK, so out of 50,000 actor names and aliases, you get a handful that have the same identical name. Add a middle initial, or some other arbitrary value to make them different.  Call the young one Kevin "Silent Bob" Smith.  Whatever.

So you are suggesting that we "make up" a name for the second person?  And who will be the arbiter of the "fake" name?

You are complaining that Ken's solution is "not complete" but you casually dismiss the issue when a deficiency in your proposal is pointed out! 

Do you ever offer ANYTHING constructive, Hal?  Ever?  What do you think IMDB does in such cases?  They add a number after the guy's name.  Oh, gee, what a sec!  They can't do that!  It's an arbitrary name!  Welcome to the real world.

As Skip noted, however, you're talking about a different issue, and a very minor one at that.  Try getting with the program for once.

It's OK for you to criticize the way that Ken has implemented Common Name and BY features, but it's not OK for me to find fault with your proposal? 

I don't think anyone wants to add IMDb style numerics after names.  BUT, if we were to do so, how are they to be assigned.  This is a perfectly legitimate question to ask since it must be part of your solution in order to make it complete (something you accuse Ken's solution of not being).

This is NOT a completely different issue as it has everything to do with linking which is the whole purpose of "Common Name" and "BY".

The proposed solution only addresses part of the problem!

If you can't deal with criticism, you should not offer up recommended solutions! 

All of this is completely unnecessary if Invelos would simply accept IMDb as the source for Common Names and we kept BYs only as needed.  The existing system would work perfectly!

That would make sense, since we disagree 99% of the time.  But you need something to differentiate the people sharing a common name, and I'm not seeing a better solution.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
All of this is completely unnecessary if Invelos would simply accept IMDb as the source for Common Names and we kept BYs only as needed.  The existing system would work perfectly!

It was made clear, unless my memory is failing me, that Ken was not prepared to use IMDb as the source for common name.

He then suggested using the most common form of the persons name taken from the database, and we await details of those.

As far as I am concerned, the ball is in Ken's court to advise us how he wishes the standard common name to be derived. We should wait until we hear more.


For the BY, I still think it is a good idea for people with the same names as a seperator, how we can determine the BY's for lesser known cast/crew is unclear at the moment, but in context this is a very minor problem in a major programme improvement.
For Invelos, I would imagine the ability to cross-link cast and crew is a major commercial necessity to attract new custom, and cannot believe it will ever be removed.

A moritorium therefore I would oppose, for what my vote is worth

Quoting pdf256:

Quote:
Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am saying that with a simple association system, James, no interface would be required as such and it would be invisible to the users, it would affect searches and that is all.

I'm just trying to understand what you are describing, so...are you saying that the program would automatically know how to make the associations or would users still make the associations either in their local or in the online? How would the distinction be made between Lon Chaney, Sr. and Jr. for example, in cases where they were both credited as Lon Chaney?

James:

It is a simple association

Once I set up the association

Lon Chaney=Lon Chaney Jr=Lon Chaney Jr.=Lon Chaney, Jr.
with Documentation of course for Contribution purposes.

No further action is required on my part, John's or yours(once you download the updated data) there is no change in the appearance of the data, in ANY way. The association has been made ando now no matter how you seach on Mr. Chaney, you will get the same set of data. If we find a new credit for the actor, that new entry is documented and added to the association...simple.

Skip

Or more precisely,

Lon Chaney (birth year 1906)=Lon Chaney Jr=Lon Chaney Jr.=Lon Chaney, Jr.=Creighton Chaney

Sr. was never credited as such during his lifetime, but if he is so credited in a compilation of some kind (or in recreated title cards for a silent) then we would have:

Lon Chaney (birth year 1883)=Lon Chaney Sr=Lon Chaney Sr.=Lon Chaney, Sr.

Both birth dates on at least these two are well documented.

But, both Skip and John don't want to use a birth year, they want only to enter 'as credited' from the film credits. The current system can work for this case, this alias file system can't.

pdf

It can't?  Why can't it?  Is that just your opinion, or it is based on programming experience with databases?

The feature is corect as it is, at least for me. Some of the cast from my movie have a lots of alias (By exemple Ushi Digard have 59 of them and Rene Bond have 12 of them) and it's impossible to get all their movies with just one name. By the way even if I know who are on my DVD, other people look my collection before asking to borrow a title. If your not happy with this feature don't dowload any cast, nobody are oblige to do it.

for the use of the IMDB style, this is not permit by the rule and I think that it's a good thing since we have to use the DVD has the primary source

I don't want to sound rude or anything, if you think so it's because english isn't my common language.

Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
That would make sense, since we disagree 99% of the time.  But you need something to differentiate the people sharing a common name, and I'm not seeing a better solution.

It doesn't matter one fig what is used to differentiate the two.  ANY difference will suffice.  The method of getting there that I proposed (and which Skip also proposed) does so without user intervention for the most part.  It doesn't clutter up the database, and it doesn't interfere with the data in anybody's local database.  It isn't better than the way Ken has started out to do it, its just a different approach.

All of you people who think I am attacking Ken or suggesting that he is wrong and I am right can go to hell, because nothing could be farther from the truth.  Nobody thinks of every possible way to do something, and some ways are more efficient than others.  That's why programmers usually work in teams, because they cover each other's weak areas and reinforce each other's strong areas.  Maybe some of you ought to listen to the people who have some programming experience instead of the alternative.